Jay Bryan has the right idea.

The theory that Canada Post must have a monopoly on letter delivery to ensure that others won't "cream off" delivery profits in big cities and leave remote areas unserved, is silly. When you factor in the waste and inefficiency created by the monopoly, it's much cheaper to permit competition and simply pay someone a subsidy to serve unprofitable routes, which is exactly what several other countries do.

Meanwhile, at the Globe & Mail John Ibittson gets it exactly backwards.

The defenders of privatization may respond that the real solution is to stop subsidizing rural service delivery, including postal service. But realists know this is politically impossible. Even though 80 per cent of the country now lives in cities, we accept that the remaining 20 per cent are entitled to roughly equivalent services. When those services aren't forthcoming, the rural vote makes its displeasure loudly known. It is the rural vote that is behind the howls over passport delays.

Is it even remotely reasonable to think that sending a letter from Resolute Bay, Nunavut to Vancouver, BC should be done just as quickly and cheaply as sending a letter from Hamilton, ON to Toronto, ON? I would resolutely have to respond with a resounding NO!

Labels: democracy, politics