OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 036 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES January 28, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 036 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 036 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 036 (Version officielle) 147 036 28 01 2014 2014/01/28 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1000) [ English ] Privacy Commissioner The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the special report of the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber-Surveillance”. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( h ), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[ English ] Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act Hon. Peter Van Loan (for the Minister of International Trade) Bill C-20. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20,

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the reports of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary Union respecting their participation at the 129th IPU assembly and related meetings in Geneva, Switzerland from October 4 to October 9, 2013.

Access to Information Act Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) Bill C-567. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-567,

An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (transparency and duty to document) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my seconder. I rise today to introduce the bill to amend the Access to Information Act to strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner. Conservative members present may recognize the elements of the bill, as they are all taken directly from the Conservative election campaign of 2006, when Conservatives purported to believe in open government.

The bill would give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of documents and to have those orders enforced as if they were judgments of the Federal Court. It would codify the duty to create and retain documents and would introduce a public interest override to oblige disclosure of documents when the Commissioner determines that public interest outweighs the need for secrecy.

It would make cabinet confidences an exclusion subject to the opinion and review of the Commissioner, and it would ensure that all exemptions from disclosure are justified only on the basis of harm and injury that would result from disclosure, not from blanket exemptions. Freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes. It is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy that the public has the right to know what its government is doing, and that right should be subject only to a very few and specific exclusions.

It is our hope that these simple reforms would help shine the light of day on the workings of government, and in doing so elevate the standards of ethical behaviour and good public administration. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) [ Translation ] Former Canadian Forces Members Act Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) Bill C-568. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-568,

An Act respecting former Canadian Forces members . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce a bill that will allow our veterans to get the best health care, even after they have left the Canadian Forces. It is important to remember that too many of our young heroes, particularly those who served in the hell that was Afghanistan, came home physically and psychologically broken, and too many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.

This bill will allow our military personnel to continue receiving the same level of health care after being honourably discharged from the Canadian Forces. I am encouraged by the fact that the government and Conservative members never miss an opportunity to remind us how much they support our military personnel and their families. This is a tremendous opportunity for the members of all parties to turn words into actions by supporting a change that would provide justice to those who have made sacrifices for us. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Petitions Corporate Social Responsibility Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first petition calls upon the Government of Canada to mandate corporate social responsibility. The petitioners are appalled by the activities of the extractive industry, particularly in the eastern Congo, where they see the iron fist of Canada against indigenous populations. They would allow the CSR to be legally binding here, and they would reinvigorate Bill C-300, which was a vote that was lost in the last Parliament. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the second petition is signed by literally thousands of Canadians, again concerning the implementation of binding legislation with respect to corporate social responsibility, the rule of law and good governance and democracy. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to adopt legislation which would be binding upon the EDC and other Canadian corporate bodies and be contingent upon compliance with corporate social responsibilities.

They also call upon CIDA, which is of course now defunct, to comply with the— The Speaker : I would like to remind the hon. member that members are supposed to provide a very brief

summary when they are presenting a petition and certainly not to read it. It looks like the member has some other petitions, so I will ask him to keep that in mind as he tables them. Hon. John McKay : Mr. Speaker, I will take that admonition seriously.

Experimental Lakes Area Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition concerns the Experimental Lakes Area. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to recognize the importance of the Experimental Lakes Area and to reverse the decision to close and defund the Experimental Lakes association.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Points of Order Oral Questions--Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : On December 9, 2013, the House leader of the official opposition raised various issues relating to question period. Other members from all parties in the House have from time to time voiced similar concerns. In view of the desire for clarification regarding the rules and practices governing the conduct of question period, I undertook to return to the House and I would like to take a few minutes now to address the principles that govern this proceeding. A good place to start is

Chapter 11 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which describes the evolution of question period from an historical perspective. What is immediately apparent is that the practice of members posing oral questions to the government has been a part of our daily proceedings since before Confederation.

The longevity and staying power of this practice flows from the very principles that underpin our system of parliamentary democracy. (1010) [ Translation ] As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Second Edition, states at page 491: The right to seek information from the Ministry of the day and the right to hold that Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government. Members exercise these rights principally by asking questions in the House.

