Debates of Jan. 28th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Canada Post

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's analogies aimed at making make him look hip and happening. However, I hate to break it to him, but if he wants to be up with the times, it is probably best to listen to what a lot of young Canadians and young families are saying. They are saying that we should support our postal service, support the people who work for our postal service, who are often young, including young women, instead of using farcical language in the House of Commons.

If we are going to talk about the facts I suggest that the member across take some time to read the CCPA report. I realize he might be allergic to opening a document written by the CCPA because it is based on facts, research and evidence. These are all elements that the government seems to have an allergic reaction to.

However, the truth is out there. Postal banking can be a viable alternative. If we bring people to the table to make decisions about the long-term viability of Canada Post, we could have a serious discussion on postal banking, a discussion that is perhaps not taking place because of the kinds of viewpoints around the table now that do not support postal banking.

I would ask the member across the way what he says to his constituents who want Canada Post to be supported. That is what it fundamentally comes down to. I do not know how anyone could stand here in good conscience and seek to destroy a service that matters to all of us and our communities.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this motion.

Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs said that the government had no intention of debating the issue of Canada Post.

This is something of great concern to Quebeckers and Canadians. Since it is easy to forget what is at the heart of the debate, I would like to read the motion that we are discussing today, which was moved by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

That, in the opinion of the House, door-to-door mail delivery is a valuable service provided by Canada Post, and that this House express its opposition to Canada becoming the only country in the G7 without such a service.

That is what we are debating today, regardless of how the government is trying to spin the decision made by Canada Post Corporation.

It is somewhat ironic, given that in June of 2001, the House sat for days on end debating a government bill forcing postal workers who had been locked out by Canada Post back to work.

It is ironic because the government argued, and did so for days, that home mail delivery was an essential service for the Canadian economy.

Today, two and a half years later, we find ourselves in a situation where the government is washing its hands of the whole thing and arguing that the modernization and future of Canada Post hinge on this necessary move.

Members have been arguing since this morning that the opposite is true. Moreover, they have made a case that Canada Post’s decision is not only irrational and irresponsible, but it also flies in the face of the sound business practices that Canada Post should display to Canadians.

Let me remind hon. members that this decision spells the gradual end of home mail delivery and signals an increase in postal rates. The cost of a stamp is slated to increase anywhere from 35% to 55%. The goal is also to eliminate between 6,000 and 8,000 jobs, supposedly through attrition.

However, when we look at the business decisions and the strategy advocated by Canada Post, clearly the cuts will not come through attrition, but rather through the elimination of positions that, as my colleague from Churchill pointed out, are well paid. These are good jobs that come with benefits, something the government seems to want to distance itself from, not only in the public sector but in the private sector as well. The government seems to be taking an approach that adversely affects the economic security of Canadians.

We have also seen the Conservatives borrow freely from the New Democrats’ consumer protection program. We saw this in the Speech from the Throne.

The Conservative government now has an opportunity to defend consumers directly. It talks about the taxpayers. These same taxpayers who are responsible for Canada Post, a crown corporation, are also users of postal services. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is washing its hands of this whole affair, when it has an opportunity to show its commitment to consumers.

What we have here is a government that is chicken. It has others do its dirty work. Canada Post and VIA Rail are just two examples of crown corporations that have taken drastic steps to slash services to which Canadians are entitled.

The government is washing its hands of this affair by maintaining that they are crown corporations and that it does not wish to interfere with their business decisions. I wish to remind the government that while they are crown corporations, the government is a 100% shareholder in these corporations. If a majority shareholder in the private sector were to show the same degree of nonchalance as the Conservative government is showing toward Canada Post, not only would it quickly find itself with a worthless portfolio, it would be singled out by the public and the business community as totally irresponsible.

We are not asking the federal government to manage all of Canada Post’s decisions, but to argue that the government bears no responsibility even though it is the majority shareholder—not just a majority shareholder but the sole shareholder—in Canada Post defies logic, in my opinion. What I find interesting is that Canada Post announced its plans the day after the House wrapped up its work in Ottawa.

We were not able to debate this in the House. This decision has been extremely unpopular, which is clear from public opinion and what people who are concerned about the end of home delivery are saying. The government says that this was Canada Post's decision and that it knew nothing about it. That is false; the government knew.

On this point, I can quote Jean Lapierre, who was a member in this House. Today he is a political columnist, but he was the minister of transport from 2004 to 2006, so he was the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. The day after the Conservative government's decision, he was asked about it. He thinks that decision was irresponsible, because it was made without any real consultation, and that it was a Conservative decision intended to kill Canada Post.

He was also asked if the government likely knew about the decision. He said yes, and for two reasons. The first reason is that the government pays for Canada Post during times of deficit, although there have not been too many of them. However, there is one right now, and the government has to make up the shortfall, given that Canada Post is a crown corporation. The second reason is that Canada Post would not make this kind of decision. I quote Mr. Lapierre:

Canada Post would definitely not make such a drastic decision without consulting the government, because the government will have the unenviable task of defending that decision.

Once again, Mr. Lapierre is a political columnist, but he was the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation from 2004 to 2006.

