Debates of Jan. 28th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Canada Post

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I rise today to speak to the motion calling on the House to oppose Canada Post's plans to realign its business model with the changing needs of Canadians. Canada Post is required by law to manage its business in a way that is financially self-sustaining. This mandate is at risk because the business model that Canada Post has relied upon to generate revenues and provide service to its customers is no longer viable.

Canadians are increasingly replacing traditional letter mail with electronic communications and commerce. For obvious reasons, we have to keep up with the times. This trend should not be viewed as a temporary or reversible problem for the corporation. We can fully expect Canadians to continue expanding their use of technology, consequently lowering their reliance on traditional letter mail services in the years ahead.

While changes must be made to the business model in order to contain costs and leverage new opportunities, Canada Post must also continue to provide quality postal services to all Canadians, rural and urban, individuals and businesses, as set out in the law and the Canadian Postal Service Charter.

This is not the first time the corporation has taken action to control costs and respond to the opportunities and challenges posed by new technology. For example, several years ago Canada Post launched a modernization initiative called “postal transformation”, which included streamlining mail processing and improving network delivery models. This initiative has been underway for a few years, and it is estimated by the corporation that these actions will help in reducing operational costs by more than $250 million each year by 2017. However, moving forward these measures will not be enough.

As the nature of the business continues to change at a rapid pace to less mail and more parcels, it is clear to everybody that Canada Post must now take additional action to modernize its business and align postal services with the choices that Canadians are making. Without action, the current business model would lead to a financial dead end, and taxpayers could be stuck with the bill.

Let us be clear. The current business model would not ensure Canada Post's long-term viability.

In December 2013, Canada Post announced a significant initiative that would form the basis of a new postal system positioned to better serve Canadians and meet their changing needs. A five-point action plan was guided by the following principles: that the status quo was not an option in the face of the steep decline in mail volumes; that the corporation would not rely on taxpayers to fund it; that financial success would be balanced with public policy obligations, for example, the importance in continuing to serve rural and northern communities; and, finally, that it would not be forgotten that small businesses still rely on mail as their primary mode of commerce.

The plan could be implemented without any changes to the Canadian Postal Service Charter. With these important considerations in mind, I would now like to highlight the five key elements of the plan. The first initiative of the five-point plan will see the conversion of door-to-door household mail delivery in urban centres to community mailboxes over the next five years. The first neighbourhoods to be converted will be announced by Canada Post as implementation plans are finalized. Door-to-door delivery is by far the most expensive delivery method, with an annual cost that is more than twice as high as for community mailboxes.

This change would provide the most significant savings to Canada Post. It would also eliminate the current two-tiered service level, as roughly two-thirds of Canadian households, 10 million people, already receive their mail and parcels through community mailboxes, grouped or lobby mailboxes or curbside rural mailboxes. I know that some customers are disappointed by the loss of door-to-door service, but community mailboxes also have significant advantages for Canada Post customers. Better convenience, privacy and security are clear benefits.

While the number of letters, bills and statements received in the mail is declining, digital communication has enabled Canadians to securely buy and request more sensitive and higher-value items online. These include government-issued cards, health products, as well as retail products. It is important that these items be delivered to a place that is locked, secure and convenient.

Busy Canadians are also shopping more frequently online, but they are often not home when parcels are delivered to the door. Often parcels destined for residential addresses will not get delivered because there is no one home during the day to accept the delivery. Notes are left, and after a few attempts residential customers often have to travel a distance away from their home to retrieve their parcels from a local post office.

Community mailboxes offer individually locked mail compartments. This will give residents peace of mind when they are away from home, as mail will no longer be accumulating at the front door or left in a mailbox unattended.

Canada Post is committed to working with municipalities to identify appropriate sites for the community mailboxes based on factors such as safety, accessibility and proximity to addresses they serve. In addition, Canada Post has experience working with Canadians for whom mail retrieval is difficult due to permanent mobility issues. They have committed to continue to make sure that every effort is made to address these kinds of accessibility requirements.