The importance of questions within the parliamentary system cannot be overemphasized and the search for or clarification of information through questioning is a vital aspect of the duties undertaken by individual Members. [ English ] That is not to say that it is only recently that the conduct of question period has become a topic of public debate. On the contrary, virtually every Speaker at one time or another has had something to say about question period.

In the 1870s, for example, when question period was still in its infancy, Speaker Anglin declared that members ought to confine themselves to seeking information from the government and that it was not appropriate to "proceed to descant on the conduct of the Government" . By the 1940s, Speaker Glen was pointing to the need for questions to be brief and that these "must not be prefaced by any argument". It was always understood, of course, that questions were to relate to matters that were "urgent and important".

Other guidelines came and went, depending on the times. [ Translation ] In the early 1960s, Speaker McNaughton unsuccessfully tried to enforce several long-standing unwritten rules regarding the content of questions.

In 1964 a report by a special committee set out certain guidelines respecting questions and went so far as to say that “answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate”. [ English ] In the 1970s, O'Brien and Bosc tell us at page 495, question period became “an increasingly open forum where questions of every description could be asked”, this despite Speaker Jerome having identified several principles underlying QP and issuing guidelines for its conduct.

Many attributed these developments to the advent of the television era, but whatever the cause, this trend to a more freewheeling question period continued unabated by a statement made by Speaker Bosley in the mid-1980s aimed at curtailing the lack of discipline. A simple review of the

section entitled “Principles and Guidelines for Oral Questions”, found at pages 501 to 504 of O'Brien and Bosc, shows just how many of these “guidelines” have fallen into disuse, some fairly recently. Throughout all these changes, one thing remains clear: the Speaker, as the servant of the House, can enforce only those practices and guidelines the House is willing to have enforced.

Very often the particular circumstances of the moment dictate how far the Speaker can go without unduly limiting the freedom of speech of members. [ Translation ] But when content causes disorder, the Speaker must step in, all the while acting within the confines of our rules and practices. This is particularly necessary given that this House is one of the few Westminster-style deliberative assemblies where neither the question nor the topic of the question need be submitted beforehand.

While this certainly makes for a lively and much watched parliamentary exercise, it does little to make the Speaker’s job any easier. The main purpose of question period is undoubtedly the opportunity it provides to the legislative branch to seek information from the executive and to hold the government to account. This opportunity is particularly important for the opposition parties. We all recognize that the opposition has the right and, indeed the duty, to question the conduct of the government, and every effort must be made in the enforcement of our rules to safeguard that right.

But the government can only be held to account for matters that fall within its administrative responsibilities. [ English ] For example, that is why my predecessors and I have frequently ruled out of order questions regarding election expenses. Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan agency of Parliament. While in a technical sense there is a government minister responsible for Elections Canada—the minister transmits the agency's estimates, for example—the fact remains that the Chief Electoral Officer reports to the House through the Speaker.

As Speaker Milliken noted in a ruling given on October 22, 2007, at page 209 of Debates , it is difficult to ask questions about Elections Canada to the government unless there is a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government—a link such as questions about changes to the law respecting Elections Canada, for example. It is for similar reasons that questions that concern internal party matters or party expenses or that refer to proceedings in the Senate or the actions of senators, or indeed of other members, risk being ruled out of order.

On the latter point, as Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010, found in Debates at page 3778, “...the use of [...]

preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.” Thus, unless a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government can be established early in the question to justify them, such questions can be and indeed have been ruled out of order by successive Speakers. I discovered this myself once, when in my early days in the opposition a question of mine was ruled out of order by Speaker Milliken. As always, however, the Speaker faces many challenges in applying the rules the House has set out.

Any time a speaker rules a question out of order, the member concerned will claim a legitimate reason for asking it: will claim that it is in the public interest, will claim it is something that Canadians have a right to know, will claim that there is no longer a distinction between acting as party leader and leading the party in the House, and the list goes on. [ Translation ] But the Speaker must adhere to the longstanding principle that question period is intended to hold the government to account.