The government had to know about this decision. Now it is not surprising to learn why the government was in such a hurry to end the parliamentary session, since it knew that this decision was going to be announced and it wanted to hide over the holidays to avoid having to talk about the decision.

Furthermore, the next day, apart from a press release from the Minister of Transport, no one was available to comment publicly on this unpopular and irresponsible decision by Canada Post Corporation, no one from the government or any of the 22 or 23 presidents and vice-presidents of Canada Post Corporation.

The government says it supports Canada Post's decision based on a Conference Board of Canada study published in April 2011. This has been mentioned a few times here in the House, and it bears repeating. That study, which seemed to show that Canada Post Corporation was headed towards deficits as high as $1 billion in 2020, was based on hypotheses that proved to be erroneous or inaccurate.

According to one of them, Canada Post supposedly had a deficit of $250 million in 2012, whereas in reality, Canada Post made a profit of $97 million that year. The only two years in which Canada Post had a deficit were 2011, because of the labour dispute imposed by Canada Post, namely the lockout, and 2013.

We have to modernize Canada Post, because we are living in different times. We do not deny the fact that the volume of mail has decreased, and the trend is to email and other ways of distributing mail. We are aware of that on this side of the House. The fact is that a good company that wants to take up the challenges of the future has to be able to take steps to modernize.

However, between the status quo and the hammer blow of eliminating home delivery as suggested by Canada Post, there are numerous possibilities. They include studying the possibility of providing banking services, without necessarily establishing big banks that would compete with the big six. We could also reduce the frequency of home delivery, a much less drastic measure. Instead of delivering five days a week, Canada Post could deliver every two or three days. However, these possibilities have not been explored by Canada Post.

I maintain that this decision is completely irresponsible. The government is trying to hide behind the facile excuse that it is a crown corporation, whereas the government is completely and absolutely responsible for ensuring that Canada Post Corporation complies with the mandate given to it by Canadians and continues to provide proper service.

Ultimately, it is Canadians as the consumers of services who will have to bear these radical increases in rates, which have not been explained to them, together with solutions such as the termination of home delivery, about which there was no comprehensive consultation.

I therefore implore the government to look closely at the wording of the motion, support home delivery of mail and make sure Canada can have a postal service worthy of an industrialized country that is a member of the G7, but do so in a responsible way to ensure that Canada Post Corporation can survive into the future.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly know that Canada Post is an important institution in this country, and it is good to have the debate.

Canada Post lost $129 million before tax in the third quarter alone, and that is despite growth in parcels. If home delivery is as expensive as is said, then to continue with that service is going to cost Canada Post a lot more money. If it does not address these deficits, that is going to do more than just undermine its ability to run its operations: as we all know, Canada Post is currently facing a $6.5 billion deficit in its pensions.

By continuing to support expensive services like home delivery, does the member not see that he and his party are actually undermining the ability of Canada Post to meet its pension obligations and putting at risk the pensioners who rely on that system, as well as future pensioners who are currently working towards it?

I would like the member to explain his position on that point.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is disregarding the irresponsibility of Canada Post’s decision. No one is denying that Canada Post will be facing a major challenge in the future, with regard both to pensions and to the reduction of service volume and the volume of home delivery. Everyone here is aware of this. The question is whether Canada Post Corporation made a responsible decision and considered alternatives that were available. The corporation had a deficit last year. Over the previous 16 years, Canada Post was profitable. Can Canada Post look at different options and consult the public with respect to these changes? It has refused to do so or to consider other possibilities for perhaps facing up to its obligations in the future and the challenges that will arise. It is resorting to the most drastic solution, whereas the alarm bells were already ringing. With the growing popularity of email, it was already known that this would have a negative impact on home delivery of mail. Why did Canada Post and the Conservative government refuse to see that and to make plans to deal with the situation? Why are they refusing to look at other solutions that Canadians would be prepared to consider, but that would not be as drastic as the solution now being announced?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very enlightening speech.

I would like to discuss with him one aspect that he did not really touch upon. We have heard about rate increases, but it is the economically regressive aspect of these increases that will hit the middle class, seniors, small businesses and charities the hardest. Perversely, this will hit even harder those people who are fully dependent on postal services, who currently do not have Internet access or who do not know how to use it. This could potentially force people to invest in this technology or to try learning how to use it. I assume that in his riding there must also be problems associated with the availability of Internet services.

Could the member speak to all these challenges that will end up cutting people off from contact with the outside world?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this will indeed cause some very serious challenges. We have heard a lot about seniors who have a hard time getting around and who will be asked to go two, three, four or five blocks to get their mail, often in difficult circumstances. They will probably not try to get it every day. They will space out their trips, but that it is a difficult situation. Seniors' groups were among the first to speak out against and express their concerns about this situation. Small- and medium-sized businesses will see a massive cost increase of 35% to 55% with decreased postal services. Does that business model make sense? Not at all.

