THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: To support the smooth operations of committee proceedings, the following guidelines should be observed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback. Consult the cards placed on the committee table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep earpieces away from microphones at all times. Microphones must not be touched. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Avoid handling your earpieces while the microphone is active. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat.
I thank you all for your cooperation before we start. The reason for the hyperbole was because we had some issues a few months ago, and we want to make sure that we protect everyone who participates in this process.
My name is Larry Smith. I’m a senator for Quebec and chair of the committee. I’d like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves in the new year of 2026.
Senator Simons: I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, and I reside on Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Wilson: Good morning. Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Good morning. Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Hello. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: I’d like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening to us online on the Senate website, sencanada.ca.
We’re meeting today to continue our study on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1.
Today we’ll hear from witnesses specifically on Division 2, which relates to the Canada Post Corporation Act.
With that, I would like to introduce our first panel from Canada Post, Carrie Chisholm, Vice-President, Product Management and Customer Experience; and from Public Service and Procurement Canada, Lorenzo Ieraci, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Planning and Communications.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, and I would ask you to please adhere to that time, because we have much to discuss this morning. It will be followed by question-and-answer sessions with senators. I will now invite Ms. Chisholm to give her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Carrie Chisholm, Vice-President, Product Management and Customer Experience, Canada Post: Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for inviting Canada Post to appear today. I’m pleased to participate in today’s discussion on Bill C-51 as it relates to Canada Post.
My name is Carrie Chisholm, and I am Vice-President, Product Management and Customer Experience at Canada Post.
[English]
I very much look forward to answering your questions today.
First, I would like to acknowledge that Bill C-15 includes the intent to remove Canada Post requirements to reduce postage rates for eligible library material as well as free mailings for people who are partially sighted or blind. However, I would like to make it clear that we have no intentions of changing these services. These are longstanding commitments that we’ll continue to honour, and we are proud to do so.
Today I’m here to focus on the provision in the bill that focuses on the rate-setting process for Canada Post. This would allow Canada Post greater flexibility to establish its regulated letter mail rates. I would like to stress that this change would not apply to parcels or direct marketing services. It would only apply to those regulatory rates. It’s also a change for which we’ve long advocated.
Over the last 20 years, the mailing industry has completely changed. In 2006 we delivered over 5.5 billion letters. Today it’s barely half of that, and the cost of delivering these letters is no longer supported by the revenue we receive from letter mail. The situation has significantly added to our financial pressures, which you all know are very substantial. Since 2018 Canada Post has incurred more than $5.5 billion in operating losses. Last year we required a $1-billion cash injection from the government to simply stay afloat. As of 2025, our year-end losses will also be significant.
Despite these challenges, the problems facing Canada Post are not insurmountable. They are fixable. Having reached tentative agreements with our largest unions in December, as well as with the government’s announcement in September to lift some heavy regulatory barriers, we can start to turn a new corner, and amending the letter mail pricing process can only play a key role in this turnaround.
As proposed in Bill C-15, greater flexibility over letter mail pricing would enable us to align our mail business with the modern postal needs of Canadians. This would mean that the service of delivering letters could be done to cover their own costs and reduce the need for taxpayer support. In addition, a more streamlined process would significantly cut red tape. For example, today it takes upwards of nine months to adjust pricing, and it is a cumbersome process. It exacts a heavy administrative toll on multiple government departments, decision makers and agencies. These are all reasons why changing the process was among the list of recommendations in last year’s Industrial Inquiry Commission report, and it’s why we have included it in our transformation plan, which is currently under review by the government.
I want to add that when it comes to changing the pricing process, we fully support checks and balances. We know Canadians and Canadian businesses are facing rising costs. We recognize that the price needs to be fair, and we need to continue providing good value. We are looking to work with the government to create a clear process that would ensure transparency, proper notification to all stakeholders and evidence-based justification for any increases.
[Translation]
In closing, as you know, Canada Post has a dual mandate to deliver to all Canadian addresses while remaining financially self-sustaining. Every change we are making is about getting back to this mandate — and ensuring that the postal service remains accessible and affordable for everyone.
[English]
In closing, as you know, Canada Post has a duel mandate to deliver to all Canadian addresses as well as remain financially self-sustaining. Every change we’re making is about getting back to this mandate and ensuring the postal service remains accessible and affordable to everyone. Thank you to the committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chisholm.
I now invite Mr. Ieraci to make his opening remarks.
[English]
Lorenzo Ieraci, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Planning and Communications, Public Service and Procurement Canada: Good morning. I would like to acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Peoples.
Canada Post is part of the portfolio of the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, and Public Services and Procurement Canada supports the minister in discharging portfolio responsibilities.
Mr. Chair, before I address the proposed amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act, I will briefly outline the broader situation regarding Canada Post.
Canada Post is required to be self-sustaining on a financial basis. However, the corporation is in a critical financial position, reporting cumulative operating losses exceeding $5.5 billion since 2018.
In the first nine months of 2025, Canada Post reported losses before taxes of nearly $1 billion, setting it on track to record an annual loss significantly larger than any in its history. Its financial situation prompted a $1.034-billion cash injection in 2025 to prevent the corporation from becoming insolvent, as was mentioned by my colleague.
Canada Post’s financial decline stems from decreasing volumes: more specifically, shrinking letter mail volumes, which are down 70% since 2006; lost parcel market share, down from 62% in 2019 to 24% in 2024; and an organizational structure that no longer matches its revenue and demand.
[Translation]
In September 2025, the government accepted the recommendations of the Industrial Inquiry Commission, led by William Kaplan. The commission found Canada Post to be effectively insolvent and called for fundamental reforms, including amending letter service standards, ending the moratorium on community mailbox conversions, and modernizing the 1994 rural moratorium.
[English]
The Industrial Inquiry Commission also recommended amending the “. . . time-consuming approval process for postage increases.” In order to address this recommendation, the government is proposing amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act to remove the need for Order-in-Council approval of postage rates and related terms.
The current process for setting stamp rates was described in the Industrial Inquiry Commission report as not only time-consuming but also as cumbersome.
[Translation]
While this change would provide Canada Post with greater autonomy when it comes to rate setting, the corporation will still be required to ensure rates are fair, reasonable, publicly available and sufficient to cover costs. This is in line with existing principles in the Canada Post Corporation Act. The proposal supports the government’s commitment to deregulate stamp rates and reduce regulatory red tape.
[English]
I would now like to specifically address concerns around our currently free and discounted services.
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendments are administrative in nature and not changes in policy direction, nor to the provision of specific services. Canada Post has provided free postage for material used by people who are blind since 1898 as part of its obligation under the Universal Postal Convention. That convention acted as a safeguard before the Canada Post Corporation Act existed and will continue to do so after the proposed amendments.
Similarly, the library book rate has existed since 1939, long before amendments concerning library materials were made to the Canada Post Corporation Act in 2013. Canada Post will continue to deliver materials free of postage through its Literature for the Blind program, as well as providing reduced rates for postage for library materials.
The government’s expectations regarding free and discounted services will continue to be reinforced through appropriate ministerial oversight, alongside the annual process of Treasury Board review and approval of Canada Post’s corporate plan.
[Translation]
The amendments under discussion today are part of the government’s wider commitment to reducing red tape while supporting services for Canadians.
[English]
In no way, shape or form do the amendments change the commitment to continue to provide free materials to persons who are blind, nor does it change the commitment to libraries. I would be happy to take your questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ieraci.
We will now move on to the senators’ questions.
[English]
Before we do that, I would like to acknowledge the presence today in our gallery of Barbara Reynolds, training coordinator of Senate Administration staff. They’re here to see how committees function. Welcome.
Moving on, senators, we have approximately five minutes for each question for the first round. We’ll have a second round if time permits. I would like to invite Senator Dasko, our deputy chair, to ask the first question.
Senator Dasko: Happy New Year to everyone.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. This is a very interesting presentation. We all grew up with Canada Post and mail delivery every day and all of that, but we are all aware of the serious issues over the last few years. Everybody is aware of the $5.5 billion losses that you’ve sustained.
