AS EVERYONE knows, Canada Post comes in for a lot

of flak. As everyone also knows,

Canada Post deserves

most of what it gets. All that upbeat promotional material
extolling its efficiency doesn’t change the bottom line: no-
body in there knows what the hell is going on — and if

they do, they don’t care.

Take the other day. I presented
myself at my local post office and
asked to see an official. I was
turned over to a crisp-looking lady
of middie years, all togged out in
the P.O.’s latest foray into de-
signer chic: the white blouse and
blue slack suit ensemble, jauntily
topped off with the perky red
bowtie. (You are expected to note
these fashion touches. They take
the place of efficiency.)

I laid out for her inspection
three British airmail envelopes
and invited her comment. They
were date-stamped about a month
apart. Each bore my name, my
street address, my city, my pro-
vince, my country, my _ postal
code. Each bore an amount of
British postage stamps sufficient
to ensure the letter’s delivery.

Each bore, on the reverse flap, the
sender’s return address in Dorset,
England.

And one bore a further adorn-
ment: a Canada Post ‘Return To
Sender’? stamp, on which some-
bady had inked in a big, fat, red

By Brian Swarbrick
Contributing Writer

X in the square marked ‘‘No Such
Address.’* So it got sent back. All
the way back. Six or seven thou-
sand miles back, to England.

What I wanted to know was,
where had this envelope failed?

Indeed, 1 thought the P.O. lady
might even share my curiosity.
Not a bit of it. First she flashed
me a quick look which said, ‘I’m
on to you, buster, you're a
trouble-maker.’’ Then she picked
up each envelope in turn and gave
ita careful scrutiny.

I waited for her eyes to boggle
when she hit that ‘““No Such Ad-
dress.’’ But it was not to be. Up,
down, back, front, sideways she
looked — then fixed me with a
cold stare and asked the nature of
my complaint.

I stifled a crisp retort, on the
off-chance that I was dealing with
someone who did not actually
work for the post office (who was

INSIGHTS

assing the postie buck

perhaps, only to model
uniforms). I said something like,
“Look at the Setter that left
England on Jan. 13. Note the
“Return to Sender’’ stamp on it.
That is your stamp, isn’t it?

She picked up the letter again.
And looked at it and looked at it
and looked at it. Finally: Yes.
That was Canada Post’s stamp.

“Well?”

“*Well, what?”’ she said.

‘‘Madam, here is a fetter with
the right amount of postage, the
right address, the right name, the
right everything. One would not
be unreasonable if one expected
that it would be delivered."*

I let that notion hang in the icy
air between us, hoping it would
claw its way through to her cen-
tres of logic. Nothing. She just
looked at me. Or through me.

So, finally, unable to outstare
her, [ blurted, ‘‘Why in the world
wasn’t it delivered?”’

‘Because it was sent back.’’

‘*Yes, yes, yes, madam — but
why was it sent back?’*

‘*Because it was
‘Return To Sender.’ ”’

“But why was it stamped that
way?”

A. shrug,
wordless re-examination
down, back, front, sideways.

Well, this bizarre exchange went
on until it finally dawned on me

there,

stamped

accompanied by a
up,

Friday, April 12, 1991 ~ North Shore News — 7

that the lady was doing what she
perceived to be her job. She was
stonewalling. Pulling a Nixon. She
was not going to admit that any-
one in the post office had goofed.

if 1 were a decent fellow, her
manner clearly conveyed, } would
just Iet the matter discreetly die
right there, unmourned and
unresolved. But if a mistake had
been mative — a point she was in
no way prepared to concede — it
had certainly not been made in
this post office.

Any clues as to which post of-
fice?

On this she was willing to nego-
tiate. If — if — a probiem ex-
isted, then it was probably caused
in ... Montreal! Many a strange
thing happened in Montreal, she
said. No further explanation. Ex-
cept to suggest that I might try
Customer Service if 1 insisted on
pressing ahead. So I called Cus-
tomer Service.

‘*No, no, it wouldn’t be Mon-
treal, sir. What would they have
to do with it? No, no, no, if your
letter didn’t get delivered ’? — I
assured her it had not — ‘Then it
happened in your own post office,
sir. I don’t care what the lady told
you.”’

And what did the Customer
Service lady think had actually
happened in my local post office?

“Oh, that’s easy. A substitute

carrier. Your regular carrier was
probably on vacation then. Yes,
that'd be it. Your regular carrier
was on vacation and the substitute
wasn't familiar with your street.
Or your specific address. Some-
thing like that."’

This solution seemed to cheer
her. Everything was OK now, we
had looked into things, done our
job, dealt with matters — and
we’d pinned the blame where it
properly lay: Montreal was in the
clear and so were all the regulars.
A casual employee was at fault,
some yobbo we'll never hear from
again. We can all sleep easy to-
night.

