BY EMAIL AND MAIL

Rob Merrifield, Minister of State of Transport
Place de Ville, Tower C, 29^th Floor
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario  
K1A 0N5

Dear Mr. Merrifield:

I am writing further to my letter of September 14, 2009 to request a response to questions about the moratorium on rural post office closures and to also request information relating to the government’s response to the report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review.

Moratorium Commitment in Canadian Postal Service Charter

As you know, CUPW would like to know if the government has diluted the moratorium on post office closures.
The moratorium that has been in effect since 1994 protects public post offices in rural and small one‑post‑office towns. However, the government’s recently announced Canadian Postal Service Charter says “the moratorium on the closure of rural post offices is maintained” (emphasis added).

We understand that Canada Post has agreed to maintain the 1994 moratorium on closures, which includes post offices in rural and small one-post-office towns. The union is pleased that Canada Post has decided to interpret the Charter in this way, but we are also concerned because it is not up to Canada Post to decide what the Charter means.

The Charter is part of government policy. It is not up to Canada Post to clarify government policy. It is up to the government. 

1. How does the government interpret its commitment to maintain the moratorium on rural post office closures? Are public post offices in rural and small one-post-office towns covered by the moratorium provision in the new Canadian Postal Service Charter?
2. Furthermore, is there an expectation that the post offices and outlets covered by the moratorium will be public offices and not private outlets?

It appears that Canada Post does not believe that the moratorium protects the public nature of post offices.

When we asked Canada Post if there is an expectation that the post offices and outlets covered by the moratorium will be public offices and not private outlets, the corporation said : “ In terms of outlets covered by the moratorium, exceptional situations affecting Canada Post personnel (e.g., retirement, death, illness, etc.) or Canada Post infrastructure (e.g., fire, termination of lease, etc.) may affect the ongoing operation of a post office. The solution to address such a situation can only be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the affected community.” (emphasis added)

We interpret this response to mean that Canada Post may ask communities facing possible closures to consider options such as private outlets or nothing at all.

We would like to point out that the original moratorium was not designed to simply protect rural post offices. It was designed to protect public post offices in rural and small one-post-office towns.  

Consultation Process in Canadian Postal Service Charter

CUPW believes that the “Community Outreach and Consultation” section of the Canadian Postal Service Charter is a step in the right direction but needs to be strengthened.

The Charter says that the government expects Canada Post to inform people at least one month prior to closing, moving or amalgamating their public post office or changing their method of delivery. The corporation is also expected to explore options that address people’s concerns.One months notice is definitely not enough time for a whole community to explore options in relation to a potential public post office closure and may not be enough time to figure out where a rural mailbox should go.As you know, the public was never asked what a Canadian Postal Service Charter should say.  We think it is reasonable to suggest that a service charter should at least attempt to  reflect the views of the people who use and own the post office.  CUPW strongly believes that the government needs to revise its charter after getting input from the public.

3. Would the government be willing to consider getting public input? 

Response to the Report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review

The CPCSR report, which was released in April 2009, made 60 recommendations. To date, the government has responded to recommendations relating to the service charter and partial deregulation.

4. Will the government be responding to other CPCSR report recommendations?

We are particularly eager to know if the government will be responding to recommendation #9: “The Advisory Panel recommends neither a general deregulation of the postal market nor a reduction in the existing level of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege, save for one segment as noted in # 10 below.”

As you know, your government has already responded to recommendation #10: “The Advisory Panel recommends that outbound international mail be open to competition, as has been the practice (if not the law), as a single incremental step towards the liberalization of postal markets that is unfolding internationally.”

The government accepted recommendation #10 in June 2009 when it introduced Bill C-44. It has not officially responded to recommendation #9. This causes us some concern because the EU has identified postal services as one of its priority service sectors in the Canada-EU negotiations.

As you may know, the EU has an aggressive agenda for deregulating postal and courier services, as demonstrated by its plurilateral request during the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations at the World Trade Organization and its plans for post offices within Europe. The EU has issued a directive requiring all countries to fully deregulate their post offices by removing their monopolies as of 2011, with the exception of 11 member states which will be given until the end of 2012.

CUPW has written to International Trade Minister Stockwell Day and it would appear that the Canadian government is still developing its position. Minister Day says that the government will be considering stakeholder positions and other elements such as the report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review and the government’s response to this report.

The government was quick to respond to the recommendation endorsing partial postal deregulation.

5. Will it be responding, in the near future, to the recommendation against a general deregulation of the postal market or a reduction in the existing level of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege?
6. Also, do you know whether the government is considering taking any measures relating to postal and courier services during Canada-EU negotiations? 

The union thinks it is fair to say that there is no consensus within our country that measures promoting postal liberalization, privatization and deregulation are necessary or desirable.

We would very much appreciate a response to our six questions. As you may know, a CUPW staff member has called one of your policy advisors at least seven times (September 14, September 17, October 6, October 7, October 14, October 29 and November 10) in an attempt to clarify some of these matters but has been unable to reach him.

Yours truly,

Denis Lemelin
National President

c.c.          

National Executive Committee
Regional Executive Committees
National Union Representatives
Regional Union Representatives
CUPW Specialists
CUPW Locals
Leslie Schous, President, Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association
Richard Des Lauriers, President, Union of Postal Communications Employees Public Service Alliance of Canada
John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Andre Morency, ADM, Corporate Services Group, Transport Canada
David Christopherson, MP
Mario Laframboise, MP
Bonnie Crombie, MP
All members of Parliament