This week, the Sunday e-mail is featuring a letter that our National President Denis Lemelin wrote to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative member of parliament on May 29, 2013. The letter severely criticizes Poilievre for the remarks he made in the House of Commons on May 7, 2013 while he was defending the government`s budget implementation bill, bill C-60.
Last week, we briefly discussed the bill and made some comments regarding the reporting by Canada Post of its quarterly and annual financial reports and the relationship with the government`s legislation to allow Treasury Board to interfere in the collective bargaining process at Crown corporations.
CUPW NATIONAL PRESIDENT CONDEMS CONSERVATIVE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR HIS REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
May 29, 2013
Pierre Poilievre, MP
House of Commons
Dear Mr. Poilievre,
I am writing in response to your remarks in the House of Commons on May 7, 2013. At that time you were attempting to defend Bill C-60. I must confess that your stunning ignorance of the facts surrounding the financial situation of Canada Post and the CUPW collective agreement serve only to convince me more of the folly of involving uninformed politicians, such as yourself, in the collective bargaining process of federal Crown Corporations.
In your remarks you suggest that the job security provisions of the CUPW collective agreement result in postal workers staying at home without work on the public payroll. You also said that the union requires taxpayers to fund almost 500 corporate post offices. These statements are not true and display a remarkable ignorance of the actual situation. The fact is that the job security provisions of our collective agreement have never caused a problem for Canada Post. In fact the job security provisions of our collective agreement were never in dispute during the 2011 collective bargaining because CPC acknowledged that the high rate of retirements ensured that they could reduce the staffing complement if it was required.
Contrary to your statement taxpayers have not funded anything to do with Canada Post. Instead they have benefited from the income tax and dividends paid by CPC during the very years that our collective agreement has been in force. The record speaks for itself. During the period 1996-2012 CPC was profitable every year except 2011. During that time the net income taxes paid to the government amounted to $486 million and an additional $589 million was paid in dividends. No taxpayer money was used to fund postal operations except for what was necessary to finance public policy programs such as mail for the blind and free mailings for members of parliament such as yourself.
With respect to pensions I can only remind you that your pension plan, as a member of parliament, is far more lucrative than those of postal workers. A postal worker with 25 years of service, meeting the age requirement, can look forward to a CPC pension of less than $20,000 per year. What would your pension pay after such a length of service?
Finally you mention the recent Conference Board of Canada report in your remarks. Are you aware that this report, which was written in 2011, estimated the financial loss of Canada Post for 2012 to be $250 million? The fact is that CPC actually reported a $98 million profit in 2012.
Once again your opinions are based on ideology and myths instead of facts and analysis.
Members of parliament have a responsibility to understand issues and base their conclusions on facts. Your remarks indicate that you have completely failed on both accounts.