Is the Conservative government asking Canada Post any questions? As far as we can tell, it is not asking any. We are a 100% majority shareholder. I have to wonder why the Conservative government is hiding its head in the sand and ignoring all the possible options that might arise if it required Canada Post to be accountable to the government and taxpayers, as well as to the Canadian public that needs its services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion calling on the House to oppose Canada Post's plan to realign mail delivery and the pricing of its postal services.

The fundamental issue in this debate is the threat to Canada Post's long-term financial viability, the serious risks this situation poses for taxpayers moving forward, and the urgent need for immediate action.

Let us review the facts. Canada Post, as an arm's-length crown corporation, is responsible for its operations, including business and financial decisions. Since 1981 it has operated under a mandate to provide postal services on a self-sustaining financial basis, and until recently it had succeeded in coping with the impact of falling mail volumes through incremental efficiencies and price increases. Then in 2011, for the first time in 16 years, it lost money and fell into a deficit. These losses were primarily due to rapidly declining letter mail volumes.

Letter mail is the fundamental problem at play here, and this downward trend is irreversible. Fewer Canadians are using the mail system, visiting post offices, or buying stamps. According to Canada Post, a typical Canadian household buys only one to two dozen stamps per year. Mail volumes have dropped almost 25% per address since 2008, and they continue to fall with no end in sight. This has sharply cut Canada Post revenues, and it is neither a fad nor a short-term problem.

People are choosing instant communication through text and email over mailing paper, with even banking and bill payments moving to the Internet. Major mailers in Canada, including governments, are making concerted efforts to reduce their use of postal services in order to cut costs to taxpayers and consumers. Ad mail faces intense pressure from online advertising as well as email and mobile options. As Canadians go online for their information, demand for print publications is also declining. Publishers are moving toward digital versions for tablets and phones.

The one area of growth is parcel delivery, where e-commerce is driving demand for delivery of packages from online retailers and distributors to homes and businesses. However, parcels make up a small percentage of total mail traffic.

Canada Post's 2012 annual report indicated that domestic mail volumes have dropped by 23.6% since 2008 and will continue to decline over the next five years. That means that the corporation's financial picture is not going to improve unless effective action is taken, and taken now. Its draft 2014-2018 corporate plan projects a loss of $437 million in 2014, growing to nearly $700 million by 2023. In short, the corporation's current business model no longer works. It cannot earn sufficient revenues to offset its costs. Without changes, the future viability of the postal service is, at best, uncertain. We should remember that Canada Post cannot long sustain losses like these without being forced to take even more drastic measures.

The move to electronic communication is a fact of 21st century life all around the world, not just in Canada. Those suggesting that Canada follow the direction taken by other countries may want to look more closely at their choices, which include the privatization of Royal Mail in the United Kingdom, the merger of the Danish and Swedish postal services, and massive postal workforce layoffs of up to 40% in countries around the world.

Canada Post has done what it could to generate savings through its 2008 postal transformation initiative. This includes installing state-of-the-art optical readers and sorting equipment and restructuring carrier routes. The result has been a projected savings of about $250 million through to 2017.

Yet despite these improvements, the savings to date are not enough to ensure Canada Post's long-term financial health. Clearly, the corporation cannot avoid taking action to cut costs and raise revenues, action that reflects Canadians' changing habits and preferences.

There will, undoubtedly, be a residual level of demand for mail services, but it is impossible to determine what that level will be. No single change would prevent significant and growing losses on postal operations, but coordinated steps that align service standards with Canadians' choices should enable Canada Post to return to financial stability.

This is the direction Canada Post announced it would take on December 11, 2013. Canada Post's five-point action plan proposes steps to meet Canadians' need for postal service while reducing costs substantially. Let us look at the proposal that gets the most attention: community mailboxes. The corporation proposes to move the one-third of Canadian households that still receive door-to-door delivery to these community mailboxes. Door-to-door delivery is easily the most expensive delivery method, with an annual cost more than twice as high as that for community mailboxes. The purpose of this change, according to Canada Post, is to save money by cutting a high-cost service that most Canadians already do not now receive.

Two-thirds of Canadians already receive their mail through community mailboxes, apartment lock boxes, at post offices in their communities or through end-of-laneway mailboxes. Community mailboxes provide secure mail storage and a convenient place to receive parcels and packets. The corporation has committed to working with people with mobility issues to meet their needs. Canada Post already works co-operatively with municipalities and provinces to find safe, non-obtrusive locations for community mailboxes.

The potential impact of this change on Canada Post's bottom line would be significant. It is expected to reduce the projected 2020 operating deficit by $576 million. That is more than half the projected deficit. Community mailboxes also offer some advantages to Canada Post and its customers. With all deliveries done by motorized carriers, Canada Post could offer marketers opportunities to deliver direct mail items and samples that are too large for a postal carrier to carry; and the installation of community boxes for all residential addresses would support universal access to secure parcel delivery boxes. Any loss of convenience in letter delivery would be offset by increased convenience in parcel delivery. This is, according to Canada Post, a significant benefit given the rise in online shopping and parcel delivery.

