Debates of Jan. 28th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Canada Post

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

She is absolutely right with her first point. People—seniors, but also ordinary people—are very worried about what will happen and about the loss of home delivery.

One woman has started a petition in Quebec. She has already collected over 130,000 signatures, which is a significant number. Every day people come up to us in the street. At our office, we have started petitions, and tens of thousands of people have signed them. Paper petitions are circulating. I had a foot and a half of them on my desk when I came in yesterday.

Canada Post certainly could look at diversifying in the future. We could create a chartered bank. We could work with an existing bank. We could develop partnerships or take care of things and manage them ourselves.

We have seen many different models, such as the models in Switzerland, Great Britain, New Zealand and Italy. They have slightly different models, but they all combine postal and banking services. Regardless of how it is done, it works, so why do we not apply that here?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the member for Trinity—Spadina.

I fully appreciate that the postal network is essential to the national economy, businesses and communities that rely on the mail, but it is equally important to the increasing number of retailers across Canada who need a reliable and affordable delivery network to ship their products to the growing ranks of online shoppers.

There is no question that as the postal system evolves, we do need to protect vulnerable individuals, small businesses and rural communities.

Canada Post Corporation operates at arm's length from the government. I remind the House that since 1981 Canada Post has had a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. It is responsible for meeting that mandate and managing its own operations, including day-to-day business and financial decisions.

These decisions are growing more difficult because we are shifting to a digital society that sees more of us communicating online. Not only do we send fewer, if any, cards and letters, but bills, statements and payments are also being sent and paid digitally more and more often. Most companies and governments, indeed, are actively encouraging Canadians to switch to electronic alternatives to save money and time, and to increase security.

Polling does confirm that Canadians' habits are changing. Almost half of households say they now send two pieces of mail or less per month, and that is reflected in far less business for Canada Post. In the first nine months of 2013, mail volumes declined by 184 million pieces. That is a 5% decline compared to the same period the previous year.

Not only has the volume of letters dropped, but also the volume of business mail by more than 17% per address in the last four years. Moreover, revenue from direct marketing mail dropped by 2.7% in 2012 because companies, too, are switching to Internet alternatives.

The bottom line is that Canada Post delivered one billion fewer letters in 2012 than it did in 2006. Domestic mail volumes have dropped by almost 25% since 2008, and will continue to decline in the future. The direction of change is clear and irreversible.

However, there is a silver lining. There is an upside to trends for Canada Post. Canadians are shopping online, and that has helped parcel volumes grow by about two million pieces in the first nine months of 2013 compared to a year earlier. As a result, Canada Post's parcel revenue was up $32 million or 11.2% from the third quarter of 2012.

E-commerce is driving demand for delivery of packages from online retailers and distributors to homes and businesses. Many of us can actually attest to that, because I am sure that many members have actually started ordering Christmas and birthday gifts online instead of going into shops.

Delivery of these purchases is one area that Canada Post is keen to capitalize on, and it has a good product to offer. It is a leader in the business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in Canada.

However, these efforts do not make Canada Post self-sufficient. The growth in parcel business is simply not enough. It does not make up for the larger declines in the personal mail and the direct marketing mail volumes.

The corporation is addressing the negative impacts of this information revolution on their business. It has undertaken a major revitalization effort. It is updating its technology, its equipment and networks. This includes installing state-of-the-art optical readers, sorting equipment and restructuring carrier routes.

It has also launched its own digital products to meet Canadians' changing needs and expectations, such as e-post and its vault service. These measures are expected to generate $250 million in savings by 2017. Even with these improvements, Canada Post is losing money, some $129 million before tax in the third quarter of 2013 despite seeing solid growth in parcel delivery at the same time.

Canada Post has operated profitably for 16 consecutive years. That is as recently as 2011. However, a recent report prepared by the Conference Board of Canada projects annual operating deficits of nearly $1 billion by 2020. Parcel volume is forecast to increase by 26% over the same period, but it remains a small share of total mail traffic.

The situation is not sustainable. Not only parliamentarians but all Canadians should be very concerned that the corporation is posting significant losses. Given that the financial well-being of Canada Post operations has direct implications for Canadian taxpayers, it is important that every effort be made to mitigate risks to the public purse.

Canadians expect us to be sound stewards of the government's finances, and they do not want to be on the hook for significant losses that have been forecast based on the current business model. To this end, I want to emphasize that the Conference Board study pointed out that direct household delivery is the most expensive delivery method. It costs twice as much a year as service to community mailboxes, and it is only provided to one-third of Canadian households as we speak.

The status quo is not an option, and that is why Canada Post has no choice but to find more effective ways to provide its mandatory services while reducing its costs. It has consulted with Canadians. It has explored all of its options, and it has developed a five-point action plan to secure its future. What its plan is intended to do is align the corporation's services with the choices Canadians are making, and it will put it back on track to achieve financial viability over the long term. One of the most cost-effective ways to do this is by increasing the use of community mailboxes.