You have a goal of being self-sustaining but also maintaining fair prices. What is the fiscal goal? Have you set a goal to achieve X amount of revenue or X amount of losses by a certain year? Have you set a goal, whatever it may be? I’d be very interested in that.
Also, please tell us your main strategies toward achieving that goal. Have you determined in which areas of service you can raise prices? If so, can you share that with us? Are there any other important factors or considerations or decisions that you’ve made in terms of your strategy to get there?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you very much for the question. As you acknowledged and as my colleague and I both said, we do have a double mandate at Canada Post to remain financially self‑sustaining but, as well, to make sure we maintain a national and affordable postal service. As you also acknowledged, we’ve had seven consecutive years of operating losses since 2018, the most notable being $1.3 billion in 2024.
Providing Canada Post with greater flexibility and autonomy to empower the corporation will allow us to adjust our services to the evolving needs of Canadians.
Our infrastructure is built on a national network. We service nationally, and we’re proud to do so. The way that our operations are structured today means that the costs incurred to move letter mail in different places are quite cumbersome and expensive as well. Between the potential opportunity for us to adjust our regulatory letter mail rate process, as well as the other provisions that the government outlined in September for us, those will help us to adjust our pricing structure to offer services that are more in line with what Canadians expect.
We have included the regulatory reform of regulated rates, so, again, not parcels and not our direct-marketing services, as part of our transformation plan that was submitted to the government in November of last year. That plan continues to be reviewed. Once the plan has been endorsed by the government, we will be pleased to give more details about what’s included in there, the timeline for returning to financial self-sustainability and the strategies to achieve the different parts of the transformation, including the rate increases as well as some of the other ones that my colleague noted, such as community mailboxes and the rural moratorium.
Senator Dasko: So you have set a goal; you just can’t share it with us. Is that it?
Ms. Chisholm: We have submitted a transformation plan.
Senator Dasko: You have determined ways that you’re hoping to achieve the goal in terms of expecting increased revenue? You have decided those; you just can’t share it with us?
Ms. Chisholm: That’s correct. We have submitted a transformation plan that covers a number of facets, not just the regulated letter mail rates. It’s also in response to the government announcement last fall with respect to community mailboxes, the rural moratorium and other announcements that came, but that whole plan is all inclusive of one and the other and has been submitted. It does include what the financial outlook would look like with those strategies in place.
Senator Dasko: Is the goal to achieve no support from the government? Is that an actual goal? Is that a sustainable and realistic goal? That is what I mean.
Ms. Chisholm: My apologies. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. It is our mandate. We have the double mandate to continue to serve Canadians, as well as to be financially self-sustaining. Our goal is to return to financial self-sustainability and not rely on taxpayer support to keep us going. As Mr. Ieraci mentioned and I mentioned as well, we did require a billion-dollar cash injection last year to simply keep us afloat. This transformation plan, as well as the regulatory changes that are included within it, are meant to help us return to that double mandate.
Senator Lewis: Thanks for appearing this morning. We look at Canada; it’s a large country. It costs a lot more to send a letter to a rural post box in my province of Saskatchewan or to a northern community, let’s say, than it does to an urban setting. As part of the plan or as you look forward, will there be variable rates for letters? Is that part of what you’re looking at?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you very much for the question. Today, the stamp prices are nationally priced. We do not have variable pricing as it relates to provinces or regions. We do have it for our competitive products, like direct-marketing services and our parcel products.
The costing today, with respect to overarching costs now compared to the revenue we receive, is because it’s a national network, as well as having a requirement to deliver within a two‑three-four business day delivery standard.
Having to move mail from one province to the other. If you’re going from B.C. all the way out to Newfoundland, meeting the two-three-four delivery standard requires us to move products by air, which is obviously more expensive. At this point in time, we have included within our transformation plan how a regulatory rating process would help us in moving it, but we have not been discussing any type of variable rating for regulatory letter mail products at this time.
Senator Lewis: Maybe you’re looking at a different stamp, like air mail, for instance, instead of just a common stamp? Would that be an example of something that might be in the future?
Ms. Chisholm: Not at this time. We’re looking at bringing the costs of our network in line with the cost of delivering a stamp. As I mentioned, we do fly letter mail products to different parts of the country to be able to achieve a two, three, four delivery standard. As part of the announcement in the fall from our minister, adjusting our delivery standards to a three to seven day window, by being able to reduce the need to meet a two-three-four day requirement, we can move products from the air to the ground, which has substantial cost savings from an operational standpoint. It also benefits in terms of our net-zero goals for greenhouse gas emissions, or GHG, because we’re not flying any more products; we’re moving it to the ground.
In terms of offering a letter mail product to the air and things like that, we have other competitive products that would be for the air for more of a speed-based approach. This is still looking at national transportation of it, and it’s just looking for ways to right side the costing of our operation in line with the cost of the service.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: I notice that, for our next panel, we have people who represent libraries and blind Canadians, and those are two aspects of the bill that I was quite interested in. You spoke a little bit about what the intent was with respect to materials for the blind, but could you please elaborate a bit more in terms of why we should feel secure that that service will continue?
Secondly, with interlibrary exchanges, obviously, we’re having this conversation because Canada Post is not flush, but neither are small community libraries, particularly in rural areas, so I’d like to understand what kind of assurance can this committee take that there will be some kind of provision for those services into the future with the repeal of those sections?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the questions. In response to the two questions in terms of why we should feel secure and what assurances can be provided, I would say two things. First, as was mentioned, the reason for the changes to the Canada Post Corporation Act is to remove the need for regulatory approval of changes to stamp rates, as was mentioned by my colleague at Canada Post. That process takes a fairly substantive amount of time, and again, I encourage people to read William Kaplan’s report, which identified it as being a cumbersome system and approach.
Because of the fact that we’re removing the requirement for order-in-council approvals, there are, just in the way that legislation is set up, of course, certain elements that are no longer needed afterwards if that no longer is the case. That’s the reason why there are a couple of clauses that are being removed from the act. That is to ensure that the act, of course, works consistently as a document and that there’s not overlap or duplication, and to be able to simplify and streamline the act.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, these programs were in place before the Canada Post Corporation Act was created, and will exist thereafter. I note that there have been concerns raised about the fact that these clauses are being removed from the act, but in no way shape or form do they change the policy direction that is being provided.
In fact, the reason why the clauses were in there was essentially so that if there were changes made through regulations by Canada Post, the orders-in-council would not have to specify every single time what exclusions would have to be applied. So it was originally developed to be able to streamline the process initially, but since we’re removing the entire requirement for regulatory approval, those are going to be removed. I’ve had conversations with many people in the government, and I have not heard a single person indicate that removing the free postage for materials for the blind or reduced rate for library materials has any kind of support whatsoever.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, this is an administrative step to be able to remove red tape associated with stamp rate pricing on a go-forward basis to remove the order-in-council requirements. Despite the fact that Canada Post has been facing financial challenges, which we have been taking about, these programs are absolutely going to continue. The last thing I will add is that, on an annual basis, Canada Post is appropriated $22.2 million by the Government of Canada in order to be able to offset some of the costs associated with some of the programs such as the ones that we’ve just mentioned.
Senator Simons: I want to follow up with Ms. Chisholm. If Canada Post is receiving $22.2 million from the federal government specifically to help underwrite these two programs, specifically the program that provides free access to materials for those with visual impairments, and the program that reduces the cost of shipping library books, what does it cost Canada Post, both net and gross, to provide those services?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you very much for the question. I just want to clarify that the appropriations my colleague spoke to pertain more to literature for the blind and partially sighted. We offer reduced post standing rates for those who are eligible for library materials for intertransfers; however, we do not receive any funds for those. As my colleague mentioned and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, both of these programs are something that we will continue regardless of whether this bill passes. It’s something that is fundamental to Canada Post in servicing Canadians and ensuring that we offer programs that mean that postal services are accessible to all.
In terms of the actual financials for library mail, I believe that the revenue is less than $2 million a year; however, I would be happy to take it away and obtain the exact figure. That is not a problem.