I have to look at whether the matter concerns a government department, or a minister who is exercising ministerial functions, as a minister of the Crown, and not just as a political figure or as a member of a political party.

The Speaker must ask whether the question was actually touching upon those types of government responsibilities, or whether it was about elections or party finances or some other subject unrelated to the actual administrative responsibilities of the government. [ English ] These principles apply to everyone who gets an opportunity to pose questions in question period, including backbench members of the governing party.

Indeed, because the fundamental purpose of question period is to provide a forum for the legislative branch to hold the executive to account, it is meant to be an opportunity—for those government members fortunate enough to get the floor—to ask probing questions of the government on matters that fall within its administrative responsibilities. That said, it is not surprising to hear what might be called “friendly” questions from these members, since they are, after all, supporters of the government. However, lately we have witnessed a growing trend: we hear

preambles to questions that go on at some length to criticize the position, statements, or actions of other parties, members from other parties, and in some cases even private citizens before concluding with a brief question about the government's policies. What we have, therefore, is an example of a hybrid question, one in which the

preamble is on a subject that has nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the government but which concludes in the final five or ten seconds with a query that in a technical sense manages to relate to the government's administrative responsibilities. The House needs to ask itself if, taken as a whole, such a question—a lengthy

preamble and a desultory query—can reasonably be assumed by a listener to respect the principles that govern question period. I would submit that it is because this formulation is actually about other parties and their positions, not about the government, that I have had to rule such questions out of order from time to time. [ Translation ] To complicate matters, as I said on December 1, 2011, (Debates, p. 3875), the Speaker is called upon to make decisions about the admissibility of questions on the fly.

In that regard, since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. [ English ] Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible. [ Translation ] With this approach in mind, let me turn now to the issue of answers to questions.

There has been much discussion recently about the nature of answers during question period, with calls for the Speaker to somehow intervene, citing practices in other countries. [ English ] It is true that there may be slight differences in the way question period is managed elsewhere due to each country's unique set of traditions, but it is equally without doubt a widespread practice and tradition in Westminster-style parliament that the Chair does not judge the quality or relevance of answers.

For instance, it states on page 565 in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand , third edition, that: While Ministers are required to “address” the question asked in their replies, whether the reply provided actually “answers” the question asked is a subjective judgment.

It is no part of the Speaker's role to make such a judgment. [ Translation ] In South Africa, a similar practice prevails and, according to the National Assembly Guide to Procedure , 2004, on page 211, “the Chair regulates the proceedings in the House, (but) it is not possible for the Chair to dictate to Ministers how they should reply to questions”. [ English ] In the United Kingdom, Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament , 24th edition, at page 356 states: The Speaker's responsibility in regard to questions is limited to their compliance with the rules of the House.

Responsibility in other respects rests with the Member who proposes to ask the question, and responsibility for answers rests with Ministers. Each parliament has its own traditions. Successive speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that.

For me to deviate from this long-standing practice would require an invitation from the House, probably stemming from a review of our rules by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [ Translation ] Given the widespread concern and commentary about question period, all members may want to consider how the House can improve things so that observers can at least agree that question period presents an exchange of views and provides some information.

The onus is on all members to raise the quality of both questions and answers. [ English ] While the framework, mechanisms, and procedures associated with question period have evolved with time, its raison d'être and core principles have remained intact.

All members, both in government and in opposition, need to ask themselves: Is question period a forum that Canadians can look at and conclude that it constitutes a proper use of members' time? [ Translation ] The principle of responsible government is that the government has to provide an accounting for where the money goes and to provide reasons for why decisions are made.

In the Chair’s view, it takes a partnership between the opposition and the government to demonstrate a willingness to elevate the tone, elevate the substance, and make sure that question period is being used to do the job that we were elected to do, which is to represent our constituents, advance ideas, and hold the government to account. [ English ] In conclusion, I will continue to rule questions out of order that do not establish a direct link to the administrative responsibilities of the government.