As members may be aware, and as I have already said, two-thirds of the population already receives mail and parcels through community mailboxes, grouped boxes, lobby mailboxes, or curbside rural mailboxes. An entire generation has grown up knowing only this form of delivery, and quite frankly, it offers numerous advantages to Canadians. For example, individually locked mail and small packet compartments, as well as larger locked compartments, are available for the secure delivery of parcels.That really is useful for people who work outside the home during the day and cannot be home to receive deliveries. People can also let mail accumulate while away on vacation knowing that it is safely stored in their private box. Mail is locked at all times, and it is secure until the customer receives it.

Under Canada Post's five-point plan, the remaining one-third of Canadian households, which is about five million people, that still receive their mail at the door will be gradually converted to community mailbox delivery over the next five years.

While this motion focuses on community mailboxes, it is important to understand that this is just one of the ways Canada Post is taking action to improve its financial performance. To give an example, the corporation is introducing a new tiered pricing structure for letter mail that will better reflect the cost of serving customers this way. Those who buy stamps in booklets or in coils will pay 85¢ per stamp, with discounts for customers who use the mail most, something that will be welcomed by small businesses.

In addition to this change, it will strengthen its retail network by opening more franchise postal outlets and stores across Canada. These businesses are conveniently located in communities, and oftentimes they are in shopping centres. That adds benefits: longer hours and better parking. As well, they enable busy Canadians to do their shopping in one place.

To further increase its competitiveness, Canada Post is also making changes to its internal operations to increase the efficient flow of parcels and mail through the network to its customers. To give an example, it is adopting faster computerized sorting equipment and is consolidating its operations by processing mail and parcels in a central location. It is also providing more delivery employees with fuel-efficient vehicles so that the same employees can deliver both mail and parcels.

These improvements will result in not only cost savings to the corporation but in more reliable delivery to Canadians, along with better parcel tracking capabilities.

Greater use of technology to keep pace with the digital revolution will mean that fewer workers are needed, and that is the fifth part of Canada Post's plan. It will reduce its workforce through attrition, and it will work with labour groups to address the sustainability of its pension plan.

As the House knows, the corporation's labour costs are much higher than its competitors'. A leaner, more flexible, competitive workforce will enable Canada Post to respond quickly to the changing marketplace. Reducing costs will benefit its customers, too, as lower costs will allow the corporation to maintain a high level of service at reasonable prices. Collectively, these measures will help Canada Post satisfy the fast-changing needs of Canadians while fulfilling its mandate to remain financially self-sufficient so that it avoids becoming a burden on taxpayers.

Canada Post, as has been noted already in this debate, is not alone in reinventing itself in the face of challenges posed by the information age. The business models of mail services in countries all over the world are being challenged by the reality that people are using traditional mail on a less frequent basis, other than to send and receive parcels.

Different countries have adopted different approaches. For example, the United Kingdom has privatized Royal Mail. Denmark and Sweden decided to merge their postal services. The Netherlands opted for massive layoffs of postal workers in favour of part-time contractors. Both Italy and Australia have diversified their financial services, their logistics, and telecommunications. The key is that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for a complex issue.

What Canada Post has come up with is a made-in-Canada approach to declining mail volumes. It says that it will enable it to remain self-sufficient and sustainable over the long-term. Canada Post's actions are in line with the global transformation of postal services that are changing to meet modern-day demands. The strategies laid out in its five-point action plan will help to ensure that the corporation is on solid financial footing and that it truly reflects Canadians' choices and their needs.

The Government of Canada supports Canada Post in its efforts to fulfill its mandate of operating on a self-sustaining financial basis in order to protect taxpayers. We recognize that it must modernize its business and better align its postal services with the choices of Canadians in today's digital age.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

I still have a hard time seeing how a society can move forward when it replaces good jobs with lower-paying jobs and full-time jobs with part-time jobs.

I have a simple question to ask, but first I would like to share a quote:

For international postal operators, the primary new business line being entered is financial services. In some countries, such as Japan and Great Britain, financial services have been a core element of the post office for many years....

According to a discussion paper of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, banking revenues in many countries are actually essential to generate profits from their postal networks.

What said that? It was the Conference Board of Canada, in its report that the minister is using to claim that we need to make these changes.

Why does Canada Post not look at offering banking services at its branches, as recommended in the Conference Board of Canada's report, which the Conservatives love to quote?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to address the member's question specifically, as I said in my speech, Canada Post reviewed all of its options. It took the report from the Conference Board of Canada and went through what it thought it could possibly do in response to its deteriorating financial situation. It did not want to go into the area of financial services, and we fundamentally agree with that.