Armed with two culprit options
I showed the envelopes to my
regular carrier. After the merest
glance he flipped them back at
me. ‘‘One of the inside guys,’’ he
said.

“An inside guy? A regular? A
local?”’ | asked.

“Of course a local. Why would
some guy in Montreal send it
back?”

But why would anyone send it
back?

‘*How should I know? A weir-
do, I guess. Just another fruitcake
in the back.”

Right. A fruitcake. In the back.
I feel better now. It’s good to get
to the bottom of these things.

No to park
causeway,
yes to LRT

Dear Editor:
Your editorial on Sunday,
March 31, opens up an old Pan-

dora’s box that centains many
years of studies, proposals and
politicking over the question of
how to relieve congestion on the
Lions Gate Bridge.

Widening the Stanley Park
causeway is likely the most short-
sighted proposal. It will do
nothing to reduce the traffic vol-
ume into and within the
downtown core and could even
encourage more growth on the
North Shore with the attendant
increase in traffic volume.

The whittling away of the
dedicated Stanley Park trees and
land, once started, may be
unstoppable.

Surely our love affair with the
automobile has been one of the
most destructive forces in. the
shaping of cities, and with the
necessary parking facilities, eats
away at valuable land far more
than any other kind of develop-
ment.

If, for the politicians and the
economists, the only answer is the
increase of automobile traffic,
then the causeway could be
double-decked, using the present
air-rights above the existing
causeway. The new centre span
widening, that has been on hold
for many years, could be
redesigned to allow for a double-
deck traffic pattern, and the
North Shore approaches could be
Strengthened, if necessary, to ac-
commodate the additicnal load.

However, the answer to both
the crossing and the downtown
congestion problems, is to con-
struct a rapid transit (ALRT)

system, either above or below the
water, that can skirt Stanley Park
and join up with the Waterfront
ALRT Station.

A Park-and-Ride system could
be worked out for the North
Shore communities, and the
commuting public could be con-
vinced to use it by increasing
long-term parking fees in the
downtown area and allow free
parking at the North Shore sta-
dions.

In 1967 1} proposed, to then
Highways Minister, Phil Gaglardi,
a rapid transit system that could
use the air-rights over existing
roadways. This is still a possibility
at the First Narrows with only the
strengthening (or replacement) of
the centre span a real necessity.

{am both a Stanley Park and a
tree lover and strongly object to
any encroachment on the park.
Ralph Meyer
West Vancouver

a

“THEY VE WIDENED THE BATTLE crouso \
«SO. WELL WADDLE OUT Two ABREAST ]
sosNO MORE SINGLE Fue ie

Tampering is sacrilege!

Dear Editor:

1 have just read your edito-
tial, ‘‘Causeway cause’? and
am truly shocked! | am far
from being a typical en-
vironmentalist and protestor,
but would seriously consider
physical obstruction to prevent
the proposed widening of the
Stanley Park causeway.

To tamper with Stanley Park
is sacrilege. To do it in the
name of safety and traffic effi-
ciency is the ultimate in ab-
solute nonsense. The causeway
is probably the safest and most
efficient few kilometres per
daily car in the province for in-
telligent users (what’s wrong
with a little patience and
discipline?). It is far more effi-

cient than the Second Narrows.

To claim improvement with
the bridge as the continuing
restriction is ridiculous.

To allow contractors into the
park and destroy trees would
be criminat.

I use it every day and appre-
ciate its beauty. Do you use it
at all, and if you do is it just a
way to get from the North
Shore to downtown and back?
How can you possibly feature
such a disastrous and nonsen-
sical proposition in your
paper?

[f it was the Sun or Province
one might understand it.

D. Wortman
West Vancouver

The chamber’s
proposal to
‘beautify’
causeway Is a
contradiction

Dear Editor:

The North Vancouver Chamber
of Commerce argues in favor of
an upgrading of the Stanley Park
causeway to alleviate the traffic
problems into the downtown core
(‘Chamber wants causeway
overhaul,'? March 24).

The Chamber proposes a
‘beautification’ of the causeway
be undertaken by the reconstruc-
tion of the roadway, including a
landscaped roadway. There is an
obvious contradiction in ‘‘beauti-
fying’? the park by widening a
road, and there is na way that
such a proposal would ever get off
the ground (or under it, for that
matter: Art Cowie, Vancouver
Park Board chairman, states that
expansion must be underground if
at all).

I propose realistic discussion of
a third crossing, from Pemberton
in North Vancouver to Main
Street in Vancouver, via a tunnel.
This would take traffic away from
downtown, and eliminate the need
to expand roadways and threaten
Vancouver's beloved park.

The Chamber spokesman,
Zoltan Kuhn, says there are no
“political points’' to be scored by
proposing a third crossing. | will
be happy to play the game, and
score points if they are to be
counted.

A third crossing must be pro-
moted now, not when grid lock
hits.

Jeremy Dalton
North Vancouver