For the vast majority of Canadians who do not receive door-to-door service currently, this change is a logical extension of the kind of postal service they have been using for 20 to 30 years, particularly in light of the fact that the costs of door-to-door service are extremely high. Indeed, this change is similar to many other kinds of home delivery services that have changed over the years. The phasing out of home milk delivery many years ago is a comparable example that springs to mind.

The second initiative identified in Canada Post's action plan is an increase to stamp prices that will be launched in March 2014. With rapidly declining volumes of letter mail, Canada Post has decided to introduce a new pricing structure for letters mailed within Canada. The revised differential pricing structure and commercial incentive rates will better reflect the cost of serving various customer segments and benefit those who use the most. For example, new discounts will be launched for consumers and small business owners who buy stamps in booklets and coils. The price of a stamp in this case will be 85¢. Small and medium-sized businesses that use postage metres will pay a new discounted postal commercial rate of 75¢. The minority of consumers who purchase stamps one at a time will pay $1 per stamp.

For most customers, this tiered pricing approach will represent a discount of between 15% and 30% off the single stamp price. Prices for parcels and for addressed and unaddressed advertising mail are not affected by this increase. This tiered pricing model or “use more, pay less” approach recognizes the value of high-volume customers and the lower cost of serving them.

There is no doubt that this initiative will represent an additional cost to Canadians. Based on Canada Post's estimates, the average consumer purchases between 13 and 25 stamps per year. However, we should consider that with the irreversible shift to digital communication, mail volumes will continue to decline at a steep rate. At the same time, the number of addresses being served by Canada Post continues to climb each year, by approximately 845,000 since 2007.

Less mail delivered to more addresses with no complementary change in price or services is not a sustainable business model. Canada's size, geography and low population density contribute to what Canada Post says is one of the highest cost structure for postal services among industrialized countries across the globe. Bringing the price of stamps more in line with the actual cost of delivering mail across the country is a key component of the Canada Post strategy.

The third initiative focuses on Canada Post's expansive retail network. With close to 6,400 postal outlets, it is bigger than Tim Hortons and McDonalds combined.

As more and more Canadians are adopting online shopping, they are looking for improved e-parcel services, including more convenient locations and times for parcel pickup and returns, especially in rural and northern communities that remain highly dependent on this service.

Canada Post is putting in motion an initiative that will optimize its retail network, including leveraging greater use of franchise post offices. Franchise offices are stores within stores.

I am getting direction from the Speaker. With that, I will wrap up, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-constructed speech. I do appreciate the fact that he took some trouble to try to outline what he perceives as some of the benefits to community boxes that have to be taken seriously.

My concern is that Canada Post did not engage in any serious consultation, especially on alternatives, for knowing whether or not community boxes are even necessary in urban areas.

A colleague in the House across the way said that he received only three communications. I have received hundreds from my constituents. Eighty per cent of them said it is a good idea to at least explore the option of postal banking. In the Conference Board report that Canada Post relied upon, the corporation simply dismissed that option as unviable, with no reasons.

In the spirit of looking thoroughly at issues--and here I would be open to discussing community boxes in the way he suggested--I ask the hon. member if he does not think postal banking should have been seriously considered by Canada Post.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been made pretty clear by Canada Post that a lot of thought went into the changes it has proposed. I think, like any business and any government, we should always be looking at different ways to do business or deliver services. It would not surprise me if Canada Post still has an ongoing review of how it delivers its services . The gentleman across the way is suggesting that he maybe had one of them. I am certainly not privy to that. However, I am sure that Canada Post is listening to him and that it is going to looking at all different types of things.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague, who, as chair of the transport committee, will remember that we had an important hearing on this matter. Not only did Canada Post appear there in order to defend its five-point plan, but we also heard from witnesses, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which the opposition says commissioned a study on postal banking. Perhaps the member will remember that I asked if that study had been submitted to Canada Post for its consideration during the public comment period, but that CCPA said no, that in fact it had not even submitted it for consideration at all.

Second, in response to a simple question like, “Have you looked at the costs of postal banking?”, all their report contained was a suggestion that maybe we should get some kind of a committee together to look at this in some ongoing fashion. In other words, it was a recommendation for further delay. They had not really done their own due diligence.

