Lisa Raitt

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his insightful remarks, once again, on Canada Post.

I would invite those who have not taken a look at it, incontrovertible facts that are located within the Canada Post Corporation's 2013 annual report about the status-quo approach. Its plan includes how they plan on dealing with some realities. I thought I would quote from Canada Post, since it is an arm's-length crown corporation that is responsible for its own operations, to give its perspective on why it came up with the five-point plan that we have accepted.

This is what it said:

…households and businesses have moved away from mail as a primary source of communication. They freely use electronic means to send and receive their mail. As a result, in the digital economy, Canada Post's exclusive privilege to deliver letters no longer adequately funds what’s called the universal service obligation.…

Transaction Mail volumes per address have dropped 30 per cent since 2007. Less mail equals less revenue, while the costs of providing postal service are largely fixed.

In 2013, we delivered 1.2 billion fewer pieces of Domestic Lettermail™ than we did in 2006, putting at risk a service to Canadians that has existed for longer than Canada has been independent.

Our challenge was to put forward a plan that balances the needs of all Canadians, while addressing the legacy costs of a system built mainly to process and deliver a large volume of mail. Reducing our cost of operations in many ways has helped, but we had to do much more to reshape the postal system and avoid chronic financial losses.

With that certainty, we announced our Five-Point Action Plan in late 2013 to build the foundation of a new postal system for Canadians. It reflects what we heard from people across the country as we talked about the future of the postal service in towns, cities and online. Canadians want a postal system they can count on to meet their changing needs, but they also expect it to avoid becoming a drain on their tax dollars.

It’s the result of two years of analyzing all options, including those at post offices around the world, to determine what would work best for Canadians. We’re streamlining our operations, addressing the cost of labour, adjusting our pricing to better reflect today's environment, expanding convenience through franchise post offices and moving the remaining five million door-to-door customers to community mail box delivery. This comprehensive five-year plan will return Canada Post to solid financial footing and provide a platform for growth fuelled by the changing needs of the people and businesses we serve.

Clearly, Canada Post has put a lot of thought, effort, study, and insight into what its five-point plan will be as we are dealing with the realities of the digital economy. I appreciate, as I said before, the hon. member bringing this issue to light.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

I wish I had more time to talk about that, Mr. Chair. I will say one thing. I have a long history in transportation, and I can say that what I have learned is that transportation needs in Sydney, Nova Scotia, versus what is needed in Milton, Ontario, versus what is needed in Wascana, Saskatchewan, are very different from one another. Having a single strategy of one-size-fits-all does not necessarily work and is not the best use of taxpayer dollars.

I prefer our economic action plan and our Building Canada fund. Those things are targeted and are there to ensure that when a community says it wants a project, this is the project we do. It is not one-size-fits-all.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, in fact, we can see from the main estimates, which I thought we were actually going to be talking about tonight and was prepared for, but nonetheless, one thing we have a fund for is clean air from transportation. There are a number of projects in there that are extremely important to ensure that we do what we can to make sure we have clean air. We have invested significantly in that, and we will continue to do so to make sure that the folks who are doing work in the area will continue to do that work.

Specifically, we are proposing in the main estimates this year that we have access to $38,992,028 in spending authorities for the specific program activity to ensure that the good work these people do continues with respect to ensuring clean air from emissions and shore power technology.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, this is a federal jurisdiction. These are federal lands, and therefore they have a whole regime that applies to them under the operating regulations and the Canadian environmental regulations that are specific to port authorities in Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, there are a number of reasons accidents happen. It is part of the work of the Transportation Safety Board to determine the factors that are contributing in each particular accident, and we learn from those recommendations, obviously, going forward.

With respect to the number of accidents in 10 years, quite frankly, one is too many, and we all agree with that. That is why we have things like Operation Lifesaver. That is why we do work on grade separation. That is why I have round tables with local communities to talk about the importance of it. That is why we talk to school kids, and that is why we have Rail Safety Week. In everything we do, we are trying to ensure that we have safer railways. We continuously work on it, and the people who work at Transport Canada in that sector do an excellent job.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, we will get that number and information for the member. Obviously, there is a lot of information here at the table before me. We will find that and provide it for him. I do not have it at my fingertips right now.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, they are not allowed to make donations to political parties, being federal appointments. On that basis, I have no knowledge of what he is speaking about.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member probably knows, there are rules with respect to directors on port authorities, and they are not allowed to make political donations, even to his party, if they want to.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I can tell the House that the way the appointments work with respect to port authorities is very specific. It is laid out in their letters patent.

They divide themselves into user groups. The user groups then vet the candidates and then present the information to the minister in order to make the recommendation to the Governor in Council for the appointment. There is quite a robust structure to the nominating procedure to ensure that it is advertised in the community. It has to be advertised in the community. That is where the pool of candidates comes from.

[Business of Supply, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, having served as corporate secretary for various boards, one in particular being the Toronto Port Authority, what I can tell the House is that the appointments to the port authorities are taken seriously. They are vetted through a process. Indeed, highly qualified people sit on these local port authorities for very little compensation to ensure that the right things are happening in their local communities. We thank them for their service. They do good work.