Senator Simons: Everyone understands that Canada Post is under extraordinary economic pressures, but to try to balance Canada Post’s books on the backs of those with disabilities and libraries, especially small rural libraries, would be penny-wise and pound foolish.
My question is this: You have both stated on the record, and it’s going to now be recorded for all time, that you are committed to maintaining these programs. I am sure I’m not alone in having met with library advocates and advocates for those for the visually impaired who say they were not consulted, that they were left out of any discussions or communications about this process, and I think it would be fair to say, based on the volume of mail and phone calls that I have received, that these measures have brought great concern to the library community.
Might it not have been useful to tell them that you had no intention of scrapping this program before, instead of waiting until today?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. The short answer is yes. I will say straightforwardly that throughout the process, as I mentioned, this was viewed as essentially an administrative undertaking with regard to the Canada Post Corporation Act to be able to remove a process that, again, the inquiry commission had described as time-consuming, cumbersome and quite long. So the changes that were made were to remove the requirements for an order-in-council and the subsequent clauses that were impacted by that.
Since there was no change in policy direction or no change in intention, that was simply not — maybe somewhat naively on my part — part of the calculation. When the reactions started to happen, and people were concerned about these clauses being removed, creating a connection to the fact that it might have signalled a change in policy, we’ve been trying to be as up front and clear about it as possible when asked. Hindsight is always 20/20, and yes, I’m sure if we had to do it over again, we would have made sure to communicate it clearly that this was an administrative step to remove red tape, but in no way was that a change in policy direction.
Senator Simons: What we can take from this is that librarians like to read the fine print. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome.
I’d like to follow my colleagues’ lead. According to some stakeholders, paragraph 19(1)g) and subparagraph 19(1)g)(i) of the act provide statutory protections or guarantees with respect to the Free Literature for the Blind program, which allows free postage for items used by blind persons.
By repealing these sections, will these statutory protections or guarantees remain in the act? Would the Materials for the Use of the Blind Regulations also be repealed? Based on your response, beyond your good intentions and what you are announcing, what guarantee can you give stakeholders that these services will indeed be maintained, but in connection with the legislative proposal? Thank you.
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for these questions, Mr. Chair.
To answer your questions, regarding the first one, as I mentioned, the changes to the act are really intended to remove the administrative burden and make it possible to implement changes to the price of stamps. Because of how the act is currently worded, before the changes were made, certain categories could be automatically excluded because a change to the price of stamps had been made.
To answer your second question more directly, is there any legislative protection for these programs? The answer is no. That said, as I mentioned, given that the programs existed before the act came into force and will continue to exist afterward, as part of the work that was done to make changes to the process, let’s say that this was not part of the equation. Making changes to the programs, policies, or direction in terms of supporting these programs was never questioned. Are there legislative protections for these programs? The answer is no. That said, since many federal programs benefit many communities, once again, there are no plans to make changes in this area.
Senator Cormier: Am I to understand that this paragraph and this subparagraph offer no statutory protections or guarantees with respect to the continuation of the program? That’s what some stakeholders are saying.
Mr. Ieraci: That’s an excellent question. As you can see, I’m a bit hesitant. I believe that this could potentially be a legal issue in terms of the interpretation of the act and its application.
In my opinion, for example, if the government had made a change and decided to adjust this program — which is not under consideration — I believe that it would have been possible to make adjustments by decree. That said, this may be a legal interpretation. As I am not a lawyer, I would ask for your patience. If you allow me, I can get back to you with a written response.
Senator Cormier: I’d appreciate that very much.
I have a question for Canada Post. You mentioned your good intentions to maintain the program. What can you tell us this morning? I am thinking in particular of Braille Literacy Canada, which asserts that greater flexibility in setting postal rates is compatible with preserving the legislative guarantees found in this paragraph and subparagraph. What can you tell us to reassure these stakeholders?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I completely understand what you’re saying with respect to not having something in the legislation and the perception that it will be no longer part of the services that we offer. As I mentioned and as my colleague mentioned, both the reduced postage rate for library mail as well as free mailings for people who are blind or partially sighted is a program and commitment we will maintain regardless of whether or not this law passes.
Canada Post is a very proud national institution that has a number of offerings that are not enshrined in any law, and they are simply programs that we just feel that — being the national postal infrastructure — we have an opportunity to be able to support Canadians.
Regardless of any sorts of changes related to Bill C-15, we will continue to maintain — reduce postage rates for library mail as well as to maintain services for free postage for blind or partially sighted individuals.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I’m grateful for your response, especially since New Brunswick libraries use your services a lot. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I also had questions about services for blind people. This is very important for libraries. We have heard this from several groups. What I don’t understand is that you probably participated not in the drafting, but in the discussions about what administrative burdens should be removed. Why wasn’t a clause included reaffirming that this service will continue? That’s what we do in legislation.
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question. I hope this will enable me to respond more effectively to the question that was asked a few minutes ago.
The section of the act states that the government may make regulations and essentially provides authorization to allow the free transmission of items for use by blind persons, such as letters, books, magnetic tapes and discs. This means that through regulations, the government has the authority to undertake these activities.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: A regulation is not a legislative text.
Mr. Ieraci: Exactly. Since we need regulations to be able to make price changes, that authority is no longer necessary, because we’re no longer going to be using regulations to make changes to the price of stamps. If the question is why we didn’t include a provision in the act to protect these programs, again, the purpose of the changes was to be able to remove the administrative burden based on the need to have regulations to make changes to stamp prices. The concept of not supporting the programs wasn’t really part of the conversation. Again, that isn’t something I have heard.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I don’t doubt your good faith. However, when that isn’t in an act, people are less trusting.
I’d like to ask you a slightly broader question. I think a stamp currently costs $1.44. You need a lot of money to be independent from the government. Have you studied any other countries to determine whether our prices are actually lower than in other countries? We’re obviously a big country, but when you compare, is our stamp currently too cheap compared with the market? Does that mean we’ll have to quadruple the price? Can we expect a letter that costs $10 to cross Canada?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
In comparison with similar OECD countries, we can see that the price of stamps in Canada is below the average of other countries.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why?
Mr. Ieraci: The price of stamps in Canada has been kept quite low to encourage people to use the Canada Post system and send letters. Canada Post has a monopoly on sending letters in Canada. A number of countries have made changes to the price of stamps. There are vast differences between the member countries of the OECD. The country that most resembles ours in terms of geography and the challenges it faces is Australia. Our prices are more competitive than Australia’s. The price of stamps went up 25% in January of last year. If we look ahead, the question is whether there’s a way to increase the price of stamps while realizing that, on the one hand, this increases the revenue source for Canada Post, and on the other hand, this decreases the number of people who want to use the services, especially when it comes to letters. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the number of letters sent in Canada has decreased dramatically over the past 20 years.
One thing hasn’t been mentioned. Canada Post has an obligation to deliver to more places, homes, buildings and communities as Canada continues to grow. Canada Post has a decrease in volume and an increase in the number of service points where it has to make deliveries. That’s one of the main reasons why it’s in this financial situation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: My questions are going to touch on the topics that have been touched on already.
I want to come back and get a better feel for what Senator Dasko was asking with respect to the overall financial challenge. You’ve clearly outlined that it’s quite a financial challenge.
Of the business that we’re talking about, library materials and mail for the blind and partly disabled vision, what percentage of the business that you touch affects that community?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you for the question. I don’t have the exact percentage, but it would be rather small in both cases. As I mentioned, the exact amount — and I will get it to you, I apologize — is approximately $2 million in postage revenue for library materials, compared to billions of dollars of business. It’s quite small. The exact amount, I would be happy to come back with the exact volume numbers for previous years, to share that with all of you.
Senator Quinn: How do Canada Post rates compare with the private sector, who do similar things? I’m thinking UPS and all those folks out there. How do your rates compare to their rates?
Ms. Chisholm: What we’re talking about right now is regulated letter mail rates.
In terms of what parcel services or direct marketing services such as UPS, FedEx, Purolator or other competitors would have, this is not what’s being proposed in terms of rate-setting changes.