Perhaps the member would like to remind the House that in fact the other side has not even fully explored that particular issue. It could not provide an idea of what it would cost to capitalize a bank much less to run it, and how that would not be a solution for Canada Post to pursue.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, for his ongoing work on this as well.

The member is correct in his assumption. It is quite common for many of the opposition members across the way. It is like letting the horse run out of the barn and then, all of sudden, trying to close the door. There should have been ongoing concern and suggestions. If this were such a big and important thing, they should have been bringing it up beforehand.

This government, through Canada Post, realizes that the system it is currently using is broken. It is doing its best to repair it.

It is human nature that as individuals, we do not like change. It is unfortunate that things have gone the way they have. I heard a member here talk earlier about the fact that we used to have a bread man when I was a kid, who would come to our door. That no longer happens. Things change. Unfortunately, the good old days are not always the good old days.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this motion with respect to Canada Post.

In December 2013, Canada Post announced its five-point action plan to return the corporation to financial self-sustainability by 2019.

The need to transform postal administrations is not unique to Canada. Mail volumes are declining globally, according to the Universal Postal Union, the United Nations body that sets the rules for international mail exchanges, and particularly so in developed economies. This is happening as a result of the growth of electronic communications, such as email and smart phones, including texting and the rise of e-communications.

The vast majority of bills were paid by mail 10 years ago. Now bill payment has moved online and some companies are even charging a supplementary fee to continue bill delivery by mail.

Personal letters are also on the way out, with letter writing become something of the past. Gone are the days when mail was delivered many times per day, as it was in the United Kingdom, for example. Cars have since replaced horses, computers have since replaced mechanical calculators, and email and texting are steadily replacing what many Canadians refer to as snail mail.

Greeting card companies are also experiencing a similar downturn in business as electronic birthday cards are becoming more popular. In the United States, where roughly 40% of the entire world's mail is delivered, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has estimated that total mail volume could fall by 60% by 2020 compared to peak 2006 levels. In a study undertaken by that organization in 2012, it also found that the United States Postal Service had excess processing capacity. This was despite the fact that the U.S. Postal Service has made significant cuts to its sorting plants and operations since 2006. The same study predicts that the U.S. Postal Service will reach $21 billion in net losses by 2016.

In the United Kingdom, until recently the Royal Mail operated at a loss. That was as a result of declining mail volumes and the deregulation of its postal market in 2006. This deregulation opened the door to foreign-based mail companies, which began to compete in the most lucrative, low-cost, urban business mail sector. These companies offered cheaper rates than the Royal Mail, thereby putting additional pressures on the Royal Mail's revenues.

In much of northern Europe, such as in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where Internet penetration has exceeded 90%, the percent of mail volume decline has hit double digits.

What is the rest of the world doing about declining postal business?

Each country has a unique postal environment, including geography, population density, and climate. Not surprisingly, given national and, to some extent, political differences, each country is pursuing its own approach to the downturn in mail volumes.

In the United States, a bill was introduced in Congress in July 2013. If passed, the postal reform act of 2013 would authorize the United States Postal Service to end door-to-door mail delivery and implement a five-day a week delivery schedule.

According to the U.S. Postal Service, about 30 million Americans, or less than 10% of the population, get their mail directly to their front door at a yearly cost to the postal service of about $353 per household. In comparison, delivery to cluster mailboxes, which are similar to Canada Post's community mailboxes, costs about $160 per address per year. Since few Americans spend more than a fraction of the delivery cost per year on stamps, the goal is to cut the cost of delivery as much as possible, particularly since the U.S. Postal Service has a mandate to break even, something it has not achieved in years.

If passed, the postal reform act of 2013 would also remove the current no lay-off clause from future postal worker collective agreements.

Given that the legislation has not yet passed, the U.S. Postal Service is taking steps within its power to reduce costs. The U.S. Postal Service has now converted more than 6,000 of its post offices to reduced hour operations, which it hopes will save $500 million a year.

