Year: 1996

Canada Post Corporation Act as amended in 1996

This is Google’s cache of
Google’s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: post mail letter express


Canada Post Corporation Act
As amended to December 31, 1996

[This document was obtained as a text file from the Canadian Department of Justice,, reformatted, and converted to a PDF file.]

FILE : C-10


This consolidation has been prepared for convenience of reference only and has no official
sanction. For all purposes of interpreting and applying the law, users should consult the acts as
passed by Parliament, which are published in the “assented to” acts service, part III of the
Canada Gazette and the Annual Statutes of Canada and available in most public libraries.

Canada Post Corporation Act


An Act respecting the Canada Post Corporation


Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canada Post Corporation Act.

1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 1.



2. (1) In this Act,

“Board” «conseil»

“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Corporation;



“Chairman” «président du conseil»

“Chairman” means the Chairman of the Board appointed pursuant to section 7;

“Corporation” «Société»

“Corporation” means the Canada Post Corporation established by section 4;

“mail” «envois» ou «courrier»

“mail” means mailable matter from the time it is posted to the time it is delivered to the
addressee thereof;

“mail bag” «contenant postal»

“mail bag” means any container or covering in which mail is transmitted, whether it contains
mail or not;

“mail contractor” «entrepreneur postal»

“mail contractor” means a person who has entered into a contract with the Corporation for the
transmission of mail, which contract has not expired or been terminated;

“mail conveyance” Version anglaise seulement

“mail conveyance” means any physical, electronic, optical or other means used to transmit mail;

“mailable matter” «objets»

“mailable matter” means any message, information, funds or goods that may be transmitted by

“Minister” «ministre»

“Minister” means such member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the
Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act;

“post” «poster» ou «déposer»

“post” means to leave in a post office or with a person authorized by the Corporation to receive
mailable matter;

“post office” «bureaux de poste»



“post office” includes any place, receptacle, device or mail conveyance authorized by the
Corporation for the posting, receipt, sorting, handling, transmission or delivery of mail;

“postage” «port»

“postage” means the charge or surcharge payable for the collection, transmission and delivery by
the Corporation of

Read More

Release of the Canada Post Mandate Review Report

This is Google’s cache of
Google’s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: post mail letter


National Press Theatre October 8, 1996 10:30 a.m.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Today the government is releasing the results of the independent review of the mandate of the Canada Post Corporation. This Review was launched on November 6th of last year to examine financial and policy issues related to the future of Canada Post, so that the government could ensure that Canadians receive the most efficient and cost-effective postal service possible.

I want to thank the person who chaired the review, Mr. George Radwanski, for his work. In preparing his report, Mr. Radwanski consulted Canadians from coast to coast, and the report makes a significant contribution to understanding how Canadians view their Post Office, and what they expect from it in the way of services and behaviors. Importantly, the report indicates that 76 percent of Canadians are generally satisfied with the service they receive from Canada Post.

But the report also identifies many issues where change is essential. This government takes these issues, and the report, very seriously.

Given the major changes being proposed, I am compelled to provide some context and indicate areas where the government is prepared to act immediately.

The government recognizes that the Canada Post Corporation is a large and complex organization, which touches all Canadians. It is also a major force in Canada’s economy, and one of the country’s largest employers, with more than 63,000 full and part-time employees. Canadians have invested over $1.4 billion in Canada Post since it was made a Crown Corporation in 1981. This is over and above the initial resources that were transferred to the Corporation. It is a valuable asset for Canadians which the government has an obligation to protect.

Decisions on its future cannot be made lightly, and the government needs to carefully analyze the recommendations in the report before providing a complete response. In addition, Canada Post — after many years and millions of dollars of subsidies — is no longer dependent on taxpayer support. The report I am releasing today makes dramatic recommendations for altering Canada Post’s financial basis. Before the government proceeds further, we must be certain that this approach is feasible, and that we understand fully how it will impact Canadians.

I want to emphasize that the government regards Canada Post as a significant federal institution, and that it sees Canada Post continuing to carry out a public policy role based on the provision of mail to all Canadians, no matter where they live. Therefore, this service must continue to be accessible and available at a uniform rate for all Canadians, whether they are mailing a letter within downtown Montreal or from Yellowknife to Halifax. Canada Post will continue to operate as a Crown Corporation as long as it carries out this role, and will continue, for the foreseeable future, to have the exclusive right to deliver letters.