Senator Quinn: If I want to send a letter to Vancouver, I have a choice: I can go to Canada Post or I can send it FedEx. I can write my letter, go to FedEx and say, “I would like to deliver this to that place.” How does that rate compare to your rate?
Ms. Chisholm: Because you would be sending it with our competitors, who would not actually be sending it letter mail, they would be sending it as a parcel product.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
Ms. Chisholm: Their pricing would be based on an origin and destination. So what is the origin of the city it’s being sent to and the destination it’s arriving in? Their pricing would be based on that. It would be more substantial than the price of a letter, but I couldn’t give you the exact amounts.
Senator Quinn: Given the financial challenge that you have, you’ve got a goal that you can’t share, but in achieving whatever that goal may be, I believe it has to be a combination of internal efficiencies, partnerships, perhaps with others, and increased rates: Is that the type of thing that is going to help get Canada Post on a firmer footing?
Ms. Chisholm: Yes. The transformation plan is broader than simply a regulated letter mail change; it also touches on the other elements that were announced by our minister in September of last year. It focuses on how to reduce the operating costs of our network to ensure that it is more effective and efficient in terms of the cost of delivering our products. That is part of the transformation plan, which focuses on reducing our own operating costs.
Senator Quinn: You’ve said that what is happening isn’t going to affect policy. I could argue that the very fact of taking away the gazetting process and the parliamentary review process for the library materials, the ten-year review — ministry reports to parliament — those are fundamental changes in policy, a change in process, but it’s a change in policy.
The policy right now is the minister does a ten-year review, right? The process now is a policy with respect to gazetting. Gazetting gives people notice. I think from what you’ve said, Mr. Ieraci, that there was not a lot of discussion with the stakeholder communities that would be affected by the change.
Even though it’s a small piece of your business, it has a big impact on a very important community that has a reliance on those services. For example, on the gazetting process, we’re going to go to a ministerial letter or something. Something can be changed by the minister with a stroke of a pen versus a gazetting process.
This is like the excise tax for beer, alcohol and spirits. It’s an automatic thing if the minister decides. Who knows what the minister of the day is going to do or not do to help Canada Post get out of the deep trench it’s in now with respect to sustainability?
You say here that rates have to be fair, reasonable and sufficient to cover operating costs. It sounds to me like that operating costs are going to have tremendous challenges with respect to costs and rates, and that we have removed a process that would allow people to have notice and give a reasonable opportunity to seek information, to challenge and things of that nature. Doesn’t that concern you at all?
The Chair: A quick answer, please.
Mr. Ieraci: I’ll try to be as brief as I can.
A couple of things in response to the comments: first, yes, there is a ten-year review clause in terms of the definition of library materials; that’s to ensure that, as technology moves forward, any changes that are necessary to reflect what consists of a library material would be there. That, again, is not going to be needed in terms of the change to the regulations.
In terms of the question with regard to the gazetting process, yes, that is a process wherein, during the 30-day pre-consultation period, Canadians can become aware of changes to stamp rates, and then there is the formal posting afterwards.
I do want to say that Canada Post, as a large corporation with many business partners and Canadians and so on, any time that there is going to be a change in stamp rates, that is obviously going to need to be communicated publicly.
The last time we changed stamp rates, I mentioned, it was effective in January 2025. The process actually began months before that, including the Canadian gazetting.
After the first time that it was gazetted, we had not received a lot of comments with regard to the potential change in stamp rates. Again, I’m not trying to trivialize the importance of letter mail rates and stamps, but it seems that, as Canadians use letter mail less, as there are declines in volumes, the amount of impact that it has on Canada Post’s bottom line is important, but the impact on individual Canadians seems to be decreasing over time because of the reduction in the use of letter mail.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here today. Thank you for the reassurances. Like everyone else, I’ve certainly heard from many people who were concerned about it, libraries in particular.
I saw reference to the Universal Postal Convention and our commitment to the goals of that. Are there any teeth to that? Is that something we’re long-term committed to? If we were to change, would there be any sort of pushback from this convention?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you. The Universal Postal Convention has been around for more than a century, nearly a century and a half, and it’s basically the convention whereby all countries around the world get together to be able to undertake consultations and dialogue on the shipping of letter mail across countries because, of course, we’ve been talking about domestic letter mail today, but obviously there is an international component, as people send letters to other countries.
Everything, from how that is shipped, transmitted, how reciprocal agreements are undertaken, those are all part of the Universal Postal Convention discussions and negotiations, which are led by Canada Post in collaboration with our department.
What I wanted to indicate was that the Universal Postal Convention, the fact that we’ve been doing this since 1898, in terms of providing free materials and postage for the blind, was to underline how long this program has been in place and the fact that this predates the Canada Post Corporation Act and, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is going to continue going forward.
It is the central point in terms of these programs are well established, longstanding and, again, I’m not aware of anyone wanting to make adjustments to them.
In terms of your question as to whether or not there are “teeth” — in air quotes — associated with that, I don’t know the answer to that specifically. Again, it is part of the commitment that Canada and Canada Post have made to this international UN body.
Senator Arnold: Perhaps you can speak to those accessibility commitments that are part of that.
Mr. Ieraci: That is within the Universal Postal Convention specifically?
Senator Arnold: Yes.
Mr. Ieraci: I’m afraid I don’t have the information at my fingertips, but I could provide it to the committee in writing.
Senator Arnold: That would be great. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to our guests. I have two or three quick questions.
First, what percentage of Canada Post’s revenue comes from letter delivery? All Canadians are affected by the deficits incurred by Canada Post. Despite all the good intentions of Canada Post and the government, even if letter delivery were profitable, what percentage of Canada Post’s budget does it represent?
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you for the question.
[English]
In terms of what the percentage that letter mail represents, unfortunately, over the last couple of years, we’ve had significant declines across all of our product space as a result of labour action as well as just operating cost reductions. I can certainly take back and get you the percentage exactly of what it is, but our revenue was down in 2024 by $800 million, which represented an over 12% decline. Let me take it away and get you back the exact percentage because it gets broken into multiple pieces, so what is the domestic letter mail, commercial and others. Let me make sure we’ve got the exact numbers for you, so it’s represented appropriately.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. You will have the discretion to set the costs of mailing a letter. I heard you mention that this price will depend on where the letter is sent from and the number of service points, which is increasing. Will you take into account rural points of service or people who live in remote parts of Canada when you set prices?
[English]
Ms. Chisholm: Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, for us, with our double mandate of remaining financially sustainable, we also have the mandate to make sure we are delivering to all parts of the country. So that includes rural and remote communities on a Monday-to-Friday basis. That’s not changing. We will still maintain obviously that commitment in support of it.
If this bill were to pass and we had the opportunity to look at setting up a process in conjunction with the government, it would be on the regulated rates. How that structure would be set up and what that process would look like, and the combination has not been determined or decided. It’s just a matter of us giving an opportunity to have the flexibility to be firmer in terms of looking at what that possibility could be, but we have not decided on a process that’s not yet approved. But it is something that would need to be done in conjunction with our colleagues in the government.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. My question is a bit outside of what we’re discussing today. I read the regulations. If I understand correctly, you currently still have preferential postal rates for publishers. I’m not talking about libraries. This is very beneficial for them, whether they’re the small publishing companies we have in Acadia or ones elsewhere. Those postal rates are very important, and I don’t believe that’s going to change.
Does this bill provide for publishers to have preferential rates? If so, will that remain as it is, or will it be left to Canada Post’s discretion for the time being? I don’t have the answer, and I’m looking for it.
[English]
Ms. Chisholm: In terms of that piece of the legislation, I can’t speak to the legislation. What you’re referring to is for commercial customers — whether it’s our personal services, our direct marketing services or even commercial letter mail — we do offer discounted rates based. Those individuals need to sign an agreement with us, and then the discounted rates are based on how those individuals are either preparing their mailings or the volume of mailing to which they’re coming in. This process, if it were to come into effect, does not involve any changing to the rate action process for those. This is simply restricted to the letter mail rate prices. So it would not be related to those publishing companies who may receive a discounted rate because of a commercial contract.