First of all, we have a very strong banking system in this country, one that we are very proud of. In fact, that is what made us get through the recession. I thank the Minister of Finance for his decisions along the way. In addition, though, it does not make sense to offer additional banking facilities for the same reason we are talking about Canada Post today; people are moving to online banking. That is the fundamental reason Canada Post has to make these changes. People are choosing different methods.

While I appreciate that the opposition believes that this is a solution, it is more of the same. The reality is that we need to address this matter. We need to address it head on, and we support Canada Post's plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could answer the question that no doubt many letter carriers and mail sorters are asking. We have a president at Canada Post. We have two group presidents at Canada Post. We have seven senior vice-presidents at Canada Post. We have 12 vice-presidents at Canada Post. What is the cost for that administration? What is the actual cost of the Conference Board's report? Could she provide us with those two costs?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is better placed to answer specific financial questions. However, if I may draw a comparative, to manage and deal with the Canada Post operation, which is a huge logistics chain, it has a certain number on its executive team. To manage the same membership, the union has 15 national executives. They match up. They recognize the fact that they have to have representation and they have to have management, so I do not believe that this is a fair and accurate argument.

Canada Post has been asked about its overhead. It has been asked about cutting management as it has postal carriers, through attrition, laid off and not have their positions anymore. It will ensure that the executive team will match and reflect the changes coming into place as expenses decrease and revenues increase.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that we seem to consistently see from the NDP a sign that it is living in the past, when the world is changing all around it. I certainly saw the same sort of thing happen in the business I was in, the newspaper business. We saw 166 newspapers close in two years in the United States, because they did not adapt. We have seen similar issues in Canada.

I would like the minister to tell us why this move with Canada Post is actually going to put the post office employees and employee pensions on a much more secure footing for the future.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a Canada Post that is self-sufficient, lean, and effective is an organization that will protect the jobs of its workers and the pensions of its workers and former workers. That is a key. One has to have a business that is actually generating revenue to ensure that people who work for it can be taken care of. That is the ultimate goal. It is also to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is not the one who has to step in to make up for the losses.

A lot has been written regarding the decisions of Canada Post and its five-point action plan. This is worthy of repeating in the House. It is an editorial I read recently. It talks about how the world is changing. It states:

The traditional postal business model that worked so well in the pre-digital era is increasingly out of step with today's reality. Everyone may love getting mail, but who wants to keep funding antiquated business models that are only drifting further into irrelevance with the march of progress?

I invite the opposition to get with reality.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that there will be an increasing number of postal outlets in locations such as convenience stores. Is this a way to quietly privatize Canada Post?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not. To privatize something, one has to show investors that they will actually get a return on their investments. Currently Canada Post does not fulfill any of that. It has a mandate to be self-sufficient. It is not self-sufficient.

This actually speaks to Canada Post listening to and hearing from its users and customers who want to be able to go to these postal outlets in their local pharmacies and shopping malls because of the convenience and the reasons I stated: better parking and easier access. A lot of us work 9:00 to 5:00. In fact, a lot of us work more than 9:00 to 5:00, and it is very difficult to get to the post office to retrieve a parcel or pick up mail that could not be delivered to one's house. It makes a lot of sense to be able to go to a place that has longer operating hours so that people can make their own choices as to when they want to receive their mail. It is a great opportunity for Canada Post as well. I know that Canadians enjoy the choice.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very simple questions for the minister.

First, did the minister approve the plan from Canada Post before it was released, yes or no?

The second question is, if so, does the minister believe that this is the best plan?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. I absolutely believe this is the plan that makes sense, yes. The reason is that Canada Post, which has a lot of experience and intelligence around the table, has consulted. It has asked for reports, has studied this issue, has looked around the world, and this is a made-in-Canada solution that, in the long term, will bring it back to self-sufficiency.

In terms of the first question; did I approve the plan? I have stated very clearly in my comments today that the Government of Canada supports Canada Post's five-point action plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a report which notes that declining letter volume has accelerated since 2008, mail loss is increasing, and the pension deficit worsened. That is not from a Conference Board report, that is from an update on the Hooper report in the U.K. We have what witnesses at committee agreed was a structural problem. It is a global problem, and the only ones who have their heads in the sand are the New Democrats, who are quoting from a report authored by their former director of parliamentary affairs, and who think that everything is okay.

I would like the minister to correct one comment made by the official opposition critic, when she said there would be higher prices for lower services to businesses. Is it not, in fact, that the new costs would actually reflect the real or actual costs of doing business, not that they are going to somehow get lower service for the cost?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is absolutely correct, both in his comment and in his correction of what the opposition member said.