Another target of criticism in the plan is the increase in the price of postage. The truth is that Canadians thus far have not been paying the full cost of delivering a letter. The announced increase would bring stamp prices more in line with the full cost of actual delivery. Currently, the price of a Canadian stamp is among the lowest of all developed countries, so there is still good value in sending mail.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, two-thirds of Canadians send two or fewer pieces of regular mail per month, and three-quarters of those surveyed no longer pay their bills by mail. As for businesses, some will be more affected than others. Canada Post says it will introduce a new tiered pricing structure for letter mail that will provide stamp discounts to consumers and businesses. This plan is a practical response to a clear and pressing problem that threatens the financial viability of this important service. It would help to ensure that Canada Post is on a solid financial footing and better reflects Canadians' current choices.

With fewer people buying stamps and mailing letters, we cannot afford to maintain a nationwide industrial system created to handle the large mail volumes of the last century. Clearly, not all Canadians are ready to forgo paper mail, so the answer is not to get out of the letter mail business entirely. Nor is privatization a real option; the same pressures would affect the private mail service as affect Canada Post currently.

There is no guarantee that a privatized mail service would be able to guarantee door-to-door mail delivery at a cost Canadians would pay. For example, the U.K. government had to assume huge pension obligations and other long-term debt before it could begin privatizing the Royal Mail.

Some have suggested finding other sources of revenue to offset letter mail losses; these include parcel delivery services and banking.

Let us take parcels first. The suggestion is that parcel revenues, which are growing as a result of online shopping, could offset the decline in mail revenues. While the parcel market is growing, it is far from the point where it could compensate for the decline in letter mail. The Conference Board of Canada has projected a 26% increase in parcel volume by 2020. However, this would remain small as a share of total mail traffic. We should remember that Canada Post does not have a legislated monopoly on parcel mail, as well. This lucrative market is open to competition.

Then there is banking. It is true that postal services and banking were once combined in Canada. Canada had postal banking from 1868 until 1967, when it was closed down due to a general lack of usage. However, Canada is already well-served by a strong banking industry. If any industry is being transformed by the Internet faster than communications, though, it is banking. With banking services moving online and bank branches consolidating and offering fewer walk-in services, why would we want to offer banking services in post offices?

Therefore, we are back to better controlling costs in a way that better aligns the business model and delivery network around choices that Canadians are making today. As the mail stream continues to change to less mail and more parcels, Canada Post will need to continue transforming its operations.

It is important to acknowledge that reducing labour costs, including the sustainability of Canada Post's pension plan, is a necessary element of Canada Post's plan. Labour is a significant component of Canada Post's rising costs. It is about 70% of its costs. It is obvious that any plan to return the corporation to financial health would have to reduce labour costs.

Canada Post estimates that its plan would result in a reduction of between 6,000 and 8,000 positions by 2019, to be achieved largely through attrition, as Canada Post expects that nearly 15,000 employees will retire or leave the company over the next five years.

Finally, we need to assure rural Canadians that Canada Post's action plan would not affect mail delivery in rural Canada. Any changes under the plan would continue to honour the service levels set out in the Canadian Postal Service Charter and the moratorium on closure of rural post offices.

Canada Post's management has put forward a plan it believes would return the corporation to financial self-sustainability by 2019. What is needed now is not second-guessing but action. It is important that this plan be implemented as quickly as possible to achieve the necessary cost savings and avoid other more drastic measures that would require significant taxpayer assistance. That is why the government supports Canada Post in its efforts to fulfill its mandate of operating on a self-sustaining financial basis. We understand its purpose, which is to protect taxpayers while modernizing its business and aligning postal services with Canadians' choices.

We look forward to seeing the rollout of Canada Post's plan and the transition to a more efficient postal service equipped to meet Canadians' needs now and in the future.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with some interest. I understand he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and, therefore, has a government role to play in this debate. However, he is also a member of Parliament. Surely, like us, he has been inundated with phone calls, with letters, with petitions from his constituents who are profoundly concerned about these changes to our mail delivery system.

In particular, I would suggest that it is seniors in our communities who have been at the forefront of this fight, and I suspect that seniors in his riding, too, will have voiced the same concerns. Of course, those seniors are represented by organizations like the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

Is the member suggesting that all of these people are wrong in their profound concern about the end of home delivery services through Canada Post? Does he actually believe that the CEO of Canada Post is right when he says it is great exercise for seniors to have to go to community mailboxes?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of full disclosure, I have received three electronic petition responses and one email response. None of them, I note, was by individual stamped letter mail, by the way, which is the trend that is the problem at Canada Post.

I have spoken with many seniors, and they recognize that there is a deep fundamental structural problem at Canada Post and that business cannot continue as usual. They appreciate that. They also appreciate that these are complex decisions that have to be made, and some of them are tough decisions.

I do not know if the member opposite is suggesting that because seniors currently do not receive door-to-door delivery in two-thirds of Canada that door-to-door delivery should be expanded to the rest of Canada. Maybe she will want to clarify that in a moment. If she does, maybe she will explain how Canada Post, which is forecast to lose a billion dollars a year by 2020 if it does not act right now, would be able to pay for that expanding service.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has dismissed the notion that Canada Post would remain viable through diversification of services, as other countries have done. Yes, it is true in Canada's history that we used to have postal banking and it fell into disuse.