Senator Mohamed: I know this has been now the focus for the last couple questions, but as potentially the last person asking this, Ms. Chisholm, in the Canada Post 2025 integrated business plan, the leadership identifies unfunded social mandates as a primary obstacle to profitability. So you can see where the concern comes from. What is meant by “unfunded social mandates” if not this? And given the enormity of the challenge — I want to trust — it’s really hard to trust that when you’re trying to eliminate and reset an organization that things like that won’t fall by the wayside. Intention is fantastic, but accountability is key, and accountability comes from being written in legislation. So I guess my observation is one of many of my colleagues, which is if it’s not in legislation, intentions change depending on who is steering the ship. That something has been around for a long time does not guarantee that it will continue to be around. I leave that with you.
I wonder if it makes more sense, now knowing what you know and with the lack of consultation, that there could be an amendment that would say the corporation may determine its own rates except for blind and library materials, which shall remain at the rate specified in X, whatever the X is, so then the guarantee is there. What stops us from doing that?
Mr. Ieraci: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is something we need to explore. Having heard it just for the first time, obviously, it’s difficult for me to provide an informed response on the spot. It’s certainly something that could be taken into consideration.
Certainly, recognizing the importance of the Senate in terms of reviewing legislation. I don’t want to overstep my bounds in terms of what the Senate may or may not recommend to that effect, obviously. I would have to take that into a little bit more consideration. It’s difficult for me to answer on the spot; I apologize for that.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chisholm and Mr. Ieraci for your testimony this morning.
I’d like to introduce our next panel: From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, and Christina Santini, Director, National Affairs — it’s great to see you back; from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Jen Goulden, Representative and Chair, Braille Authority of North America; from the Canadian Urban Libraries Council, Mary Chevreau, Executive Director; and as an individual, Marvin Ryder, Associate Professor of Marketing and Entrepreneurship at McMaster University. Thank you all for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes — and I would ask that you stay on that particular time frame — which will be followed by question-and-answer sessions with the senators.
I will now invite Mr. Guénette to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Good morning. We would like to sincerely thank the committee for this kind invitation.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents over 100,000 small business owners in every sector of the economy and every region of Canada.
[English]
We will make our remarks in English, but we are able to answer questions in both French and English.
About 80% of small- and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, still turn to Canada Post in their day-to-day operations, but their reliance on it has decreased since the 2024 strike. Now, 20% rely on it heavily and consider it critical to their operation. Three quarters of SMEs primarily turn to Canada Post to send cheques or invoices and 61% to send letter mail; 35% cent of small businesses in Canada use Canada Post to send packages, as private couriers dominate this space, and 19% use it to send promotional materials.
We all know Canada Post is in a precarious situation. Their market share in the parcel delivery sector has dropped significantly since 2009, and even if the Canadian population is growing, the annual volume of letters has dropped by over 60% since 2006. Its financial situation is disastrous and continued to deteriorate throughout 2025 with another massive deficit.
Our members reject the idea of bailing out the corporation year after year. We published a report recently showing that 87% of our members support reforms that would make Canada Post more competitive and financially viable in the long run. For example, 52% of our members support decreasing the frequency of residential mail delivery, 51% support expanding the use of community mailboxes and 42% support replacing Canada Post outlets with franchised locations.
These changes were announced many months ago by the government and must be fully implemented rapidly.
I will turn now to my colleague, Christina Santini.
Christina Santini, Director, Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Division 2, part 5 of the proposed legislation states that Canada Post is to set its postage rates at a level that will defray its operating costs once all sources of revenue are taken into consideration. While it may be tempting for the corporation and government to rapidly raise fees to try to be back in the black, more meaningful structural changes — as those mentioned — should be prioritized. Only 40% of small business owners said Canada Post should increase the price of its services to ensure its long-term financial stability.
Canada Post is a crown corporation. They have a legal monopoly for the delivery of most letter mail. Thus, these proposed amendments could prove to be very costly for consumers, including small firms, if it comes into force before major structural reforms are made.
This will not incentivize the corporation to make the fundamental changes it needs to make. It will not encourage the corporation to innovate, both in terms of service delivery and human resources, as it will simply be able to raise postage rates.
Fifty-eight percent of our members use Canada Post because it is affordable. They wish for it to remain affordable. Regular postage rate increases could drive even more businesses away from Canada Post. This could particularly harm small businesses in rural and remote communities where alternatives to the Crown corporation are not available.
CFIB recommends first implementing the changes announced by the federal government, which will help reduce operational costs that need to be defrayed by fees. We also recommend a transparent process to increase postage rates so that Canada Post is not the judge and jury of its own situation. Canada Post’s rate‑setting exercises need to be transparent, subject to a formal process of approval as long as Canada Post maintains a letter mail monopoly.
Thank you. We are looking forward to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guénette and Ms. Santini.
[English]
I will invite Ms. Goulden to give her opening remarks.
Jen Goulden, Representative and Chair, Braille Authority of North America, Canadian National Institute for the Blind: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind, or CNIB, was founded in 1918, and it is a national community-based organization that works to remove barriers and advance inclusion for the 2.2 million Canadians who are blind, deaf-blind or who have low vision.
I am here today to speak about the proposed amendments in clause 197 (1) under Division 2 of Bill C-15, respecting subsidized postage for materials for the use of the blind as well as interlibrary loans. These changes were included without any notice or consultation with our community contrary to the principles of the Accessible Canada Act and the idea of nothing about us without us. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind has worked on this file in partnership with the Centre for Equitable Library Access, or CELA, the National Network for Equitable Library Service, or NNELS, and the BC Libraries Cooperative, all of whom endorse the recommendations that we will provide, and they have also sent in their own written submissions for this committee’s consideration. This is also the case for Braille Literacy Canada, the governing body for Braille in Canada.
For Canadians living with blindness and low vision, mail delivery isn’t a convenience but a lifeline. It’s often the only means available to access materials and devices that are essential to everyday life. Canada Post’s Literature for the Blind service, often referred to as “Free Matter,” enables the shipment of alternate format material such as Braille and devices for daily living such as canes and magnifiers free of charge.
This is not unique to Canada. It is recognized internationally, as we heard earlier, and protected under Article 3 of the Universal Postal Convention to which Canada is a signatory. In particular, Braille users’ access to books and educational materials is already extremely limited. The World Blind Union estimates only 10% of published works are accessible to people who are blind, and far fewer are available in Braille. Public libraries also face difficulties in expanding and updating their collections partly due to production and storage costs. This means Braille users can’t simply walk into a local bookstore or a library to pick up the newest bestseller or university textbook. Instead, they often — we — can only access books and literature online or through special orders, which are almost always more expensive. Since Braille is larger and heavier than print, the costs can become significant.
What you see here is The Fellowship of the Ring. So we have print for all print readers, and then this is my copy. And this is just The Fellowship of the Ring. I did not bring the entire trilogy because I couldn’t carry it. It’s 16 volumes. It’s just to give you a concept of the difference in size. So Braille is essential but bulky, and expensive without Free Matter postage.
Already Canadians who are blind or partially sighted can be disproportionately affected by poverty and must manage the additional costs of living with a disability. Without Free Matter postage, we would face substantial barriers to literacy, education, access to information and independent living.
Given all of this information, CNIB and our partners are deeply concerned by amendments in Bill C-15 that would repeal sections 19(1)(g)(i) and 19(1)(g.1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. These clauses, as you know, mandate the provision of Free Matter postage and subsidized interlibrary postage, respectively, and enable regulations for these purposes. Repealing them would effectively nullify the Materials for the Use of the Blind Regulations, removing legislative protection for a service that millions rely on.
We appreciate the public commitment from Minister Lightbound and Canada Post to continue the service. However, these commitments are not a replacement for legislation. Without legislation, future administrations would be free to reduce or discontinue the service without public consultation or parliamentary oversight.