One thing with respect to this matter is that there has been criticism about the plan in its totality. When a corporation is obviously flailing, in terms of not having as much revenue as it once had, it has to adjust in two ways: it has to move the top line and reduce the expenses on the bottom line. That is what businesses do. It is not always about tax and spend, which is, unfortunately, what the opposition thinks it is.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here to debate this important opposition day motion brought by the NDP, and I commend the NDP for bringing it. It is a very timely issue at the doors in our communities across the country. All of us as MPs are hearing about these proposed changes. All of us are getting feedback, and all of us are getting pressure from different parts of Canadian society with respect to the five-point plan put forward by, I would argue, not simply Canada Post but by the Government of Canada and the minister whom we have just heard speak. In fact, my thesis, the common thread that will weave itself through these remarks over the next 20-odd minutes, is that this report and effort brought forward by the Conservatives is simply not good enough.

I am privileged because Canada Post is headquartered in my riding. I have many neighbours and constituents who work with Canada Post. They may be managers. They may be financial officers. They might be postal workers. There are good people working with Canada Post, and I salute the good people with Canada Post, whether they are on one side or the other of, in my mind, a seemingly artificial divide between management and labour. There are good people in management, there are good people on the floor sorting mail, there are folks who are delivering mail now at night-time. There are a lot of good people with the corporation, and I salute and commend them for their years of service in helping to build the tradition of Canada Post.

However, having looked at this plan extensively, having heard from witnesses at committee, having heard from hundreds of Canadians across the country, and my colleagues here in the Liberal caucus today are nodding in agreement because they are getting the same feedback, this five-point plan is simply not good enough. It does not, in my mind, meet the abilities of Canada Post. It does not meet the creative possibilities for our crown corporation at all.

When the minister stands up and talks about other jurisdictions having to make difficult choices, she is only partly right. It is true that other jurisdictions like Canada Post are facing challenges, with respect to the sustainability of service, with respect to electronic communication, and with respect to a transition in their core business areas. However, when I hear the minister speak and highlight, for example, the changes going on now in Britain, I am hard-pressed not to believe that, in fact, the government's ultimate intention is to drive Canada Post into privatization. That is where the Conservatives would like to go. It is what they did with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It is what the Minister of Finance tried to do in Ontario with Ontario Power Generation's transmission lines before he created the 407 private highway. It is what they do.

They take cherished Canadian public services like the postal service, they take the corporation involved in delivering that cherished public service, and they begin to run it down. They begin to talk negatively about it. They begin to talk about its being too expensive. They talk about it as being, in the case of Atomic Energy, a sinkhole costing all kinds of money. They run down the asset and then they turn around say, “We really would like to see this asset privatized”. It is part of the conditioning that the Conservatives use as a tactic with respect to Canadian citizens, instead of spending better energy and good energy in trying to improve a plan on a go-forward basis to keep postal services for Canadians who deserve them.

I have always believed that government has an obligation to get the big things right, and postal service is one of the big things that Canadians count on.

Going back to testimony that was heard at committee before Christmas, we remind Canadians that of course these changes were sprung on them the day after the House rose, just before the Christmas card delivery rush.

This plan was foisted on unsuspecting Canadians, on unsuspecting municipal governments, provinces, businesses, trade organizations, et cetera. We heard from these different actors in Canadian society when we convened the transportation committee to ask the president and CEO of Canada Post and other witnesses to give us their views because there had been no meaningful debate. What testimony confirmed is that Canada Post and the government under the Conservatives appear to be stuck in a time warp. It is the 1960s all over again: management versus labour, and labour versus management, and never the two shall meet.

We confirmed that the union heads never had a series of meetings with senior management at Canada Post. We confirmed that the minister would not meet with senior labour representatives. We confirmed that the minister—the fifth, by the way, in seven years—refused to bring management and labour together at one table to ask how we can find a better plan, a better approach going forward, for Canadians who count on Canada Post services.

It is an ill-thought-out plan. What we saw was Canada Post management retaining the good services of the Conference Board of Canada. Again, I am privileged to have the Conference Board of Canada headquartered in my riding. It is a good think tank. It does solid econometric analysis. So we had on the one hand management retaining the Conference Board of Canada and on the other we had labour retaining the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Each group decided to put up its blue-chip panellist research outfit, claiming that it had one answer and the other had the other answer. It was a clash of the research institutions.

Meanwhile, Canadians get a five-point plan sprung on them by surprise, and frankly, they do not care who has retained whom for their analysis or for their substantiation of the changes they want to bring to bear on Canada Post services. Canadians do not really care about that. They care about the net effects of what is being proposed by Canada Post, and these net effects are very serious.

Before I turn to those net effects, I want to pick up on something the minister said earlier. This is a common refrain from the Conservatives, and it goes like this. They are not responsible for Canada Post's plan. They are not responsible for VIA Rail. They are not responsible for Atomic Energy of Canada. They are not responsible for the Port Authorities. No, says the Minister of Transport, they are all independent. They are all arm's-length, and they are all independent.

It reminds me of the magnificent moment years ago in the provincial legislature in Ontario. At least six of the frontline cabinet ministers here under the Conservative government were trained at the heels of Premier Michael Harris. Mr. Harris came to the floor and said that they were not the government. They came to fix the government, said the then-premier of a majority government.