In the United Kingdom, the government has decided to privatize the Royal Mail. In 2011, the U.K. government passed the Postal Services Act that set the stage for the privatization of the Royal Mail, albeit the latter will still be required to continue fulfilling the universal postal service. Recognizing that the privatization could not be successfully carried out as long as the company was running at a loss, the United Kingdom increased postage stamp rates in 2012. To increase revenues, rates were increased by 30% for first class mail and 36% for second class mail. This translates into a cost of over a dollar at current exchange rates for first class mail.

The U.K. government also assumed the assets of the Royal Mail's pension regime, representing 28 billion pounds Sterling, or approximately $45 billion Canadian dollars. It also assumed the pension regime liabilities amounting to 8.4 billion pounds, or around $14 billion more than the asset amount. This allowed the Royal Mail to make profits in 2011 and 2012. In 2012, the post offices were spun off into a separate limited company that received almost $2 billion in subsidies from the government.

Canada Post's five-point action plan avoids the heavy subsidies that governments of other countries such as the United Kingdom have provided their postal systems.

Deutsche Post was also privatized, but Germany took a very different approach than Great Britain. The German government gave Deutsche Post the freedom to expand its business while continuing to operate in a protected German postal market. This market protection occurred before Deutsche Post went public in 2000 and for some years thereafter. In 1998, Deutsche Post began acquiring DHL and has since consolidated its leadership in the logistics and freight business through subsequent acquisitions of other companies. The protection afforded to an expanding Deutsche Post led it to becoming the world's largest courier company.

In fact, mail delivery makes up less than 20% of Deutsche Post's DHL business. Recognizing the advent of electronic communications, Deutsche Post was one of the pioneers of hybrid mail. Mail can be sent electronically through email and then delivered in physical form. The reverse scenario is also possible, where physical mail is scanned, sent electronically and then printed off using a handy Deutsche Post printing device. Legal documents are often mailed using this approach.

Other postal services have also diversified their business lines to offset shrinking mail revenues. Australia Post, for example, has diversified its services by selling licenses to post offices, which also sell electronics, travel items, books, phones, et cetera. This diversification has occurred in response to the declining mail revenues. Last year, Australia Post lost a record $187 million Australian dollars on its traditional mail business. Australia Post just conducted a survey to determine whether customers would prefer to have their mail delivered three times a week or pay an annual $30 fee for daily delivery.

Canada is a vast country. In fact, it is the largest of the G7 countries. Although it may only be 100 square kilometres bigger than the United States, it is almost 40 times the size of the United Kingdom. From a population density perspective, the United States has over 10 times the population density of Canada and Japan has over 100 times the population density of Canada, yet Canada's postal service is able to move Canadian mail at competitive prices over vast distances in our country, which at times experiences difficult weather. Other countries do not face these same challenges.

Rather than having Canada Post expand its business activities into areas for which it is not well suited, a more important question that Canada Post has considered is what sort of postal services do Canadians need? Canada Post has responded to the challenge of declining mail volumes. The result is Canada Post's five-point action plan announced in December 2013.

This plan is within the parameters of the Canadian postal service charter announced by the government in 2009. While it is easy to criticize Canada Post for taking steps to ensure the survival of Canada's postal system while meeting the needs of Canada's postal consumers, the alternative is the threat of a failing postal service provider, or a postal service that is no longer economically viable and operates with huge debts that ultimately will have to be borne by Canadian taxpayers.

While it is true that mail volumes are in decline, it is also true that mail will be around for some time. Canada depends on Canada Post to deliver the mail and this government expects Canada Post to continue to provide this service for years to come while ensuring sound fiscal management.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to me that the model being fostered on that side of the House is one where the parts of the business that are highly profitable, as in the case of VIA Rail's Montreal to Windsor corridor, will be privatized. That is the clear goal. As a result, the rest of Canada will be left without service. What will happen is that the profitable mail delivery in our urban areas will at some point become more and more privatized, but the people in remote, rural and small communities like northwestern Ontario will suffer.