In the period of time since postal banking services ended in Canada because Canadians preferred their own branches, the branches have really receded in terms of accessibility, particularly in rural and remote communities. There was a drop between 1990 and 2002 of 26% in branches that have closed in smaller communities. Surely Canada Post has an opportunity here, by providing postal banking, to diversify, to remain competitive and to continue a level of service that Canadians expect.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during some of the years when there was postal banking in Canada, Canada Post was turning massive deficits. In the example of New Zealand, the Kiwibank has actually cannibalized postal service because of the enormous demands to capitalize the bank and it came out of the postal service. It is now slashing mail delivery and mail jobs and closing post offices by the dozens, in a small island nation like that.

Now the opposition members are asking us to figure out a way that Canada Post would capitalize a new bank, then operate a bank. It is about $1 million per branch to operate a bank in ongoing costs as well. That is just touching the surface. This is an expensive transition that the member proposes, and she probably does not know what the numbers are that it would actually cost to do that. This is for a model that The Globe and Mail, in an article last May, says is disappearing. This is what it said: “...the branch infrastructure will be rendered increasingly obsolete”.

That is where banking is going. Over 50% of banking consumers in just nine years are going to be Gen Y. They are going to be millennials. They are not going into branches of banks currently, so why would we ask Canada Post to adopt an obsolete system that already does not work? It does not work to cross-subsidize and save postal services in other parts of the world. It makes new revenue for governments, I guess, but it does not cross-subsidize postal service in any example in the world.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, at home in my living room, I have an antique. In 1797, when my ancestors came and pioneered York Region, my great-great-grandfather Jacob Hisey wrote a letter to his brother, John Hisey, who lived in Victoria Square some 10 miles away and it was their only form of communication. Life has changed significantly. One of the things our government has done has been to invest in Internet connectivity across this country. We have put it into many libraries in rural communities. These kinds of initiatives have incredibly changed the way we communicate today.

I have a daughter living in west Africa, and we communicate by Skype all the time. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport could comment about how these changing initiatives have changed the way people are communicating, not only in Canada, but globally. What revenue streams does the Post Office have when it is working for Canadians?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are speaking very loudly through their choices. If we look at banking, Canadians are increasingly moving away from old branch infrastructure. They are moving to online banking, whether on their desktop or by using new apps created for their smart phone in order to do that kind of banking. I do both. I do Internet banking myself. I will sit here and do banking on my BlackBerry as well. It is the way the world is moving. It is increasingly so. In just nine short years, over half of banking consumers will be from younger generations who are not using old infrastructure.

It is the same situation with respect to postal services. Canadians are speaking through their actions. They are sending far fewer individual letters. They are sending more parcels and doing more online shopping. Those trends are reflected. However, parcel delivery would not be enough to save traditional letter mail and the postal service, the way it is today. That is why Canada Post has a five-point action plan and that is why it believes it needs to take action now, and not delay any further so that the losses continue to pile up. These trends are irreversible. Canadians are speaking through their actions now with respect to postal services changing.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by stressing the importance of this motion and the essential service it addresses. Let us not lose sight of that because it is indeed an essential service for Canadians.

The Conservatives' drastic approach is going to significantly hinder the Canadian economy. It is hiking postal rates and cutting services to Canadians and Canadian businesses.

What made this government believe for one moment that it was a good idea for Canada Post to charge more money to the people who can least afford it?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first would point out that Canada Post is run by a CEO and a board of directors who make strategic decisions on a day-to-day basis as to how it will operate and what its business decisions are on a go-forward basis. That is why it has a five-point plan.

Members do not have to take my word for it. If they read the last Auditor General report on Canada Post, it is clear that the CEO and the board of directors make the strategic decisions for the company. At that time, they were commenting on the postal transformation initiative. Let us be clear. That is the way Canada Post was designed to run in the first place.

In 1981, it was a government department, running chronic deficits and costing taxpayers enormous amounts of money. It became a crown corporation in 1981 and was given a mandate to deliver the mail in a financially self-sustaining way. It has been trying to do that through efficiencies and improvements. It has invested in optical reading and other importing sorting equipment, which has generated some savings. However, the savings are not sufficient to offset the structural trends that are happening.

People are just not mailing as they used to. That is a significant collapse in revenues, and it is forecast to get worse. Therefore, Canada Post had to come up with a five-point plan, and we support its right to make that plan.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I rise today in support of the motion by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, door-to-door mail delivery is a valuable service provided by Canada Post, and that this House express its opposition to Canada becoming the only country in the G7 without such a service.

It should be the opinion of the House that door-to-door delivery of regular mail is a valuable service provided by Canada Post. It is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the constituents of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. How do I know that? I know that because I asked them. What a novel idea: to ask Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canadians, what they think. That is not what happened with these proposed changes to Canada Post.

The crown corporation carried out consultations by invitation only with comments submitted beforehand. In other words, it was not a public process. A public process involves the public, but the public, by and large, was forgotten and ignored. However, there was consultation with the Conservative government.