In the same sense, so-called hybrid questions will also continue to risk being ruled out of order when this link is not quickly demonstrated. Members should take care when formulating their questions and establish this link as soon as possible in posing their questions to ensure that the Chair does not rule what may be a legitimate question out of order. The onus is on all members to raise the quality of questions and answers during question period. The Chair notes with interest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been instructed to undertake a review of the Standing Orders.

As the servant to the House, the Chair will endeavour to implement any changes to the Standing Orders or to question period that the House chooses to adopt. I thank all hon. members for their attention to this important matter.

(1020) Privilege Letter to the Hon. Member for Terrebonne—Blaineville—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville on December 9. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the question, as well as the hon. House leader of the official opposition and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville has shared with the House her view that a letter widely distributed by Senator Dagenais has unjustly impugned her character and reputation. She also decried what she described as the belittling, sexist, misogynistic, personal, and hostile tone of the letter. Finally, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice , she called on me to find a prima facie question of privilege on the grounds that this attack on her reputation constituted an impediment to her ability to perform her parliamentary functions.

The Chair is of course cognizant that these sorts of communications, whatever their origin, always have the potential to be hurtful and damaging, but the Chair is also obliged to assess such situations in the light of parliamentary precedent.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 109, contains a passage that illustrates that a direct link must exist between the situation giving rise to the complaint and the ability of members to perform their parliamentary functions: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.

In some cases where prima facie privilege has not been found, the rulings have focused on whether or not the parliamentary functions of the Member were directly involved. (1025) [ Translation ] In the current case, the member herself cited a ruling by Speaker Fraser that stresses the importance of the link to the performance of parliamentary functions and distinguishes between statements made in the House and statements made outside. Clearly, the communication which has given rise to this situation did not occur on the floor of the House, and so the normal channels remain available to the member.

Speaker Milliken, in a ruling given in February 2009, said as much. There are, in fact, many Speakers’ rulings in a similar vein, as has been noted. Without minimizing the seriousness of the complaint or dismissing the response by the hon. member, it is difficult for the Chair to determine, given the nature of what has occurred, that the member is unable to carry out her parliamentary duties as a result.

Accordingly, the Chair must conclude that there is no prima facie question of privilege. [ English ] That being said, as the member herself has pointed out, she has the same recourse as any other citizen faced with attacks on her reputation or attacks she considers defamatory. That is a decision she will have to make. In the meantime, the Chair is constrained by the many precedents that establish that a direct link with parliamentary functions is essential in such cases. I thank the House for its attention.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Canada Post Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) moved: Motion 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. She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . Instead of mailing out a holiday greeting card to brighten the lives of Canadians in December, the government sent a grim and dismal message.

It allowed the CEO of Canada Post to announce a five-point plan to disaster. It is a plan that includes slashing services to over five million Canadians while hiking up prices, cutting jobs, and harming the economy. It is a plan that will hurt not only ordinary Canadians but small businesses and even major corporations as well. On Friday the National Association of Major Mail Users met in my riding of Trinity—Spadina in Toronto. These are major corporations and businesses such as Canadian Tire. They too rely on Canada Post. They too are calling on the government to set aside this destructive plan.

They will be hit hard by the outrageous 15% increase on bulk mailing, which means higher prices for lower service. Their mailings will no longer go door-to-door to their prime customers in densely populated urban areas. That will directly affect their profits, and it will directly affect the price they must charge consumers to protect their profits. It will make them less competitive. Consumers will be hurt and business will be hurt, but will Canada Post gain? Probably not, because business will resort to other ways to reach their customers, and Canada Post revenues will die.

Again, it is a five-point plan to disaster. Here are the words of Kathleen Rowe, president of the National Association of Major Mail Users: Transaction Mail is 50 per cent of Canada Post’s revenue, and large volume users are over 80 per cent of that. An accelerated migration forced by conditions imposed by Canada Post means small and medium business will suffer from even greater increases on this as well as the many competitive products of Canada Post. This is a lose-lose scenario. That is what the National Association of Major Mail Users said: it is a lose-lose.