Why is the member across the way adopting an attitude that will not treat all Canadians the same in the long run in terms of postal service?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North brings forward the case of privatization, which was actually rejected by Canada Post when it went through its five-point plan, so his conjecture there is completely wrong. It did this through consultation with Canadians. I know for a fact that consultations occurred. In fact, in my riding, I sent out a mailer last summer to every person in my riding requesting that they get involved in the consultation process because I knew, obviously, it would have an effect on people in my riding. Many of them did respond to Canada Post and to me and gave feedback as to what they wanted to see Canada Post do, going forward.

There was great consultation that did occur on this, and I am happy to hear that Canada Post is continuing to talk to people about the various challenges and is working with them toward solutions.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen over the last two and a half years that, whenever the Conservatives bring in a bill, it usually turns out they have not consulted the stakeholders, the very people the particular legislation would affect. The member just pointed out there was some consultation with the communities. I have talked to a number of people over the last two or three weeks. I talked to the seniors, the students, postal workers and many people in my community. They have not been consulted in regard to what changes are being proposed by Canada Post.

The member pointed out there were some consultations with Canada Post. Would he table what the results were of those consultations and who was consulted? I ask this because, clearly, Canadians have not been consulted on this.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have a piece here in my hand from Canada Post, which is its consultation with Canadians, which it had published. It shows the consultation process it went through.

We knew last summer that Canada Post was going through this process, and as members of Parliament every one of us had the ability to reach out to our constituents. I did reach out to my constituents and asked them to become part of the process. Everyone in the House had that opportunity and should have taken advantage of it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, every day across the country owners of going concerns, people who are responsible for delivering services, ask one question. They ask if the services or products they deliver are helping to ensure the long-term sustainability of their business, ensuring that they have the ability to have workers work in this for the long term and ensure that they have pensions. Every day across Canada, owners of businesses ask this question.

Canada Post lost $129 million in the third quarter. Does my colleague think it is taboo for us as legislators to ask whether we should not be doing the same thing and asking whether or not a going concern should deliver services more effectively and efficiently for the long-term sustainability of its service delivery?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a business owner for over 25 years, I did that on an ongoing basis. We are always looking at our business model to see whether areas of it are running in a profitable way and whether we are delivering the services our clients need to the best of our ability. That is an ongoing thing. As a government, it is something we absolutely should be doing and must continue to do in all aspects.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time today with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I am delighted to rise in the House today to speak about our NDP opposition day motion condemning Canada Post for its plans to privatize more post offices, hike postage rates to unaffordable levels and make our country the first in the world to eliminate door-to-door delivery. Unfortunately, I only have 10 minutes to participate in this debate, so I know I am going to run out of time before I will be able to make every point that needs to be made here today.

However, let me be crystal clear right from the start. I firmly believe that door-to-door mail delivery is a valuable service provided by Canada Post, and I am fundamentally opposed to Canada becoming the only country in the G7 without such a service.

It is ironic that the last time we debated matters related to Canada Post in the House was in June 2011, when the Conservatives had locked out members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and then brought in legislation to order them back to work. At that time the government argued that the services provided by the men and women of CUPW were absolutely essential to the Canadian economy, and it used that argument as its main justification for the urgent need to pass back-to-work legislation.

Now, just a mere two years later, those very same postal workers are now expendable. Laying off 6,000 to 8,000 postal workers suddenly does not matter. That is nonsense. It is as important to support Canada's mail delivery system now as it was then. For me, the memories of that last debate are bittersweet. It was the last time that our former leader, the hon. Jack Layton, made a speech in the House. As all of us who were in the House that day will remember, Jack was not well that day, but this issue was so important to him.

I remember him speaking of Gary, the postal worker who delivered the mail to his home in Toronto. He spoke of the very special relationship that Gary had developed with Jack's mother-in-law and the mother of the MP for Trinity—Spadina, who at the time was 85-years old. Like so many seniors, she depended on Gary to keep her connected to the rest of the world, and it was a relationship she valued and cherished. Jack then went on to speak about one of the fundamental values of all New Democrats, the right to free collective bargaining. Here is what he said:

It is important for us to understand that the benefits provided by collective agreements go beyond a mere contract. The added benefits negotiated by workers over the years have helped to raise the standards for all Canadians. Unionized workers fought for rights that we now take for granted: a decent wage to raise a family—the salaries of unionized workers have a positive upward effect on the salaries of non-unionized workers—plus occupational safety and health standards, the 40-hour work week, weekends, protection against harassment, vacations, workplace pension plans, and the list goes on.