We understand that these were included with the intention of granting Canada Post more autonomy. However, we do not believe the removal of these clauses is necessary to achieve the government’s goal, particularly since Free Matter postage is paid through a federal subsidy and doesn’t have an impact on Canada Post’s pricing autonomy or financial bottom line.
For these reasons, we ask that this committee in its report include a recommendation for the introduction of amendments to retain these clauses in the Canada Post Corporation Act. If section 19 must be removed, these subsections and paragraphs should be reinserted elsewhere in the legislation, such as section 35.
We also recommend that the federal government not undertake any changes which may impact Free Matter postage without carrying out a proper consultation for the affected stakeholders, such as CNIB.
Our full list of recommendations is provided, and I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Goulden. I would ask Ms. Chevreau to give her opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Mary Chevreau, Executive Director, Canadian Urban Libraries Council: My name is Mary Chevreau. Despite my beautiful last name, I am an anglophone.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act included in Bill C-15.
The Canadian Urban Libraries Council, or CULC, represents more than 50 of the largest public library systems across Canada, including Library and Archives Canada and Library and Archives Quebec. Our members serve more than 8 million active users every year, and more than 77% of all Canadians use a CULC member library.
Furthermore, and perhaps more relevant to this presentation, CULC also oversees access to Canada Post’s Library Shipping Tool by verifying and authenticating all libraries who wish to access the Canada Post library shipping rate or material rate. We have had a close working relationship with Canada Post to deliver this service for many years.
We are concerned that the amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act in Bill C-15 will significantly impact any Canadian who requires access to library material and information, including materials for people who are blind or have sight loss. While statements from Canada Post and the federal government expressing a commitment to continue reduced rates for library materials and free postage for the visually impaired are welcomed, these assurances do not replace the certainty provided by legislation and parliamentary oversight over the reduced rate for library materials as currently provided by the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Interlibrary loans are an essential component of how libraries work in Canada. The program allows students, researchers and the public to access materials regardless of their location or their local library size. Libraries rely on the Canada Post Corporation Act’s protections, including reduced rates and agreements in section 21.1, to offer this service affordably and at scale. If Bill C-15 proceeds as drafted, Canada Post would have the ability to increase rates without oversight from Parliament or the Government of Canada.
The repeal of section 21.2 removes an important mechanism for transparency and ministerial accountability, further concentrating authority over library postage entirely with Canada Post’s board. Parliament’s ability to provide appropriate oversight would be significantly diminished.
These changes could place substantial new pressures on already stretched library budgets, inevitably leading to fewer interlibrary loans, reduced sharing of materials and — most importantly — diminished access to information and research resources across the country.
We are also deeply concerned about the proposed removal of paragraph 19(1)(g)(i), which guarantees postage-free mailing of materials for use by people who are blind.
The proposed changes would effectively eliminate materials for the use of the blind regulations without consultation through the standardized gazetting process. It would also contravene Canada’s obligations, as we’ve heard, under the Universal Postal Convention.
Despite our close working relationship with Canada Post, neither CULC, nor any other library organization in Canada were consulted prior to the introduction of these amendments, nor have we had any meaningful engagement since. We respectfully call on this committee to urge the government to remove from Bill C-15 those sections that impact libraries, and to remove those sections that repeal the free post programs for people who are blind or those with sight loss. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chevreau. We will now go to Mr. Ryder for his remarks. Go ahead, sir.
Marvin Ryder, Associate Professor, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, McMaster University, as an individual: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As the academic here, I’m going to give you an academic perspective.
Generally speaking, the provinces and the federal government are believers in a market-based economy, in which you have many consumers and many sellers that then get efficiencies in the market. In other words, the prices are set by that kind of healthy competition. However, sometimes that’s not possible because there are natural monopolies. You can imagine, for instance, the generation of electricity or the sale of natural gas, the rate of cellphones and cable television. In those situations, governments have set up an oversight body to ensure that the power is fairly distributed and consumers are not being gouged by the private entities that have the monopoly.
I should also note at the outset that Canada Post is a very sick organization. It has lost over $5 billion over the last four years. Last year alone, in 2025, it lost $1.5 billion. It has no working capital. In my world, if I were studying this with my students, I would describe this company as being on a death spiral.
No postal system in the world has been allowed to fail. That’s the good news. So I don’t think Canada Post is on the edge of failure, but significant changes need to be made.
In that context, then, let me just give you a couple of thoughts. First, I took a look at postal changes over the last 72 years. On 37 occasions in the last 72 years, postage rates have been changed. Of those 37 times, 5 times postage rates were changed twice in a 12-month period, and on only 3 occasions were they a significant change, that is, a 20-cent increase or a 25-cent increase in the cost of a postage stamp.
I share that with you because it’s my belief that Canada Post is not poised to start gouging consumers and start dramatically changing its rates, but over the last 72 years, it always had the current system in place, which required a Governor-in-Council review, and the argument now is that this is taking too much time.
As much as I would love to trust Canada Post, we don’t trust anybody else in a monopoly situation. It would seem likely to me that we should give the minister the power to review this. A simple report given to the minister, and a simple response from the minister, holds somebody as a check and balance against the corporation.
As my previous colleagues noted, the other big change to the act involves changing the postage rates for materials for the blind and a reduced rate for libraries. Given a faster approval process, perhaps by the minister directly, it makes me wonder why we need to change this at all. Canada Post says they plan to continue this, and the minister says we plan to continue this, so why change it? Again, the argument is speed, trying to find a less cumbersome process, but if we can get a less cumbersome process under the approval side of it, I’m not sure any of this is needed at all.
Finally, I would just note that none of these changes are going to significantly affect the operations of Canada Post. As was stated by my friends at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, there are much larger systemic changes that need to be done quickly. The postal services for the blind, I believe, are about $2 million out of a total revenue budget of over $6 billion. That’s far less than even 1%. This isn’t going to help Canada Post in any way, so I don’t know why we’re changing this. There are more pressing issues in front of the corporation for its very survival.
The Chair: Does that conclude your remarks, sir?
Mr. Ryder: It does.
The Chair: Thank you so much. We’ll now move forward with questions from our senators.
Senator Dasko: This is all really interesting. Professor Ryder, tell me what you think the solution is. What action should be taken? You say they’re in a mess. Obviously, the fiscal situation bottom line is a disaster, so what should be done? Give us your view, please.
Mr. Ryder: Forgive the academic’s perspective. I actually think it’s fairly easy. If you’re having an organization in a death spiral, you either have to increase revenues or cut costs.
On the cutting cost side of things, we’ve talked about moving from door-to-door delivery to community mailboxes, and only 25% of Canadians today receive door-to-door delivery. I am not one of those. I’ve had a community mailbox for 30 years, and I absolutely love it. Speed that up, and also look at a better way for right-sizing the organization. That probably means they have too many workers for the volume of mail that they’re doing.
All the efficiency measures would save about $500 million a year, but if you’re losing $1.5 billion, you’re still not back to balance. So the other side of the ledger is that you must increase revenues. I’m not at all suggesting it should come from postage rates, but it should come from new lines of business. Canada Post needs to win back a significant chunk of the parcel volume that it has lost, in part due to the labour problems over the last couple of years. They’re now going to have three years of labour harmony, assuming the new contract is ratified. They now have to go back and win that back, and maybe look at other things to do, much like Uber was originally a competitor for a taxi service, and now it also delivers food. Perhaps Canada Post, with a fleet of vehicles and a fleet of workers, could get into delivering other things, and that would generate new revenues.
Senator Wilson: Here at the Senate, we deal with many things we don’t have a lot of flexibility on, and this being part of a broader budget bill is one of those things.
I would like to ask Ms. Goulden and Ms. Chevreau to reframe your ask of us. Instead of asking us to repeal certain sections or turn down certain changes, could you tell us what else you might suggest that we say to the government in response to this bill? I ask because it’s unlikely, given that it’s a budget bill, that we’re going to see any changes in the Senate.
Ms. Goulden: I’ll start. To be honest, this is not something I typically do, so I’m not sure what to suggest. Our main concern is that we would want to ensure that there was something in legislation to guarantee that the service would continue. The recommendation to move it to a different section was merely because we understand there might be other things in section 19 that need to be removed, but there could be other options for keeping these particular provisions in the legislation somewhere.