It is a ruse. It is an attempt to distance oneself from responsibility, as the fifth minister in seven years with responsibility for Canada Post, by trying to label, to publicly disavow and disown, the crown corporation. That is very unfortunate because it leaves Canadians in the lurch. They do not want to see their government disown its responsibility for this crown corporation.

On the contrary, Canadians believe that it is the responsibility of the government and the Minister of Transport to ensure that Canada Post's plan makes sense for ordinary people. Clearly the plan presented by Canada Post will not help ordinary Canadians.

That is why we in the Liberal Party have decided to do three things.

First, we have submitted a number of access to information requests to get more information with respect to the government's correspondence. That is working. It is working hand in glove with the corporation because it is not Canada Post's plan; it is the Prime Minister's and the Government of Canada's plan.

Second, we are submitting a number of order paper questions to get more information on what is really going on for Canadians.

Third, yesterday I had the privilege of meeting with our Parliamentary Budget Officer. On behalf of my colleagues and our caucus, I asked that the Parliamentary Budget Officer perform a major investigation into the financial claims being made by the government that this will amount to savings or better fiscal probity for the corporation. We will get to the bottom of that by asking an independent body like the PBO, with the backstopping of Library of Parliament research, to find out whether the numbers being used by the Conference Board of Canada, for example, hold up to independent scrutiny. I am not casting aspersions on the good character or good faith of the Conference Board. However, I think it is incumbent on all parliamentarians to ask that an independent group examine these numbers.

Why do I conclude that it is the government's plan? When the plan was delivered we would have thought the government and the minister responsible for the corporation would have said “Thank you so much for the plan. We'll take it under advisement. We will examine it. We'll come back to you after performing our own analysis and we'll respond.” That is not what happened. Moments after the plan was released a statement was issued pronto presto which said that they support the plan 100%.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine how a single Conservative MP on that side of the House could look a constituent in the eye and say that this plan cannot be improved, that all of the creative possibilities were exhausted by 21 senior managers, labour representatives and the entire team at Canada Post. I cannot believe that any MP on the Conservative caucus who is hearing from constituents is able to assure them without a doubt that every single option was explored. They cannot because the Minister of Finance, through the Minister of Transport, is exerting pressure on the board at Canada Post to achieve the elimination of deficit numbers by 2015 so they can go forward and offer goodies to the Canadian people for an election campaign. Let us be honest.

Let us be honest. That is what the Conservatives are doing. That is why the Conservative members are so slow to ask important questions to improve the plan proposed by Canada Post. The Conservatives did not raise any questions. They do not have the right to raise questions. However, I am sure that they are listening to what their constituents are saying in their ridings.

Let us talk about some of the effects. Let us start with our seniors.

Everybody in this room and every Canadian knows that as a population we are aging. More and more of us are becoming older, more senior. We all believe, and say collectively to our seniors, that it is better for our seniors to stay in their residences. We facilitate choices to help seniors stay in their homes for as long as they can, to live independently with dignity and safety. We are now sending a message to our seniors that the mail service they require and depend on for their pension cheques, telephone bills and newspaper subscriptions will not be delivered to their door any more. Rather, they are expected to go to an outside location to pick up their mail. It is -27°C with the wind chill in the city of Ottawa. It is about -25°C to -30°C across the entire country, except for parts of the west. Do we really expect seniors to go outside?

I know that the president and CEO of Canada Post made remarks about fitness. Tongue-in-cheek, I said to him that this is some sort of postal ParticipACTION program but it is not serious. With ice and slush, winter, it is not serious for Canadians who are seniors living in their homes.

Let us talk about disabilities and Canadians with disabilities. We have a growing percentage of Canadians with disabilities, as this is also connected to an aging society.

In 2012, approximately 3.8 million people, or nearly 14% of Canadians aged 15 and older, reported being limited in their daily activities because of a disability. These results come from the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability.

Almost 14% of Canadians 15 years old and older reported being limited in their daily activities because of a disability. That is almost 14% today, and it is growing.

Leaving aside the unfortunate connection between poverty and disability in Canadian society, which is another issue, another debate, why are we saying to our Canadians with disabilities that they are not going to get mail delivery and that whatever mail they are depending upon they are going to have to pay more for sending and/or receiving?

I do not think this has been thought through, at all, in terms of the practical ramifications for Canadians with disabilities. That testimony was elicited from Bob Brown, who came to committee and told us that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities had not been consulted.

Similarly, again looking at effects, let us turn to our small businesses. The Conservatives love to say that small businesses are the engine of the Canadian economy. In fact we all agree, on all sides of the House, that is the case. Three out of four jobs are created by businesses with 50 employees or less. We know that to be the case.