Hand in hand with progressive parties like the New Democratic Party, collective bargaining has been one of those engines for progress for working people. I see this as a legacy to build upon, not something to be torn down.

Then Jack ended his speech with the words, “That is all I can say at the moment”. As we all know now, it was literally all he was able to say. His body was failing his indomitable spirit.

However, the rest of us picked up where our leader left off. It was an incredible few days. For the newly elected members of our caucus, it was their first time to give a speech in the House. It was the first time they had sat around the clock, and yet there were no complaints. Even when they were not able to attend events to celebrate the national holiday of Quebec, they stood up in the House for what they believed in. They joined in the struggle for decent jobs for the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and for future generations of workers.

In many ways, that fight forged our solidarity as Canada's strong, progressive opposition. It is that opposition that is bringing the fight to protect Canada's postal service to the floor of the House again today. We have been brought to this point by an unbelievably cynical move by Canada Post in December of last year. It was the day after the House rose that Canada Post announced its major cuts to our postal service in the hopes that MPs would not be around to mount a campaign. To boot, the minister responsible for Canada Post, after offering a written statement in support of the cuts, then refused to answer any questions. However we did take notice, and we know what has been happening. In fact, the changes started some time ago.

Since January 2012, dozens of Canada Post offices have been closed or given closure notices. Rural services have been particularly hard hit by the changes so far. Now Canada Post has announced it will be eliminating home delivery services in urban areas, pursuing privatization of postal outlets, drastically increasing postage rates up to $1 a stamp and laying off 6,000 to 8,000 workers. This is a movie we have seen before from the Conservatives.

Under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the Conservatives closed more than 1,500 post offices across the country. However two wrongs do not make a right. Let us be clear: these cuts are detrimental not just for Canadians who will no longer be getting home delivery services, but the announced price hikes will hurt businesses and charities that rely on mail service for their daily operations. Perhaps that is why Canada Post did its level best not to let Canadians know what it was planning.

It is inconceivable to me that such major cuts are being pursued without proper public consultation. The public owns Canada Post. It has a right to input.

Let us look at the so-called business case that we are expected to buy into.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada Post workers were locked out in 2011, shutting down operations of Canada Post and resulting in its first deficit in over 15 years. However, Canada Post made more than $1.7 billion profit over 16 of the last 17 years. The one year of deficits is now being used by the Conservatives as a justification for these draconian cuts.

What the Conservatives are not talking about is that the Prime Minister appointed a new CEO just months before the 2011 lockout of Canada Post employees, with a salary of $0.5 million and a 33% bonus. That CEO has 22 vice-presidents. That same president then cut the drug coverage and other benefits of all employees, including those on sick leave and disability. It is a disgrace.

Let us look at what should have happened.

Any changes should be premised on the underlying principle that having a reliable and accessible mail delivery service is vital to Canadians. Canada Post has provided critical and essential services for over a century and Canadians depend on their local postal services. So for me, it is essential that we protect home delivery and improve services to attract new customers and raise new revenues for Canada Post.

Canada Post can modernize its services without going down the road to privatization, but that requires consulting and engaging with Canadians in a meaningful way to find ways to expand postal services instead of gutting them.

Canada Post should be exploring new ways to find revenue to maintain existing services, like through expanded e-commerce or financial services, which have proven to be successful around the world.

A responsible government would consider a range of solutions to renew our postal services and to attract new customers. That expansive approach would be welcomed by Canadians from all walks of life who are expressing their outrage through rallies, petitions, motions passed by municipal councils and letters to the editor about the proposed cuts at Canada Post and the Conservatives' endorsement of those cuts.

I know my time is running short, but let me just conclude by giving voice to the concerns of Canadians here on the floor of the House. That is what we are sent here to do. We are sent here to represent Canadians, not to represent Canada Post.