Senator Wilson: Ms. Goulden, in your statement you mentioned another piece of legislation that provides some protections for the blind. I don’t remember specifically what you were referring to.
Ms. Goulden: From what I understand, Section 35 deals with other issues of either free postage — and, please, I could be wrong, and you might know this more, but some of the other reduced rate or free postage services that Canada Post offers so that if this were moved into that section, it would be among similar provisions.
Ms. Chevreau: I think that we are aligned here. As much as Canada Post has said that they want to continue the service, the words that concerned me at the time of the quote was “at this time.” This could mean that with any kind of change, that decision would change in terms of the library shipping rate as well or the book rate.
If it can’t be repealed, then I would ask that there be some sort of area where there is oversight at a government level or legislatively to protect or, at least, have a conversation to protect the library book rate.
The Chair: Senator Lewis, do you have a question?
Senator Lewis: Just for the record, for the CFIB, have any of your members brought up the postal rates to either libraries or the blind as being a problem and as being a big issue as far as business owners are concerned in this country?
Mr. Guénette: We have independent libraries that are members of the CFIB, and they are worried about, obviously, postal rate increases and changes to some of the benefits that they may have.
Small, independent libraries are not businesses, typically, that make a lot of profit. They are often very small, and, yes, so we receive inquiries from them when issues related to Canada Post arise.
Senator Lewis: The other question I would ask is that we’ve had recent strikes. How did that affect the visually impaired and libraries? Were you able to find competitive rates or anything to replace Canada Post during those strike times?
Ms. Chevreau: Thank you for the question. It had a great impact on being able to ship materials, and, in fact, they weren’t shipped. It was basically Canada Post or nothing. There is no other alternative.
The Chair: Any comment, Ms. Goulden?
Ms. Goulden: I would just agree with that statement. No Braille was received, because there are no competitive rates elsewhere.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Ms. Goulden, I just have to say there is a kind of poetic, bittersweet irony in that you — a witness with a visual impairment — brought to our committee the visual evidence of what you were talking about with such force and effect.
My question is actually for Ms. Chevreau regarding interlibrary loans. If you’re a book person the way I am, you understand how important they are, but I’m not sure that everybody appreciates how essential they are for rural Canadians who don’t have access to the big holdings you would find in a Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton or Vancouver library. I’m not sure people understand how important they are to francophones who live outside Quebec, who have a smaller pool of books to choose from and who might really value — especially if they’re living in a minority language community — the chance to have those books.
I speak as an Albertan, where schools have been ordered to pull from their shelves award-winning books that are primarily queer, coming-of-age stories, so if you’re an LGBTQ kid or a kid who just wants to know a little bit more, and you live in a rural community, your only chance to get a book that reflects your reality might come from an interlibrary loan.
I wonder if you could speak to some of the anxieties you are hearing in your community about what the loss of a well-functioning interlibrary loan program could mean were a different government to come to power that might not value or guarantee the commitments that were made to us today.
Ms. Chevreau: Thank you for the question.
It would be devastating for many, not only libraries but people as well.
Without access to information and without the ability to borrow items from across the country, it will impact everybody. It will impact everyone in terms of access and in terms of literacy. It will impact those, as you mentioned, who are in rural and smaller communities. There are some public libraries in rural communities that are so small that they don’t have the physical space for a collection, and without interlibrary loans, they have told me, they will close. There is no way that they can function as a library without being able to borrow from other libraries across the country.
It will affect, certainly — as you said — various communities who don’t have access within their regions or within their libraries for materials. It will affect newcomers, who may not have materials in their languages within their communities. It will affect anyone who has a different language or uses a different language in terms of being able to provide that breadth of content in the preferred language.
As you mentioned, in terms of just even bilingual content, one of our biggest users of interlibrary loans and, certainly, at the library book rate is New Brunswick, and that is partly because of the exchange of languages and what the content needs to be.
If there isn’t a way to move materials, it will be detrimental not only to libraries but to the citizens of this country. We will not be as well informed, period, because we won’t have access to that. I think well-being is part of this discussion as a matter of fact.
Thank you.
Senator Simons: I presume that some people assume that everything is available online and that old-fashioned books — who needs to send a dead tree from place to place? I guess this is a question that maybe Ms. Goulden would want to take a crack at answering, too, but at a time when the internet is filled with disinformation and misinformation and more and more AI‑generated slop, I would argue that books have become more valuable and more essential than ever to an intellectually literate community.
For Ms. Goulden, it is very tangible. I watched you give your evidence, and when you read, it’s a tactile thing. You are touching the text as you are mediating it. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what it means to still have books at a time when I think there is an assumption that everything is available online, and why bother?
Ms. Goulden: Thank you for the question. I would love to talk about this.
There is that, “Well, why can’t you just use technology?” It kind of goes hand in hand with what you said about everything being available online, because, of course, we have technology. Blind people have text-to-speech, and I have Braille displays that are electronic devices.
However, as you mentioned, there is something that just can’t — books are kind of irreplaceable, and there are also some very practical things that come into play. You can’t necessarily get all of these books online, and you can’t get them in Braille, especially if you can’t afford the Braille displays, which are quite costly as well.
There will always be a need for paper Braille for that reason, but also for young children, as they’re learning, you’re not going to give a five-year-old a $4,000 Braille display so they can learn to read Braille on that. Or senior citizens who lose their vision and who learn Braille, they’re going to want to have a traditional paper book that they can use and not necessarily have to learn a new piece of technology as well as a new writing system.
I’ll stop there, but I could say a lot about why books and paper books are still important. I hope that helps.
Senator Simons: Ms. Chevreau, could you answer that question?
Ms. Chevreau: I’m happy to. At one point, with Google and the internet, a number of people thought libraries were going to die and books were going to die. That is far from the truth. The opposite has happened.
Print is still a very important format. There is an assumption that everyone knows how to use technology. Lots of people don’t know how to use technology. Just ask anyone who works in a library how many programs are involved in teaching people basic skills so they can fill out a form. They do not have technology at their hands. So, print is alive and well, and it is essential for us as a nation to be able to provide that format.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have a question for Jasmin Guénette about Canada Post.
You were quite critical of the Canada Post situation. You mentioned that it would take major structural changes for the company to resurface. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Guénette: The government recently announced a number of changes that CFIB agrees with, including in terms of reducing the frequency of mail delivery. That’s one of the things that could help reduce the operating costs.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You would agree with that even for non-residential customers?
Mr. Guénette: Yes.
Canada Post should also use community mailboxes more rather than going door to door. It should also make greater use of the franchise system rather than having spaces for people to pick up and send mail, for example, franchises in pharmacies rather than a dedicated building for Canada Post.
The idea is to find ways for the corporation to reduce its operating costs and have more flexibility in the workforce as well. The idea, then, is for the corporation to find ways to reduce its operating costs and have more flexibility.
When you ask owners of small and medium-sized businesses, they don’t want to inject $1 billion or more every year just to ensure the corporation’s financial survival.
There really has to be internal change, and we hope that those changes will be made quickly. It’s been a while since the government announced the reforms. Nothing seems to be moving forward. It’s slow. We’re wondering why it isn’t moving more quickly, given the huge amounts of money at stake. We hope that the situation improves quickly, because many of our members still use Canada Post. SMEs use Canada Post to send packages to customers, send cheques, receive invoices and so on.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Isn’t there a contradiction there? Your clients don’t want taxes to be used to finance a company that’s always running a deficit, but they also want the lowest possible postal rates?
Mr. Guénette: Absolutely. I think all Canadians want the postal prices at Canada Post to be as accessible as possible. It’s obviously normal for there to be increases. However, our members still use Canada Post.
It’s also important to think about businesses in rural areas, because there often isn’t any other choice. In remote areas, only Canada Post is serving the region. When you ask the members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, I think 80% say it’s important to have a system that covers the entire country. However, we cannot just keep running deficits. It’s important to restructure so that things can improve, and it’s important to find ways to deliver services much more efficiently, such as increasing automation or having more flexibility in terms of the workforce. There’s a reason why Canada Post is losing so much of its share in the package delivery market: Customers believe that things are better elsewhere.