The proposed changes at Canada Post were announced on December 11, the day after the House of Commons closed the fall session. Is it a coincidence that Canada Post announced the elimination of home delivery, the termination of 6,000 to 8,000 jobs, raised the price of a stamp up to $1, and cut the hours of rural post offices the day after the House closed? There was no discussion, no debate, no questions, and no answers. Do I believe in coincidence? I do not with the Conservative government. Sidestepping democracy is the Conservative government's modus operandi. Not only was the public not widely consulted but the people's representatives here in the House were not consulted either.

Beyond that, the minister responsible for Canada Post released one written statement in support of the cuts and then refused to answer any questions, period. Could it be that the minister is taking the time to write us all a letter about the changes to Canada Post? It is not likely, given the price of a stamp.

After the proposed changes to Canada Post were handed down, the chief executive officer said seniors were happy enough to lose home delivery because it will give them an opportunity to exercise, an opportunity to get fit. The CEO has obviously never had to climb the summit of a snowbank in front of a super mailbox and use a blowtorch to unfreeze the keyhole to get the mail, which is how one senior put it to me.

Not one senior or disabled individual I consulted in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl mentioned exercise as a plus to the cancellation of home delivery. Not one. They brought up questions like how they will get their mail in the snow and the ice and the sleet and the slush and the horizontal rain when a gale is blowing.

A public meeting organized by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was held in mid-January in my riding. I am going to read some of the comments that I took down from that meeting. For example, “Home delivery is our right. Do not put me in danger by forcing me to a super mailbox. And as for seniors needing our exercise; yes we do, and we are going to get it in the next election”.

That means they are not going to be voting Conservative, in case it was not obvious.

Another quote was, “What should happen is they should scrap the Senate and save our post office.”

That is an interesting idea.

A further one was, “Unless I become superwoman and learn how to fly, I won't be receiving any mail between December and April”.

That quote is from a disabled woman in St. John's, a member of the Council of Canadians With Disabilities.

Here is a quote from Ralph Morris, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Sector Pensioners' Association: “For seniors, direct deposit of cheques should mean at the post office located at their front door”.

Then there was a quote from a young person: “My generation isn't expecting less. We're going to demand more”.

Those quotes are from the public meeting, and a lively public meeting it was.

Let me read an example of some of the mail that my office has received:

I live in St. John's in a 50-plus condominium. Like several people here, I have a mobility problem. This curtails my walking any distance. If it is very windy, or in the winter there is snow ice, I am unable to walk anywhere. I do not have a car, and there are several people in the condominium here who no longer drive. With the new plans for mail to be no longer delivered to one's home, I wonder how I will obtain my mail.

That is a good question.

Another comment I received was actually a question:

Would you please ask Canada Post if they are going to deliver my mail during the winter, as I am unable to go and get it. The CEO has no idea what I want or need unless he asks me, and that was not done.

I have gone out of my way to use as many quotes in this speech as possible. I have done that because there was such limited consultation, and the Conservatives need to be delivered a message.

This past Saturday, I organized a petition blitz in Mount Pearl. Dozens of volunteers spent two and a half hours knocking on doors, asking people to sign the petition. The petition calls on the Government of Canada to reverse the cuts to services recently announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to modernize operations. At the end of the two-and-a-half-hour blitz, we had gathered more than 1,400 signatures. The response was absolutely overwhelming. People do not want to lose their home delivery. Not a single one of the 1,400 people thanked Canada Post for the opportunity to get more exercise, not one.

The municipal councils of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Petty Harbour, all within my riding, also agreed to carry the petition in their municipal offices. This is a quote from the mayor of St. John's, Dennis O'Keefe, who is also vehemently against the cuts:

The elimination of home delivery and the exorbitant increase in postal rates will impact severely on all residents of St. John's and, in particular, on seniors and those with disabilities. Canada Post and the Conservative government need to recommit to their responsibility of government to provide a public service.

Those are key words, “public service”. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in general, those who live in urban areas, and Canadians across the country do not want to lose home delivery service, a treasured service that they have enjoyed for decades, while at the same time, paying more for postage.

The management plan of Canada Post seems to be to eliminate services, raising prices and cut jobs. That is no way to modernize operations of Canada Post. That is no way to manage Canada Post. There seems to be a problem at the very top. The Prime Minister appointed Deepak Chopra months before the lockout in 2011, with a salary of half a million dollars a year and a 33% bonus. Five months after the CEO was appointed, Canada Post cut drug coverage and other benefits to all employees, including those on sick leave and those on disability, and then it cut back on services to the public. Canada Post made a profit of $1.7 billion in 16 of the last 17 years. The one year it did not make a profit was the year that Canada Post locked out its employees.

There is a crisis within Canada Post. It is an invented crisis. It is a crisis of management. Is change inevitable? Yes, it is. The number of letters may be down; that is undeniable with social media and with the Internet, but the number of packages is up.

Are there other opportunities for Canada Post, postal banking, for example? Yes, there are. Were Canadians consulted? No, they were not.

New Democrats want to protect home delivery, improve services, attract new customers and raise revenues for Canada Post. That is what we want.

However, announcing changes with little or no input from Canadians, announcing changes the day after the House of Commons closes, telling seniors to swallow the changes and get more exercise is not the Canadian way.