Urban seniors and people with mobility issues said it is a lose-lose. Hundreds and thousands of people have been able to live in dignity in their own homes, but without mail service, they will be vulnerable. Therefore, it is a lose-lose situation for them. They deserve better. The CEO keeps saying he is looking for robust services for seniors. I think he believes that all seniors are robust people themselves, or at least will become so when they have to hobble out on icy sidewalks in sub-zero weather like today to collect their pension cheques from a community mailbox in some back alley.

I invite him to come to my neighbourhood to see how people would manage. My mother and thousands like her would say it is a lose-lose. That is what Canadian families are saying as they face an increase of over 50% in the price of stamps, as ordinary Canadians are hit with the highest increases in this mockery of a plan. Mail will become an unaffordable luxury. That is a lose-lose situation. That is what charities and small businesses also say.

That is what people living in cities like Toronto, Ottawa, Halifax, and Vancouver are saying from coast to coast in cities where there is no convenient room to start building and securing community mailboxes. That is what people living in remote regions and rural areas are saying as they see post office hours cut back and a few post offices even closed. These are people who stay connected by mail and who need it for everything from medicine to school supplies to electronics.

(1030) That is what police said, who are concerned about protecting the security of community mailboxes and protecting against fraud in urban neighbourhoods. They say it is a lose-lose situation. Also, that is what postal workers said, whose efforts have enabled Canada Post to earn a profit in 16 of the last 17 years. It is a lose-lose situation. There is only one tiny group of winners in this five-point plan to disaster, and that is the CEO of Canada Post and his 22 vice-presidents. He is earning over $0.5 million and a 33% bonus. Wow, he is the winner.

They think they can get away with this travesty because the government is turning a blind eye. However, the Prime Minister and the minister will surely win nothing by following this course. They may use their majority to defeat a motion and allow this disastrous plan to stand, but in the next election they will truly understand the meaning of “lose-lose”. The current government must be held to account. That is the purpose of this motion today. However, it does not have to be a lose-lose situation. I spoke to the major mail users on Friday, and I noted that there are so many opportunities.

If we look at other models around the world—other models in the G7 where every country still provides door-to-door delivery in urban areas while facing the same challenges as Canada Post—we see there is an excellent business case for the return of postal banking, providing services and meeting needs not met by the traditional banking sector. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, one million Canadians do not have banking services. They rely on payday loan companies such as Money Mart to access funds and are paying enormously high interest rates.

France's La Banque Postale, New Zealand's Kiwibank and Switzerland's PostFinance all provide banking services and thus increase their profit and revenue. There is no reason why Canada Post cannot consider doing the same. This would mean competitive new banking services for Canadians, giving diversity of choice and reaching people who fall through the cracks. At the same time, it would generate revenue and stability that would boost and strengthen Canada Post and support our postal services. Why is the government not looking at this? It works in other countries.

I do not mean just postal banking, but truly innovative approaches to support e-commerce, not the half-baked plan provided by the CEO of Canada Post. Why would Canada choose failure rather than success? We can strengthen and expand our postal services, rather than slashing them and letting them bleed. Canadians deserve a win-win proposition from this House and from Canada Post, from the current government. Let us deliver. Let us pass my motion and move forward.

(1035) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with some interest here. If they want to look at what international examples there are, since the member raised a few, they will see that in the EU they are fully competitive and have no postal monopoly. Many are privatized. Many slashed their workforces by up to 40%, and they have expanded franchise counters significantly. Canada Post has not even proposed doing most of those things. However, I do have a question on postal banking, which she raised as a possible solution.

In the example of New Zealand, the post office created the bank there and then had to capitalize the bank out of postal revenues to the tune of about $360 million. Sure, while Kiwibank may be profitable, in the end New Zealand just announced it is slashing service delivery, closing post offices and, as a result, laying off about 1,000 postal workers. Is that the example the member is thinking of? Can the member tell us, since the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives could not, who will capitalize a postal bank? How much capitalization will come out of postal revenues?