If I were them, I would make changes quickly to ensure that the clients who still rely on Canada Post are well served and to attract new clients.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are packages still cheaper through Canada Post than through private companies?
Mr. Guénette: Generally speaking, the alternatives are more expensive. Sometimes there may be package services that are equivalent. The market is trying to meet the demand. There may be services with equivalent prices, but the prices are often more expensive. Earlier, Senator Quinn asked about the price of sending a letter from here to British Columbia through UPS. Obviously, that will cost more.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Ms. Santini, you mentioned that, as costs go up, that will drive away more SMEs. Where will they go? What is their alternative?
Ms. Santini: For those who do have options, they will look at those, dovetailing a bit on what Senator Miville-Dechêne stated. We do have some members who, during the last strike, had to go to private-sector providers, particularly on the parcel side. They found out that, for certain weights and distances, the private sector was actually more competitive. As Canada Post raises its rates, it might be losing one of its key market advantages, which is its affordability. It will still maintain the access element because of its mandate to serve all postal codes across the country, but where competitors can, they may end up having the competitive edge on price.
Now, again, we’re talking more about parcels because Canada Post does have that legislated monopoly when it comes to letter mail where competitors have to charge three times that amount. There will always be a bit of a capture-market share or a legislated affordability angle provided to Canada Post.
Senator Quinn: My second question is for Professor Ryder and Mr. Guénette. You both mentioned reductions in costs. Specifically, Professor Ryder, you mentioned that one of the things to look at is that the lower volume means they should have fewer workers.
My question really comes back to this. Over the last few years, we have heard about the deficits that they’re running. There are executive bonuses and things of that nature. Is Canada Post over-managed? Are there reductions that should be taking place in the upper end of that spectrum? It almost seems that the triangle is inverted when you read about it in the media. What are your thoughts there?
Second, for you and for others, is Canada Post salvageable?
Mr. Ryder: Let’s deal with your first question on reducing management layers. Canada Post, itself, has announced that they would like to reduce their workforce by 30,000 people over the next 10 years; 16,000 by the year 2030; another 14,000 by the year 2035.
In my world, I don’t think it should be over the next 10 years. It has to be over the next 10 months. Speed is much more important. If you look at where those jobs are coming from, there is a mix of management and front-line workers. It’s not all on one side or the other. If you shrink your workforce, you also need fewer managers to run it.
The bonuses aren’t the issue. Canada Post is not over-generous in their pay for the management people. They’re not overly top‑heavy in management, either, but if you shrink the size of the company, you have to shrink management as well.
Then you had a second part. I don’t remember it.
Senator Quinn: I asked whether it is salvageable.
Mr. Ryder: Yes. The answer is yes, but it has to be on this two-pronged approach. You have to become more efficient and cut your costs of giving the operations, but then you have to go out and generate revenues. Don’t necessarily raise prices, but you have to take a look at things and ask if there are other ways we can use our established base of trucks and drivers, et cetera, to do other things? For instance, maybe they could partner with a drugstore to deliver medicines to people at home. We’ve got the trucks; we’ve got the drivers. Why don’t we see if we can give an additional service? We need that.
In fairness, when you’re fighting these kinds of deficits, the focus is almost always first with cost-cutting, but that’s not going to get you to balance. You have to generate more revenue at the same time.
Senator Arnold: This segues well. First, I would like to thank Ms. Goulden and Ms. Chevreau for your advocacy on something that our society values so much but we don’t talk about enough. I really appreciate that.
Professor Ryder, you talked about efficiency, and that’s not going to get us where we need to go, but they need to win back customers and get out there. I’m wondering Mr. Guénette and Ms. Santini, do your members have any advice? How could they win back? Did they have any ideas about how they could do that?
Mr. Guénette: There are many things we could say in response to that question. One would be to stabilize labour relations. The impact of the 2024 strike was tremendous on our members. Many are not going to go back to Canada Post simply because it was too hurtful for them. There was potential strike activity again. There was some other strike activity in 2025, and the uncertainty had many small firms leaving Canada Post.
One aspect to regain customers would be stability, knowing that the service will not be interrupted by a strike during the Christmas season, for example. If labour relations can stabilize and if the union can understand the situation in which the corporation is and move forward in modernizing the corporation, that could help bring some customers back.
Senator Arnold: But as far as parcel delivery or the idea that Professor Ryder had, did they have anything else? Do you think once the stability is established and the trust is re-established, do you think that there could be possibilities for them to take over other means or grow?
Mr. Guénette: If the service is seen as flexible and efficient, if they can deliver over the weekend, at any time and promise delivery at certain times and so on, it depends. Our members have clients. Somebody makes a purchase, and the business wants it to be delivered as rapidly as possible. If they are not using Canada Post, it is because they think another company is better at it. There is a lot of competition in the marketplace for parcel delivery. If they can show that they are as good as others, I’m sure they will attract customers.
Ms. Santini: Its future reliability is important for them to be able to go into markets such as the ones proposed by Marvin Ryder. Suddenly, if you are partnering with a drugstore, that drugstore will want to know you can continue, regardless of labour disruptions, to deliver those medications to seniors, disabled or whomever. Reliability will be key for Canada Post going forward, and its competitive advantage is its accessibility and affordability. It can’t lose sight of this as it is setting or raising fees.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for Mr. Guénette, among others, and perhaps Mr. Ryder.
In fact, listening to the conversation today, we’re aware of the challenges that Canada Post faces in terms of the size of its territory and the challenge of maintaining accessible rates for Canadians.
Mr. Guénette, you said that the changes are slow to come. Given that Bill C-15 is a budget bill and that we aren’t in a position to propose amendments, what important observations do you think could be conveyed to the government? You’re an entrepreneur, and you work with entrepreneurs. What main observations do you suggest we convey to the government?
Mr. Ryder, you can also give us your suggestion in that area.
Mr. Guénette: For us, the reforms that have been announced should be made as quickly as possible. That would be our main recommendation. Several months ago, the government and the minister responsible for Canada Post, Joël Lightbound, announced that they wanted to deliver more mail through community mailboxes and use more franchises.
The government has announced a number of things to reduce Canada Post’s operating costs. Our recommendation is that the government makes those reforms as quickly as possible.
Senator Cormier: Given the scale of the challenges, will those reforms ensure that Canada Post truly becomes independent?
Mr. Guénette: In any case, if the current model continues, that will never be possible. At the very least, the reforms would give the corporation a chance to get back to making a profit.
[English]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Ryder, do you have something to say?
Mr. Ryder: These changes were first proposed over 10 years ago, and 10 years ago Canada Post was not losing money. It was five years ago that Canada Post started losing money. But in 2020, we had another big issue on our hands, which was the pandemic, and so the government of the day just said, “We’ll deal with that later. We have to get through the pandemic.”
I think in 2022 is when we should have started doing this. As I said to the minister — I’ve actually been lucky enough to meet the minister — don’t think 10 years, think 10 months.
If I could reduce the annual deficit from $1.5 billion — let’s cut it in half — to $750 million, it is not a healthy company, but it is a healthier company. Speed is the number one thing that Canada Post needs to do. I’m hoping once this contract is ratified — and I’m hoping to hear about that vote in the next week or so — then that timeline, how fast you can make those changes, should be coming out of Canada Post.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
In closing, I too will tell you, Ms. Chevreau, how absolutely essential the work you do is. Knowledge transmission in Canada happens largely through books. I would like to join my colleague in saying thank you for all the work you do, which is so important to Canadians.
[English]
I think we are at the end of our time. I’d like to thank our witnesses for appearing today. It’s most appreciated.
Before closing the meeting, I would like to thank the entire support team for this committee, those in the forefront of the room as well as those behind the scenes who are not visible. Thank you all for your work, which contributes enormously to the success of our committee and our efforts to move forward.
(The committee adjourned.)