Mail (or the lack thereof)

A few news cycles ago - before we had the chaos on Parliament Hill and then more recently the disclosure that a popular radio host, at the very least, has somewhat unusual sexual inclinations  and at the worst believes that he has the right to hurt women, there was a national conversation about our postal service. I keep on hoping that that conversation will resurface. I suspect however, that that topic has had its fifteen minutes of fame and will not appear on the front pages for the foreseeable future.

It was interesting conversation if only for the reason that both sides were being somewhat disingenuous. From the postal service the argument was that mail deliveries to private address has been consistently dropping, that they could not afford to deliver the mail to people's doorsteps and that as 2/3 of people in Canada already do without house delivery - it is not really that much of a change. Cost savings are required because Canada Post will be mired in debt within the next five years and laying off 5,000 thousands workers will alleviate part of that problem.

Of course Canada Post does not or cannot say that they are in debt because the Canadian government does not see a postal service as a national services that requires government support. Canada Post has therefore had to raise the cost of a single stamp to eighty-five cents. Eighty-five cents to mail a Christmas card! No wonder people don't use the mail. (I can remember my parents selling Regal Christmas cards and making enough, I think, to pay for at least part of their Christmas). But the biggest untruth about their rational is how many people already don't get door delivery. Yes, 19% of Canadians live in rural Canada (Statistics Canada) and all of them have to walk down to the end of their driveway or else drive to the nearest mailbox. But what the justifiers of cancelling our mail service don't say is that 12% of those who don't get direct delivery live in condos (Statistics Canada) and another 25% live in apartment buildings. In other words almost half of all Canadians still live in single dwelling units. Only those who live in new developments have to go and get their mail. The need to reduce service may be a reality - but please just tell us the truth.

On the other side of the argument are the unions who of course want to protect jobs (is the laying of workers one more stake into the heart of unions? There was a time when students use to be able to make good money either during the Christmas rush or during summer holidays). The defenders of the status quo only apparent argument is that it will negatively affect seniors and the disabled. Really? While there is no way of knowing where the majority of seniors and those who have disability issues live, it would seem to me that a significant proportion probably already do not have full access to mail delivery. Not a very effect argument.

What neither side is saying is that a postal delivery service is a national service that connects people. Gradually reducing government support which in turn affects the service's effectiveness is a classical neo-liberal approach to eradicating government controls and regulations. Other countries can maintain their postal system - why can't we?

For 20 years I lived in a rural area where I had to drive five minutes down to the corner to get the mail. It was not a big deal except for the fact that I frequently forgot to get the mail and the post people had to write me a note (and leave it in the mail box) telling me to get my mail more frequently. Except for junk mail, I get so little mail now that I only bother to walk downstairs to check my mail box every week or so. My landlady has, on occasion, needed to email me to ask me to get my mail as my box is over-flowing.

When I lose direct mail service and have to walk down to the corner to get it - I hope someone is prepared to have to figure out what to do with all of those unwanted flyers jammed into my box.