Whether Canada Post should continue to offer services beyond this role is a legitimate debate, and Mr. Radwanski in his report has offered the government some views. According to Mr. Radwanski, Canada Post, in the pursuit of financial st

Read More

Mandate Review (Canada Post)


In reviewing the mandate and assessing the future of an institution that touches as many lives as Canada Post Corporation, one cannot hope to entirely satisfy everyone. Interests legitimately diverge, and perspectives honestly differ.
What is essential is that every point of view be given a full and fair hearing, and that all available information be objectively and thoroughly assessed. This the Review has made every attempt to do. In carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to me on behalf of the Government by the then Minister Responsible for Canada Post, the Honourable David Dingwall, in November 1995, I have been guided at all times by a determination that the processes of this Review must be as open, accessible, independent and even-handed as humanly possible.
To that end, the Review placed advertisements in 678 newspapers and sent letters to close to 1,000 potentially interested parties, inviting written submissions by the deadline of February 15, 1996. A total of 440 formal submissions and 1,084 letters were received, including petitions from municipalities with a total of 2,480 signatures. To ensure maximum public access, all formal submissions were posted by the Review on the internet. As well, 1,116 telephone calls about substantive issues pertaining to the Review were received from Canadians across the country. This constitutes evidence of a remarkably high level of current nation-wide interest in the role and activities of Canada Post. By way of comparison, the last review of the mandate of the corporation a decade ago received a total of 131 submissions, including letters.
Public meetings were held in March and April in six Canadian cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax, Toronto and Ottawa. Their purpose was to permit the Review to hear first-hand a representative cross-section of the organizations, companies and individuals who had made submissions and to explore their views through brief dialogue. Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), at their respective requests, appeared before the Review in each of the cities. Time was also set aside at the end of each day for members of the general public to offer brief comments. A total of 111 presentations were heard in 14 days of public meetings, not including the representatives of Canada Post Corporation and the CUPW, who appeared at each location.
To ensure that a sampling of the ideas and concerns of Canadians in rural areas could be communicated as clearly as those of interested parties in urban centres, the Review supplemented the formal public meetings with town hall meetings in Witless Bay, (Newfoundland) and Iqaluit, (Northwest Territories) and with focus groups in Bay Bulls, (Newfoundland), Unity, (Saskatchewan) and Iqaluit. Urban focus groups were also held in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. A total of 96 individuals participated in these focus groups. And, finally, nation-wide quantitative research with a total sample of 1500 was conducted for the Review by Decima Research.
In order to provide access to the best possible information, the Review also had informal meetings with appropriate individuals and organizations in the United States and Canada. In the United States, the Review met in Washington with Mr. Michael S. Coughlin, the U.S. Deputy Postmaster, and senior members of his staff, as well as with Mr. Dan Blair, Staff Director, Postal Service Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. In New York, the Review met with specialists on the impact of information technologies at Columbia University, and with a panel of experts kindly assembled by the Canadian Consul General in New York, Mr. George Haynal. Here in Canada, the Review held extensive individual discussions with the senior management of Canada Post, including members of the Board of Directors, and with the leadership of all the postal unions, particularly CUPW, as well as with CUPW representatives from across the country. The Re

Read More

Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Mandate review

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers welcomes the opportunity to address the Canada Post Mandate Review.

The Terms of Reference of the Mandate Review Committee cover almost every aspect of Canada Post’s activities.

The Chairperson’s recommendations will have a major impact on the 58,000 women and men CUPW represents.

Postage rates, services, the exclusive privilege, financial self-sufficiency, subsidization and regulation all have a direct impact on the job opportunities and job security of post office workers.

Consequently, it is appropriate that CUPW wishes to deal with most of the subjects examined by the Mandate Review.

We believe during the course of your examination of Canada Post Corporation, you will observe that the men and women who are active in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, at all levels, have consistently demonstrated a commitment to the objective of high-quality public postal service.

When necessary, we have been prepared to use our legal right to strike to obtain negotiated collective agreements. Labour-management difficulties at Canada Post are a well-documented part of the public record.

Yet an examination of the record will reveal that far more of the union’s energy has been devoted to making Canada Post a dynamic, service-oriented public enterprise.

During the course of your work, we believe that you will observe the enormous potential of Canada Post Corporation.

We encourage you, as much as possible, to see Canada Post with your own eyes. We invite you to meet post office workers, at any time, without notice, to exchange views concerning Canada Post, its services and its future. Many myths have developed about Canada Post, its services and its unions. We also encourage you to carefully examine and challenge, when necessary, both the supporters and the critics of Canada Post.

Finally, we ask you to consider that, in 1996, the Canadian Post Office is very much a work in progress.

Read More




P&P Poll


What’s the future of the postal USO?

Thank you for voting
You have already voted on this poll!
Please select an option!

MER Magazine

The Mail & Express Review (MER) Magazine is our quarterly print publication. Packed with original content and thought-provoking features, MER is a must-read for those who want the inside track on the industry.


News Archive

Pin It on Pinterest