However, when the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business came to committee to testify about these changes, he said they were blindsided. They were never consulted by Canada Post. They were never consulted by Transport Canada. The largest single trade association, representing tens of thousands of small businesses, was never asked what the effects would be for business if we raised prices for stamps, eliminated door-to-door postal service five days a week, et cetera. Not a single question was raised. No dialogue was ever had with this group.

The Conservatives cannot deny it. They know it. Very unfortunately, this is going to wreak havoc on our small businesses.

More and more Canadians are doing the right thing. More and more young people today are not asking the question of who is going to hire them. On the contrary, they are asking who they are going to hire. As a result, particularly by women, we are seeing more and more start-up businesses and more and more small businesses in people's homes. With these changes, the consultants, the IT experts, all those folks who are running small businesses, are going to be hit and hit hard.

Last, turning to our municipalities, the costs to municipalities, the maintenance of these community mailboxes, the location of these boxes and the potential expropriation of land was not thought through.

In a letter from Mike Bradley, Mayor of the City of Sarnia, he stated:

There has been no consideration or thought given that this will create a significant tax increase at the local level across this country from coast to coast and, while municipalities may look to other alternatives, there is also legal limitations through legislation....

This was not thought through. All of these effects on our seniors, on Canadians with disabilities, on our municipalities and small businesses is now wreaking havoc.

In conclusion, Canada Post can do better. This Minister of Transport needs to put labour and management together at one table and use our creative possibilities and our thinking to come up with a better plan so we are not the only OECD country in the world to eliminate door-to-door services, and effectively, under the guise of improvement, move toward the privatization of our postal system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make note that the member did not mention that the CFIB and its members did support the elimination of door-to-door delivery in all of Canada, and they said so at the hearing.

It is far easier to criticize a plan that somebody else has decided on. It is far tougher to wade through the complex issues and make the complex decisions and the sometimes tough decisions that result from complex problems. I did not hear any solution other than “let us have a dialogue” from the member opposite.

Since the member mentioned that there is an impact on seniors, and that was a very central point of his intervention, is he advocating an expansion of door-to-door delivery in Canada to the two-thirds of addresses that currently do not have it? Presumably, if seniors living in that part of Canada are adversely affected and cannot cope with it, the member must support an expansion of services.

First, does the member support an expansion of services? Second, how does he propose that Canada Post pay for an expansion of door-to-door delivery to the other two-thirds of Canada?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. What we see from the Conservative parliamentary secretary is that this is a zero-sum game; it is this five-point plan or nothing. That is exactly the kind of positional approach that tells Canadians it is their plan. It is not Canada Post's plan; it is the Conservatives' plan.

If I were the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, I would be asking questions like, “Are you telling us Canada Post that it is five days' elimination of mail delivery? Is it possible that we can get mail delivered every second or third day? Are you telling us Canada Post that you actually do not have the analysis to talk about the distributive effects on our small and medium-sized companies? Why haven't you?”

It is not worth rising to the zero-sum game of the parliamentary secretary. We need to go back to the drawing board. I have confidence that the management of Canada Post, the good officials at Transport Canada and the good people in our unions and labour movement can do better than this. They can come forward with more creative possibilities.

I often hear the Conservatives, as I heard the minister moments ago, dismiss outright the idea put forward by labour about postal banking services. I am not prepared to dismiss that outright. If someone had told Canadians 15 years ago that a major food retail outlet in this country would be selling mortgages at a store where one buys milk, they would not have believed it.

There are many options for us going forward to make sure that we maintain our postal services. However, the plan to eliminate door-to-door service and to raise the cost of stamps, in my view, is being done because the corporation has been given four corners of parameters to operate within by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport which is hamstringing their creativity.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches given by the minister responsible for Canada Post and our Liberal colleague.

We know that this is not the first time that this Conservative government has made announcements the day after the House of Commons adjourned. This proves once again that this government does not consult anyone before making important decisions that have a significant impact on our society.

My colleague said that this government is trying to distance itself from public institutions. I would like to add that not only is the government distancing itself from public institutions, but it is also working with people behind closed doors to try to dismantle these institutions, which are a valuable resource for Canada. This is not the first time that the Conservatives have tried to do this. Under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, 1,500 post offices across the country were shut down.

I would like to know whether my colleague is concerned that this government seems to be driving Canada Post into privatization.

Although the Liberal Party does not have a good track record when it comes to dismantling public corporations, I would like to add this question. Will the hon. member support the government's privatization of valuable crown corporations such as Canada Post?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

First, as she said, it is not unusual for the government to make last-minute announcements when the House is not even sitting, as is the case here.

Second, I am convinced that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are working together to weaken the crown corporation known as Canada Post. The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to the idea that a government, which belongs to Canadians, should have for-profit corporations in its portfolio.

That leads me to believe that the real issue here is the privatization of Canada Post, as the member said. However, there will not be any specific debate on that. It will be handled under the table, with changes here and there. The issue of Canada Post and its future must be debated here, in the House.

