To the editor,
I wish to provide additional comment to the letter by Robert McCulloch regarding Canada Post in Walkerton (“An open letter to the post master,” Sept. 7).
My experience regards a birthday card sent to me by my sister. Our full address was on the envelope, however no box number.
Consequently, the card was returned to her. That action entailed the card being sent back through the Canada Post system, flown back over to Britain, then through the British Post Office system before being delivered to her by her local postman in Scotland!
However, did not deter her from getting my box number and repackaging the card, adding postage (a further cost to her of some $4) and re-sending the card to me, back through the British postal service, across the Atlantic once more, through the Canadian postal service to once again land at the Walkerton Post Office.
Luckily the card is an inanimate object, otherwise it would have been quite dizzy by the time I got it back after its transcontinental journeys.
I’m sure that this case is exceptional, however it just goes to show the consequences of an idiotic “rule” whereby the time it would take an employee to cross reference an address to a box number would be minimal – after all, I’m positive that “missing box number” mail is very minimal. Think of the costs associated with that card’s travels!
Further, I am told that, if there is no return address, the item is put in the garbage! We would hope that that is not the case!
Ian Kirk
Walkerton