Seniors and persons with disabilities were the first to express outrage because they know these changes threaten accessibility to their mail, especially in the winter and in the rain.

Low-income Canadians, charities and small and independent businesses were next, frightened by the disproportionate impact that the price hike on stamps will have on them.

For law enforcement officials, security at community mailboxes was a concern because they are keenly aware of reported incidents of mail and identity theft at those community mailboxes.

Municipal councillors are upset because no consideration has been given to the urban planning impact of these changes.

Of course, postal workers are concerned about jobs and working conditions.

All of these concerns are real. All of these concerns are legitimate, and they should have been considered before Canada Post moved forward with these drastic cuts.

As I said earlier, the public owns Canada Post and it has a right to be heard.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question that I would like to ask the member.

If maintaining existing door-to-door delivery is an essential service, which is currently only delivered to one-third of Canadian addresses, is the member saying that it should be expanded to the other two-thirds of Canadian addresses, which do not receive door-to-door delivery? If so, how does she propose Canada Post, which is losing money, pay for that?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to get this question, because one of the points the Conservatives have been making in the debate all morning long is that only a third of Canadians actually receive mail delivery at their homes. That, frankly, is not true. While 33% of Canadian households receive door-to-door delivery, another 25% get mail delivered to the entrances of their apartment buildings, which are their homes. Another 5% get delivery to their homes by way of rural mailboxes. Only 25% of households receive delivery at a community mailbox, group mailbox, or kiosk. If the Conservatives wanted to have a factual debate, it would be important to actually reflect the reality of postal delivery services in our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member suggested that it is about cost savings. When we think of Canada Post, we should know something. There is a president. That is the individual who said that it is good exercise for our seniors, and that is one of the motivating reasons for this cutback. There are two group presidents. There are seven senior vice-presidents, and there are 12 vice-presidents.

When I asked the minister responsible about the costs, she had no idea what the costs were. She suggested that we would have to check with Canada Post. Imagine being a letter carrier or someone sorting mail in the mailroom, and the minister has no concept of what those cost savings might be. It has to be frustrating.

Could my colleague in the New Democratic ranks affirm that one of the fears many of the letter carriers and others I have had the opportunity to talk to have is that they just cannot trust the Conservative government with Canada Post? There is a genuine fear of privatization. Maybe she could comment on that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Canadians from coast to coast to coast are aware of the irony of a structure that has 22 vice-presidents, along with its president, that cuts the sick benefits of its employees. There is something fundamentally wrong in a corporation that is run that way.

Let me also say, to the hon. member's point, that the Conservatives, in talking about the financial need to engage in these changes, keep relying on a report by the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board based its 2020 estimate on the assumption that Canada Post would lose $250 million in 2012, but the corporation did not. Canada Post actually made $94 million in net profit in 2012. This is hardly a study we should be relying on to decide the future of Canada's postal services.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The debate will resume after question period.

Francine Lalonde

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on January 16, 2014, our colleague and friend Francine Lalonde passed away. As a member in this House for 18 years, Ms. Lalonde dutifully represented the ridings of Mercier and La Pointe-de-l'Île. She passionately defended complex, sensitive issues such as the case of Nathalie Morin, who is still being held in Saudi Arabia with her children, and end of life care.

Francine was a caring woman and a fighter who battled bone cancer for over seven years. A committed sovereignist, she was well liked and respected both at home and abroad. She was a true inspiration for me, a model of courage and determination.

Farewell, my friend. I miss you already.

Coldest Night of the Year Walk

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every night an estimated 30,000 Canadians are without a place to sleep, facing not only hunger, loneliness, and the cold but also a loss of hope, the oxygen of the human spirit. It is for this reason that on February 22, Darlene and I will be participating in a 10 kilometre Coldest Night of the Year walk.

Walks in 64 cities across Canada give us the opportunity to experience a hint of the challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness. Since 2011, $2.4 million has been raised to help some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens. In Kitchener-Waterloo, donations go to Ray of Hope, an organization that works with at-risk youth, equipping them to make responsible decisions and enabling them to make a positive contribution to their communities.