I want to congratulate the NDP for moving this motion on their opposition day. The future of our postal service, this public service that people rely on, is too important for changes to be made in the backrooms, under the table, or behind closed doors.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an interesting debate and, quite frankly, I find it sad when a member such as the member opposite who was just speaking accuses the government of trying to do away with Canada Post. It is complete fiction and it is really kind of insulting, not just to the government but to all the people across Canada who may be listening to that kind of nonsense.

I would like to know from the member whether or not he recognizes that a fundamental change has been occurring in mail delivery. In the first nine months of 2013, mail volumes declined by 184 million pieces, or 5.1%, compared to the same period last year. In fact, in 2006, Canada Post delivered 1 billion more pieces of mail than in 2012.

I would like to ask the member if he is in fact able to get his head out of the sand. Does he recognize that Canada Post plays a different role in people's daily life than it did 10 years ago?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member setting that up for me. It is kind of like playing T-ball. It is a really easy hit, but I am not going to go there because I do not think that is constructive for Canadians.

I would remind the member and the House that this is exactly what many members in the Conservative caucus said prior to the Prime Minister selling off Atomic Energy of Canada at a fire sale price to a Montreal-based engineering firm, after 57 years of AECL leading the planet in medical isotope production and nuclear power. Just before the Conservatives moved to dump that asset, they spoke this way as well, saying they would never sell this asset or move to privatizing.

There is clearly a pattern and a belief system with the Conservatives where they do not believe that the state should own for-profit corporations. That is why so many important players in Canadian society were left out of this entire debate. The CFIB was blindsided, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons was blindsided and the Consumers' Association was never consulted. All kinds of important groups were left out because this was a plan springing forth from PMO and PCO and the transport minister. We can do better than that.

In conclusion, we should go back to the drawing board, get both groups together and deliver a much better plan for Canadians going forward.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

We are here to debate an issue that has gripped Canadians over the last number of weeks. We New Democrats are here to propose an alternative way forward to the Conservatives' destructive agenda when it comes to Canada Post.

A few short weeks ago, the Conservative government supported Canada Post's announcement in taking an axe to our long-treasured postal service and making Canada the only G7 country to eliminate home delivery of mail.

Today, I am proud of the NDP motion we have put forward. It is clear that we are on the side of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want to uphold our postal service. However, besides our putting forward an alternative vision, the motion is a test for the Conservatives, to see if they are on the side of the majority of Canadians. It is a test for Conservative members of Parliament who represent urban centres where citizens depend on home delivery. It is a test for Conservative members of Parliament who represent rural areas, to see if they will stand up for their rural communities and oppose cuts to rural post offices. Canadians are watching this debate today. They will be watching closely how members of the Conservative government vote on the motion.

What is clear from today's debate and what we have seen from the Conservative government over the last number of weeks is the ultimate hypocrisy of this situation. We have heard some comments today about Canada Post's reasoning when it comes to the announcement. What we have also heard is that in facing a financial challenge, Canada Post has not done what certainly anyone running a business or even in government would do when facing a crisis, which is to come together and try to find a solution.

We have heard from organization after organization, whether it is the Union of Postal Workers, representatives of municipalities, people from the disabilities community or seniors organizations, that none of them were consulted by Canada Post to try to find ways forward to make our postal service viable.

This seems illogical to me. One knows that when one faces a situation like that, one tries to find a solution. It happens in our communities all the time. The government engages in these kinds of challenges. One brings people together; but that is not what Canada Post did. One also looks at alternatives, ways to create revenue that build on a long-term plan for this service; and Canada Post did not do that either.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives did its homework. It looked beyond Canada's borders—something the government has trouble doing—at models of postal banking that support people's banking needs, as well as their postal needs, and it looked at ways other countries do it, countries we look to for our source of other advice and ideas: New Zealand, Italy, countries we look to for good ideas on a regular basis. Yet Canada Post did not and has not looked at alternatives that could help make this service not just viable but continue to be prosperous.

It is not by accident that so many Canadians consider this to be a manufactured crisis in many ways, one that is extremely hypocritical and one where it is easy to ask this question. Is Canada Post's ultimate goal to privatize, and is the government's ultimate goal to support the privatization of Canada Post?

As the member of Parliament for Churchill, I have heard from many constituents over the last number of weeks. I have received hundreds of letters. Many people have signed our petition. People have walked into our office or have called me at home to talk to me about their concerns. Some of our communities do enjoy home delivery, and I will explain why it is so essential that it continue.

