Letter to Mary Traversy - Subject: Rural Mail Delivery Private Member’s Motion

VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL

December 8, 2006

Mary Traversy
Senior Vice-President, Employee Engagement
Canada Post Corporation
2701 Riverside Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0B1

Dear Mr. Traversy:

Subject: Rural Mail Delivery Private Member’s Motion

I am writing to reiterate my concern about the elimination of delivery to 240 rural mailboxes in Stoneham, Quebec, when the worker had raised health and safety concerns regarding only 27 of those rural mailboxes.

During the meeting when I raised this concern with you and pointed out that it ran contrary to the motion on rural delivery passed in the House of Commons, you stated that the motion was merely an opinion and that ultimately the decision to keep rural delivery or convert delivery to community mailboxes lies with Canada Post.

The federal government’s Glossary of Parliamentary Procedure defines a motion as “A proposal moved by a Member of the House to do something, to order something to be done or to express an opinion with regard to some matter.”

As you know, Lui Temelkovski’s motion on rural delivery stated that “in the opinion of the House, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should use his power to direct Canada Post to maintain traditional rural mail delivery and protect public safety when rural constituents are required to collect mail at designated group mailbox locations, long distances from their homes.”

All parties voted in favor of Mr. Temelkovski’s motion, including the governing Conservative Party. All parties agree that the Minister of Transport and Communities should use his power to direct Canada Post to maintain traditional rural delivery and protect public safety when rural constituents are required to collect mail at designated group mailbox locations, long distances from their homes. While a motion is not exactly a directive, it does express the will of Parliament.

I would like to know if Canada Post intends to respect the motion on rural delivery or not. I think all parties in Parliament would like to know the answer to this question. CUPW would certainly like to know.

I am hoping that the answer to my question is “yes” and that the Corporation will agree to sign the memorandum agreement regarding a review of rural mailboxes. We have been attempting to come to an agreement since July 5, 2006. The Union does not understand why is taking so long to come to an agreement. I would appreciate a response in writing by Tuesday, December 12, 2006.

 

Gayle Bossenberry
Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes / Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Coprésidente du Comité national mixte de santé et de sécurité / Co-Chair at the National Joint Health and Safety Committee

 

c.c.

• Philippe Arbour, dirigeant national des griefs / National Grievance Officer
• Conseil exécutif national / National Executive Board
• Comité national de la santé et de la sécurité / National Health and Safety Committee
• Bernard Bruyère, président de la section locale de Québec / Quebec local president
• Jack Layton, chef du Nouveau Parti démocratique / Leader, New Democratic Party
• Gilles Duceppe, chef du Bloc Québécois / Leader, Bloc Québécois
• Stéphane Dion, chef du Parti libéral du Canada / Leader, Liberal Party of Canada
• Lawrence Cannon, ministre des Transports, de l’Infrastructure et des Collectivités / Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
• Lui Temelkovski, député, Chambre des communes / Member of Parliament, House of Commons
• Daniel Petit, député, circonscr' + 'iption de Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles / Member of Parliament, Charlesbourg-Haute Saint-Charles
• André Arthur, député, Portneuf – Jacques-Cartier / Member of Parliament, Portneuf – Jacques-Cartier