Does she think Canada Post can afford to create a bank? Ms. Olivia Chow : Mr. Speaker, let us talk about our postal service and Kiwibank. I have the information here. Canada Post is proposing to slash 4,000 jobs. This is just for Canada Post. In addition, the hike of 15% in bulk purchasing price will result in the laying off of workers in small and medium-sized businesses. It said so itself. In New Zealand the bank made an after-tax profit of $79 million for the year ending June 30, 2012, 276% more than 2011, when it made $21.1 million. It is extremely profitable. The government refuses to look at other examples.

It is not just New Zealand. There is Italy, France's Banque Postale, Switzerland and all of them, which are post financed. The postal banking in Switzerland started in the 1900s and, in fact, has a workforce of 22,000 employees and is the second largest employer in Switzerland. Here is a model of success and, instead, the Conservatives want failure.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last December we heard from the government through Canada Post that its intentions are to implement significant slashbacks to prevent mail delivery. This is at a time at which we have an incredible workforce within Canada Post, whether they are letter carriers, mail distributors, sorters or so forth. It was interesting to listen to the previous question, in which the member seemed to say that we should be looking at huge slashes in the post office.

When I look at it, the government's response to all the slashing and the cutbacks at Canada Post seems to be that seniors will get more exercise. That seems to be the logic that the government or Canada Post was using. How bizarre. My question to the member is this. Could she maybe expand upon her comment with regard to the 22 vice-presidents now in Canada Post? What does she think they do?

(1040) Ms. Olivia Chow : Mr. Speaker, I am not sure precisely what the 22 vice-presidents do, but I know what Canadians want. There was a poll recently that said close to two out of every three respondents—which is 63%—to a Stratcom poll supported Canada Post expanding revenue-generating services, including financial services like bill payments, insurance and banking. They want expanded service, not slashing, burning, increasing fees, hiking rates and killing jobs. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the unending saga of the Conservatives as they continue to lay waste to public services is sadly unfolding before our eyes. This time, it is our postal services that are the target of their ideology. Let us look a little more closely at the magical and extraordinarily brilliant plan that has been concocted to—as they put it—“save” Canada Post and guarantee its future. First, thousands of good jobs will be eliminated. Second, services to the public and businesses will be cut. Third, costs are going to jump 15%. This is quite a recipe for success.

In the private sector, this would certainly work very well; therefore, there can be no doubt that these measures will ensure the success of our postal services in the future! What is the justification for all these cuts that are affecting our fellow citizens, as well as our SMEs? Canada Post is said to be on the verge of collapse; ruin is just around the corner. If we do nothing, disaster will befall and we will have to cut everything. The Minister of Infrastructure was making alarmist comments yesterday on CBC radio.

He went as far as saying that Canada Post is now losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and if nothing was done, the losses would amount to one billion dollars per year. Let us get back to the facts. Canada Post has been profitable for 16 of the last 17 years. That is not bad. During that period, it accumulated $1.7 billion in profits. That is not a disaster; things are not that bad. In 2012, the Canada Post Group of Companies had profits of $127 million, while the Canada Post sector made $98 million. The only year in the last 17 that showed a loss was 2011. Well, what did the Conservatives do in 2011?

They locked out the employees of Canada Post. That, of course, does not help generate revenue. The year 2011 was rather exceptional, because Canada Post was also obliged to make pay equity payments. That is a good thing, because we are in favour of pay equity, but it is not representative. This was a one-time expense. Yes, mail volume is down, but parcels are up. Yes, there are more online purchases, but that does not mean there is less mail. There are fewer letters, but if a consumer buys a Christmas present for their child online, the package still has to be delivered to their home.

That is what Canada Post is there for. There are ways of investing in what works best, that is to say parcels, and also in the online services Canada Post has begun to offer. The idea is that we should be looking for new ways of generating new revenue. We should not dismantle a public service that Canadians value and rely on. They confront us with the Conference Board of Canada study, but it is based solely on the only year in the past seventeen that showed a loss, namely 2011. In our view, this is not representative, and the billion-dollar loss expected in 2020 is not a sure thing.