Providing hope to vulnerable Canadians does make a difference. I invite and encourage every Canadian to be part of this event. Visit www.coldestnightoftheyear.org to join or support a local walk.

Pyrrhotite

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance announced when the budget will be tabled. One of the first things I will be looking for in the budget is a support fund for pyrrhotite victims.

Hundreds of families in the Mauricie region have been living a nightmare since they learned that their home's foundation contains pyrrhotite. The average cost for the repair work is over $200,000. A total of $1 billion will be needed to clean up the mess created by pyrrhotite in the region.

The federal government clearly has a role to play. It cannot abandon these families and should immediately change the quality standard for aggregates used in concrete.

I invite the minister responsible to come to Mauricie to see the extent of the damage. I hope that the government will take action on February 11 and offer assistance to pyrrhotite victims.

Emergency Response in Wapske

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on January 7, just after 6 p.m. eastern time, a CN Rail train derailed in Wapske, New Brunswick, a small community just outside Plaster Rock. Thankfully there were no injuries to rail employees or any residents as a result of the accident. A large part of that was due to the great work of the many first responders, both career employees and volunteers, who quickly reacted to the incident to provide fire control, resident evacuation, and ongoing site management.

I want to thank all the people who so graciously provided for the evacuees while they were away from their homes, the mayor and village staff, and all of the region's volunteer firefighters. Most notably I would like to thank Chief Tim Corbin, of the Plaster Rock fire department, who played a key leadership role in ensuring a fast response to the accident. This shows the importance of volunteer fire brigades to our rural communities and their commitment to the training required to get the job done, no matter what the situation. I am sure we will see many of these folks in a few weeks, contributing their volunteer time again as the world comes to Plaster Rock for the World Pond Hockey Championship.

On behalf of all the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac, I thank them for all they do to contribute to and ensure the public safety of our communities.

Black History Month

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, a time for us to explore and celebrate the rich and proud traditions of African Canadians. In 1995, Prime Minister Chrétien made this designation with the intention of highlighting the countless contributions made by people of African descent to the Canadian mosaic, such as Donovan Bailey, Lincoln Alexander, Wayne Adams, Jean Augustine, and dozens of others who push outdated boundaries and show us what is truly possible.

In this spirit, I am proud to welcome a group of our leaders to the nation's capital. These young Canadians from the Breakfast Clubs of Toronto represent hope and change. I invite all members to meet with them following question period.

In the upcoming days, I would also encourage my colleagues and all Canadians to celebrate the many substantial offerings made in our community by our friends and neighbours of African descent. Certainly we are all better off for their work, their generosity, and their spirit of giving.

Women's Equality

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House today to share with members and all Canadians the courage in the actions of Professor Paul Grayson of York University.

In September of last year, Professor Grayson received an unusual request from one of his students. The student asked to be exempt from in-person group work on religious grounds, because it would involve having to be in the presence of women. Professor Grayson consulted with the dean of the faculty and with the campus' Centre for Human Rights. Both asked him to accommodate the student's request. Professor Grayson refused to follow their instructions. Courageously, he refused to accommodate sexism at York University.

Women's equality is not negotiable. It is important to clearly state that the equality of women is a fundamental Canadian value. Women have made tremendous strides in all areas of society. It is unacceptable to ignore, stifle, or reverse this progress. I would like to thank Professor Grayson for standing up to his superiors on this important issue and for standing up for women's rights and equality.

Data Privacy Day

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to talk about Data Privacy Day, a day that highlights the importance of reflecting on what we are doing to protect Canadians' data as we comply with and implement the requirements set out in our laws.

I would like to commend the excellent work by all of the organizations, experts and researchers who dedicate their lives to maintaining consumer confidence and people's civil liberties. Canada has a poor record in this regard. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act has not been updated since iPods were introduced. Now we hear about yet another data breach almost every month, so it is definitely time to act.

Tomorrow, the House will vote on my bill to modernize our legislation and ensure that Canadians have the up-to-date, appropriate protection they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this proposal. Everything is ready. All we need is for the government to get on board because we are all responsible for the security of our fellow citizens.