Flin Flon, one of those communities, was founded in 1927. It was built on the Canadian Shield. It is a community that has many seniors who have decided to stay in northern Manitoba close to their families because of mobility issues. It has infrastructure that is challenged in terms of the needs of the 21st century and the growth of the community. It is a community where people cannot imagine where community post boxes could possibly go. A couple of years ago, Flin Flon got an award for having the busiest post office in its region and the population it serves. Yet, instead of supporting a community like Flin Flon and the people who need the postal service, not only do we have this announcement of eliminating home delivery, but Flin Flon has also been told that it might lose its storefront. To add insult to injury, Flin Flon was also told that the storefront was going to be moved to a business address that does not exist in a building that sits empty and that is owned by a landlord who has never even heard from Canada Post. So members will forgive me, as the member of Parliament for this community, when I wonder, along with so many other people in Flin Flon, what kind of logic drives Canada Post's agenda on the macro and micro levels, because it certainly does not seem to be evident.

Thompson, a community established in 1956, also has infrastructure challenges. For the majority of this community, we cannot envision where any new postal developments could take place. Like many communities in the north, it suffers from extreme cold. Yesterday morning when I left my house it was -47C with the wind chill. That cold does not stop Rhonda, Jenn, Wendy, Jerilyn or Tara from doing their jobs day in and day out. However, that cold would mean that people, not just seniors or people with disabilities or those with young families, would no longer be able to just take a stroll down to the community post box and get their mail, or even just hop in a car, albeit it often will not work at -47C. I accept the fact that many people have not the faintest clue what -47C in northern Manitoba with howling wind might feel like. It is just not a reality.

However, instead of listening to the people from these communities, Canada Post has rammed through an agenda that not only does not serve the interests of our people but also makes their lives difficult, this for a service they have paid for.

This announcement also will have a disproportionate impact on Canadian women. According to the CCPA, we know that 95% of the employees who work at Canada Post are women. This draws attention to the fact that the decimation of Canada Post will affect them disproportionately. In northern and rural regions like the ones I represent, the Canada Post jobs that women have are some of the best jobs they can have in our communities. They are secure jobs with pensions and benefits, supporting families and communities. We also know that cuts to the public sector always hurt women and exacerbate their social and economic inequality. It bears pointing out that the gender gap in Canada is alive and well. Women earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by men in this country, a statistic that has barely changed in 40 years. All of this conspires to damage women's equality and the overall social fabric of this country. Job cuts and privatization in the public sector hit women of colour, women with disabilities, women from immigrant backgrounds and aboriginal women the hardest. These women are often the last hired and the first to be let go, as we know from the public sector employees' union.

The Conservatives have broken their promise to protect Canadian communities, whether northern, rural or urban. Canadians will be watching how they vote today.

In conclusion, let us bring this debate back to where it counts, to our communities and the understanding that Canada Post belongs to Canadians. It belongs to my generation that depends on this service, to my parents who helped build this service and to our grandparents and people before us who helped create the Canada Post we have today. It is an integral part of our community. Postal workers connect us. They keep an eye on us. They ensure that we have the information, the goods and services we need.

This is a test where Canadians will found out where Conservatives stand: on their side or on the side of the CEOs and those who want to privatize our most essential services. Canadians deserve better. They deserve having our Canada Post protected.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Churchill, and reassure the people of Churchill that they have never been so well represented in the House of Commons.

My question for the hon. member is quite simple. I went to a town hall meeting on January 22 concerning Canada Post and heard a lot of disturbing facts. One of the solutions that we would like Canada Post to look at is postal banking. At the town hall meeting, I heard from some of the people involved that four bankers are sitting on the board of Canada Post. I wonder if the fact that four bankers sit on that board might not influence Canada Post not wanting to get into postal banking so as not to take away some of the profits from those bankers' employers?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his strong voice for northern people in his region. I recognize that the challenges posed by this announcement affect people in both our communities in very much the same way.

I want to thank him also for raising a critical point. The government has often referred to efficiencies and modernization in the context of the debate. The point that my colleague raises is a very important one. Why is Canada Post not looking at a viable alternative such as postal banking, as other like-minded countries have done? Who is making those decisions? Why are these bankers part of a board that supports Canada Post and do not look at alternatives for supporting it? Maybe it is time to bring in some people to make decisions on behalf of Canada Post who actually want to see Canada Post survive and see it take on viable alternatives.

We also heard earlier about the 22 vice presidents that Canada Post has. If we are talking about efficiencies, who are these vice-presidents and what are they doing? What is their ultimate cost to Canadians?

That is why this crisis that Canada Post is speaking of is one that many Canadians do not see and why many Canadians wish that we could sit here and have a real debate about the real facts, rather than the manufactured ones we hear from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, leave it to the member to have a Blockbuster Video mentality in a Netflix world.

On the subject of postal banking, the opposition's position is not very well thought out or supported by relevant global examples. Perhaps the member opposite could actually answer the question that her party's critic could not answer this morning. How much would it cost Canada Post to capitalize a bank, and how does she propose that Canada Post pay for the capitalization of a new bank and, for that matter, what would be the ongoing costs of operating postal branch bank outlets?