On the contrary, we would do well to look at Canada Post’s successes over the last 17 years and decide to focus on new kinds of revenue. For example, banking services are a significant part of the solution. I would like to point out that, by the remotest of chances, the CEO of Canada Post is on the board of directors of the Conference Board of Canada. There is every appearance of a slight conflict of interest. Other studies point to a better future for Canada Post, with no need for drastic cuts. I will come back to that. We are talking about the possible elimination of 8,000 jobs. That is no small thing.

That is 8,000 good jobs that will not be available for our young people who will soon be on the job market. It is a hard blow for our communities. Those 8,000 jobs at $50,000 a year represent a loss for our communities of $400 million in terms of payroll. That will hurt our businesses, our cities and our villages. With regard to the impact on service, if the Conservatives go through with their plan, 5 million Canadians will no longer enjoy home delivery of their mail. That is huge. According to Canada Post, this is not that serious, because already, two-thirds of Canadians do not receive their mail at home.

That depends on how you juggle the numbers. Again, we can set the record straight.

(1045) Canada Post now considers that if you live in an apartment block, with a little mailbox in the lobby, you do not have home delivery. That is the case for most of the homes in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for example. This means that if you are inside your building and you go downstairs to get your mail in the morning, you are not deemed to have home delivery because the mail did not come directly to your door. Canada Post includes you in the group that does not get home delivery, which is rather absurd. My brother lives in Saint-Antoine-sur-Richelieu, by a concession road.

His house is some distance back from the road, with of course a mailbox at the side of the road. Again, that is not regarded as home delivery, because the letter carrier does not come to the door. So you can make numbers say many things. In fact, two thirds of Canadians and of Quebeckers currently receive their mail at home, and these people will be deprived of an important service. This is going to cause problems for seniors. We live in a northern country. Freezing rain, ice and snow banks are commonplace. It is not true that all seniors will be able to get out every day to get their mail.

They will be cut off from this contact. People with reduced mobility are worried. How can we ensure that these people get the essential information and mail that they need? The Advocacy Center for the Elderly, FADOQ, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities have all voiced their concern about this reform. The reform will also have a negative impact on SMEs, as well as on charities, which hold a mail-out fundraising campaign every December. Their mailing costs will jump by 15%. Here in Ottawa, the Ottawa Food Bank has expressed its concern.

Even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is wondering how its members will cope. If Canada Post goes ahead with its plan to dismantle postal services, Canada will be the only G7 country that does not have door-to-door mail delivery. I am sorry, but that is not really something to be proud of. [ English ] Canadians like their postal service. They appreciate this public service, this link with the rest of the community. Citizens do not want to scrap 8,000 good jobs for our youth. We do not need to cut services. Right now, seniors are worried. People with disabilities are worried.

It is not Deepak Chopra's bad joke about the benefits of taking a walk for exercise that will reassure them. Canada Post has challenges, but there is no reason to panic. In the last 17 years it has generated profits for 16 years. In that period it has made more than $1.7 billion, which is not too bad. For the future we need to seek new revenues for Canada Post. Why not look at banking services like a few countries already have, countries like the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, or Brazil? People know which side NDP members are on.

We are on the side of seniors, small businesses, charities and ordinary citizens. Let me guess that Conservatives are on the side of the president and the 22 vice-presidents of Canada Post who are paid more than $10 million per year. We are on the side of postal workers and young people of this country who are looking for a good job. (1050) [ Translation ] The Canada Post reform that has been presented will create a serious mess. Canada Post is making things up as it goes along. It is true that the community boxes Canada Post is proposing to set up everywhere work fairly well in new residential neighbourhoods.

Why? Because things were planned that way. The community boxes were a result of consideration and planning. In densely populated urban areas, such as Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie, such a thing would be practically impossible. I have a very simple question for my Conservative friends. Where are they going to put these boxes? They need to come to the corner of Beaubien and Christophe-Colomb and show me where they are going to put these community boxes. That is why the City of Montreal is opposed to the changes proposed by Canada Post and has already passed a resolution in this regard.