No, it is not the Canadian way; that is the Conservative way, and it is on the way out.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a subdivision in Orangeville, Ontario. I have lived there for about 20 years. In that subdivision, we have always had a convenience box or a super-box, whatever terminology is used. I have never found that inconvenient. I have never complained. I have never heard of any complaints. Almost every new subdivision in the last 20 or 30 years in my community has had community boxes.

I have listened to the speeches given in this place by the members of the New Democratic Party. Are they advocating that home delivery be made to those areas that have convenience boxes and that those convenience boxes be eliminated? Is that their position?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament says that he has not heard any complaints. I would advise the member of Parliament to go out and knock on doors in his riding. Go out and do a blitz, like I did this past weekend. Again, there were 40-odd volunteers. We knocked on thousands of doors, and the overwhelming majority of the people we spoke to said that they do not want to live without home delivery. As for the people who have super mailboxes, I also have collected dozens of pictures on my BlackBerry, just from the past week or two alone. The pictures are of mountainous snowbanks in front of super mailboxes, which people cannot get to. In my speech, I mentioned that one constituent spoke about having to use a blowtorch to get the key into the keyhole in the super mailbox.

There are complaints. There are complaints about super mailboxes and about the loss of home delivery. If the member takes the time to ask and the time to listen, he will hear them.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate some of the things the member talked about.

I have a completely rural riding. It is true that regarding the super-boxes and convenience boxes people speak of, we receive a lot of complaints in the run of a year. A lot deal with obstructions, especially those from seniors, in particular seniors with disabilities. Sometimes they are placed in the wrong area, only slightly, but they are still inaccessible. That is the key: access for people to get to their boxes.

The other issue that has come up recently is Saturday service in many small communities. Just recently, the town of Harbour Breton lost its service. There is Bishop's Falls and other places. It is basically a slow erosion of the services provided to rural areas in addition to the mail delivery the member is talking about.

During the hearings, which I congratulate my colleague for having, what were some of the comments about the services, such as Saturday service, in the rural areas?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fabulous community within my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl known as Shea Heights. It overlooks the broader city of St. John's. There was a proposal just a little while ago to cut back Saturday mail service at the postal outlet in Shea Heights.

The truth of the matter is that people in rural parts of Canada, in rural parts of my riding, have seen such a steady erosion of the postal service over the past number of years that this is almost like water off a duck's back in terms of expectations. There have been such consistent cuts to rural postal service that people almost do not notice anymore. At the same time, the people who do speak out, the people with home delivery, those with problems with super mailboxes, and those who have a problem with cuts to the rural post office hours, are speaking up more and more. Again, if MPs get out and do consultations and actually ask at the door for input, these are the types of things they will hear.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this government make decisions that are completely out of touch with the everyday reality of Canadians. However, I must admit that it had been a while since I had seen a decision as ridiculous as Canada Post's, one that the government supports, to eliminate home delivery, reduce services and increase rates. As some of my colleagues said, cutting services, chasing away clients and jacking up prices is no way to save a company.

This decision will have an adverse effect on a number of people, primarily seniors. Much has been said about that. It is not for nothing that organizations such as FADOQ, in Quebec, have expressed their serious concerns on the subject. Over the holidays, I talked to a number of seniors who were also very worried about this situation.

This is also going to affect people with reduced mobility, and small- and medium-sized businesses that use postal services a lot and that, let us not forget, are often the drivers of our economy. This will affect the workers. Some 6,000 to 8,000 good jobs will be cut. In fact, this affects everyone.

As I said earlier, during the break I spent a lot of time travelling around my wonderful, vibrant riding, Laurier—Sainte-Marie. It was incredible. People would chase me down in the street to tell me that this was an absolutely crazy idea, that it made no sense. People were indignant; as Canadians, they were offended. Many people were outraged that their country would no longer be able to offer such a basic public service. They were right. Canada will become the only G7 country without door-to-door mail delivery.

People are right about something else too. The government keeps raising the spectre of the deficit and taxpayers being forced to pay for all that. The truth is that for 16 of the past 17 years, Canada Post has made a profit. It made money every year but one. In 2011, the corporation ran a deficit. That just happens to be the same year that, thanks to this government, there was a lock-out. Over the other 16 years, the corporation made $1.7 billion.

I understand and I agree that things will not necessarily always be that way. The market is changing. More and more people—but not all—use the Internet and other means of communication. We have to find smart ways to adapt to that change, not just shut everything down.

Canada Post has several options. The first, which a lot of people have mentioned, is to offer financial services. Many countries have done this successfully, and their postal services offer financial services. That option deserves a closer look. It would help Canada Post, and it would also help people, which is not something we hear about often.

In the southern part of my riding there is no bank, no credit union, no nearby financial service. People often have to turn to private services, and, of course, that costs them money. Usually it is the most vulnerable who have to rely on those services. Having access to financial services would help them. These are people who do not typically get direct deposit; they get their pension cheques and so on in the mail. They would like to keep their mail carrier.