What Canada Post needs is new revenues. Sixty-three percent of Canadians agree with that option, which already exists. Japan Post Bank is the world's largest savings bank, with $2.15 trillion—that is $2,000 billion—in deposits in Japan's postal system. New Zealand set up a postal banking system called Kiwibank, which is the largest New-Zealand-owned bank. Kiwibank generates 70% of the profits from this public service. In Italy, postal banking services generate 67% of Poste Italiane's profits. In Switzerland, PostFinance generates 71% of Swiss postal revenue.

A 2005 Library of Parliament report supported the idea of having Canada Post establish banking services and said that they should exist. Three of Canada Post's former presidents agree. If the Conservatives want to save this public service and avoid privatization, Canada Post needs new tools and new revenue. Post offices should offer banking services.

[ English ] Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the previous two members describe the situation of losing door-to-door service. As they mentioned in their speeches, a third of Canadians currently do not have door-to-door delivery. In his speech, the member talked about it being planned and it therefore being okay for the person who is disabled and for the senior in the new development who wants to own a new home. The question I am driving at here is what is this advocacy really for? Is it to increase door-to-door delivery for every Canadian?

I ask because for decades, in certain communities, and especially that of the member for Trinity—Spadina , new developments have had communal mailboxes. They work because neighbours, communities, and organizations recognize the need of seniors and the disabled and take care of them within the community. It happens right now for a third of Canadians. I wonder what this is all about. Is this all about supporting the big militant union that Canada Post has? Or is it about Canadians who, when they buy a new home, currently go to the communal mailbox and take care of their seniors and disabled neighbours?

I know that because I have a son who is in that situation. I ask you, what is this really about? The Deputy Speaker : I would ask all members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair, not to other members of Parliament. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, it is about preserving good public services. That is what it is all about. [ Translation ] According to the Conservatives' logic, if one-third of Canadians do not have home delivery, then it is only fair that no one get home delivery. That way, everyone is equal.

Just because people do not have home delivery does not mean that things are perfect and that the community is well served. We are saying that we need to look ahead, to the future, and ensure that Canada Post is financially viable. I would like to talk about banking services. For more than a century after Confederation, banking was part of Canada's postal services. From 1867 to 1968, post offices offered banking services. In 1908, there was $47 million in deposits, which is the equivalent of $1 billion today.

It should be noted that the regulations governing post office savings accounts are still part of the legislation. We would not even need to make any legislative changes to exercise that option and move forward. (1055) [ English ] Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I just came back, as we all did, from visits in my constituency. I held town hall meetings in eight locations and had over 1,300 constituents come. At every single meeting, the question of losing postal service and what is happening to Canada Post came up everywhere.

People are desperately concerned that they are going to lose the ability to get their mail at home . For those members across the way, it is true that some places have community boxes, as it is, but many of my constituents are looking at these changes and cutbacks in other areas. For instance, Fulford Harbour is losing some its hours within Salt Spring Island. Canadians deserve postal service.

Could the member expand on the excellent point he made that in other countries, postal services are diversifying to remain competitive, that there is more than one model of cutbacks and higher stamp prices to be able to have a viable postal service. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : 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? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

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

(1100) 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.

(1105) 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. (1110) [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : 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? Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : 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.

(1115) Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : 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? Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : 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?

(1120) Hon. Lisa Raitt : 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. Mr.

David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : 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.

(1125) 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. (1130) [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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?

(1135) 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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....

(1140) 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. Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : 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? Mr. David McGuinty : 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. (1145) [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : 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? Mr. David McGuinty : 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. [ English ] Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : 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?

(1150) Mr. David McGuinty : 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. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : 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.

(1155) 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.

(1200) 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. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : 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? Ms. Niki Ashton : 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.

(1205) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : 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? Ms. Niki Ashton : 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. [ Translation ] Mr.

Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : 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.

(1210) 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.

(1215) 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. [ English ] Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : 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. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : 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?

(1220) Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : 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? Mr. Guy Caron : 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. [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : 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