I walked the streets in my riding and spoke to many people, and what I discovered is that they want no part of this so-called reform or five-point plan, and with good reason.

The members opposite maintain that Canadians were consulted. However, since people were invited and comments had to be submitted in advance, I do not see that as consultations. It is high time to hold genuine consultations.

The government maintains that Canadians were consulted and that this decision is in line with their wishes. However, if it really believed this, it would have made this announcement with great fanfare on a Monday morning. Instead, the decision was quietly announced the day after the House adjourned. The government thought that the decision would cause barely a ripple. That was not to be, because the public disagrees with the decision, and it will continue to voice its opposition loudly and clearly.

We have come to realize that this is an arrogant decision, one that is out of touch with reality and disregards the needs and wishes of the public. The CEO of Canada Post best illustrated this fact when he said that seniors would be happy to have the opportunity to get more exercise. Enough said.

My constituents are wondering where these community mailboxes will be located. That is why I say this decision is out of touch with reality. Laurier—Sainte-Marie is a large riding, but covers a rather small area of 3 km by 3 km. There are 72,000 addresses in the riding. It is densely populated and there is not a lot of room. Where will these mailboxes be placed? On the sidewalks? If so, then there will be no room for wheelchairs.

Furthermore, because Laurier—Sainte-Marie is densely populated, several community mailboxes will be needed on each street corner. Not only will persons confined to a wheelchair not be able to get to the mailbox, they will not even be able to get around. How interesting.

For example, the street next to mine has 111 addresses, not to mention two residential buildings. If one large community mailbox is needed for about 36 addresses, according to what I have heard, three mailboxes would need to be placed on this street corner. Furthermore, it would be the same scenario on the next street corner.

Then what are they going to do? Are they going to put them in the street? I did not think I would have to say it, but when I see how out of touch with reality this government and the CEO of Canada Post are, I feel obliged to point out that it snows in Montreal. Yes, it snows in winter. When it snows, they take cars off the streets in order to remove the snow. What are they going to do with these mailboxes? Are they movable boxes? Are they going to hang them in the air? I do not really know. This shows how out of touch with reality they are.

Are they going to put them in the green spaces? We know how respectful of the environment the members on the other side of the House are. I am sorry, but we will never let them touch our green spaces. They also tell us they might install them in businesses, but my grocery store, my butcher shop and my convenience store do not have space for that. They are small places. Then they tell us they could install them in pharmacies, but a quick calculation tells me it would take 7,000 of those individual mailboxes in my pharmacy to serve the area that pharmacy serves. I repeat that there are 72,000 addresses in Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which is a very small area.

In closing, I would like to invite Mr. Chopra and the Minister of Transport, publicly, here in the House, to come to Laurier—Sainte-Marie to meet our seniors and explain how this will be good for them, since it will help them get some exercise, particularly in winter, when it is -30°C. I invite them to come and meet with people who have reduced mobility, local merchants, everyone, and tell us where they are going to put their mailboxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had an important hearing before Christmas on this particular matter. Every single witness who was there agreed that Canada Post has a significant structural problem, that business as usual cannot continue at Canada Post, and that this is part of a global phenomenon. When I say “everyone”, I am referring to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which was there; and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which was paid by CUPW to come up with a report on postal banking. That was in turn carried out by the former director of parliamentary affairs for the opposition.

Every one of them, whether they were on the right side or the left side of the spectrum, knew that business as usual cannot continue at Canada Post and that action is needed now. Why is it that the member opposite supports more delay rather than getting on with some action now?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, no one is disputing that. It cannot be business as usual, as the member said, because the situation is still evolving. It is time to plan for the future.

As I said, this has to be done in a thoughtful, intelligent manner and by consulting Canadians.

The member opposite noted that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and other organizations including the Canadian Union of Postal Workers had said that alternatives had to be found. Yes, alternatives have to be found, but they should be positive alternatives that reinforce services to Canadians. This is no time to be washing one's hands of the whole matter and giving up.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

I would like to ask her a question about what this will cost municipalities. I want to read from a letter, written in English, that was sent to the Minister of Transport:

This letter is from Mayor Mike Bradley of the City of Sarnia.

If I can cite two local examples--Bluewater Power estimates there will be a $27,000 increase to mail out power and water bills every two months.... In the case of the City...the additional cost will be $7,800 in 2014 and a $3,500 increase in 2015 amounting to an overall increase of $10,000 to mail tax bills...an unbudgeted cost and an unfair cost.

Can the member help Canadians understand how a Conservative government that says it is concerned about fiscal responsibility would want to foist these costs onto thousands of municipalities around the country without any analysis, compensation or offsetting measures? How could it possibly do this and consider itself fiscally responsible?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member's question also highlights the fact that we still receive our municipal tax bills and other items in the mail, and that will be the case for some time.

This decision creates costs for cities as well as many charities and small and medium-sized businesses. There will be maintenance issues for cities. Who will be in charge of upkeep? Who will take care of snow removal? There are often problems with garbage around existing boxes. British Columbia's police services have said that there are often vandalism issues with the boxes. Who will pay for security, snow removal, cleanup and the direct postal costs that cities will have to take on?