Have Your Say

In response to your editorial Where is the sober evidence? (Nov. 23), I find your assessment of rehab centres, such as the AFM, to be ill-informed. "AFM's results are difficult to applaud." What results exactly are you looking for? High percentage of recovery?

This isn't a sport like baseball where success can simply be measured by batting average. One life or the few that do get changed by this and other programs are worth it.

I understand your desire to maximize the taxpayers' dollar, but truly when dealing with issues like addictions, there are very few things you can do to accomplish this, at least in the way you are proposing: "The Selinger government needs to impose stricter reporting standards in dealing with community agencies to show their programs produce results." What results are you looking for?

If long-term sobriety is what you are looking for, then it will take years to prove this. How can the agencies prove their former clients are still on the wagon? Random drug tests? Simple surveys? Anyone who has worked with an alcoholic or drug addict can tell you that if any of these folks are drinking/using, they will lie to you anyway. Reports and statistics are incomplete when gauging the value of human life. These addictions are truly life-threatening maladies that have a low rate of success in curing. Just because an individual has terminal cancer, does not mean that our health care system should not continue to pay for their treatment because the chances of recovery are low. It's the same thing.

The best way to handle a situation like this is to talk to the workers and the agency heads themselves. They are the on the front line and are aware of the programs' strengths and weaknesses. Many of them have experienced the programs as participants themselves and their experience, on both sides of the process, is far more valuable than any statistics generated by a computer.

DAVID DICK

Winnipeg

Air the results

We were watching a hockey game on Channel 61 (Chicago) and decided to watch the news after the game. During the news broadcast, the state lottery draw was made on air. It occurred to us that here in Canada we don't actually see the numbers drawn any more and we were wondering why not. Is there a reason why the lotteries cannot telecast the numbers being drawn here? The whole thing took less time than a commercial. I am sure the TV stations can accommodate the lotteries by donating the minute required as a public service spot. It would, I am sure, draw viewers. So our question to the lotteries commission, both national and western is: Why was the public drawing of the winning numbers discontinued? And may we expect that practice to be re-instated? Or if it is in fact aired somewhere, where may we find it.

EILEEN HAY

AND FRANCES HARPER

Winnipeg

Do we need them?

The recent visit to Canada by HRH Prince Charles and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, brought to my mind something that has puzzled me for many years. I appreciate the monarchy and its role in Canada's life, which necessitates having a representative for her, to wit, our Governor General. What I have never understood or appreciated was the need for 10 lieutenant governors to soak up taxpayers' money.

HELEN STERZER

Winnipeg

Forked tongue

Re: Hey Steve! Bust some moves with western Indians (Nov. 21), by Colleen Simard. I am not aboriginal, but I do enjoy reading Simard's columns. They are very enjoyable and enlightening. But I do question her suggestion that the prime minister be accorded an honourary title.

Honourary titles are bestowed upon those who have earned the privilege, honour and respect of others. Sorry, but I don't feel that the prime minister has attained that level yet.

It would be shameful if the man who speaks with a "forked tongue" (empty words from the House of Commons apology) would be considered for an honourary chief title.

JIM SWETTENHAM

Winnipeg

�ñº

While I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek article by Coleen Simard, I take exception to her implication the Conservative government is ignoring "western Indians." The reality is that our Harper-led Conservative government (which includes more aboriginal caucus members than the Liberals and NDP combined) has not only reached out to aboriginals, but is moving aboriginal issues further than any government in history.

Our government's progress thus far includes an official apology to residential school victims, improved drinking water on reserve and soon we hope to extend matrimonial rights for aboriginal women on reserve.

However, our most significant accomplishment is extending the Canada's Human Rights Act to First Nations, which ironically, every immigrant is afforded the moment they become a citizen.

Rod Bruinooge, MP

Winnipeg South

Assigning blame

I am writing in response to Kate Kehler's condemnation of people who received the H1N1 vaccination ahead of those on the priority list (Taking from kids, Nov. 23). No doubt my family is one of the parties that Kehler's comments are directed at. However, if Kehler has been following the almost daily changes to the priority list that have occurred since the vaccinations began, then she would not be so quick to be critical.

On the day that my family received the H1N1 vaccination, one member of my family was on the priority list. The literature of that particular day indicated that people who live with a person on the priority list should be vaccinated as well. The day after we were vaccinated, it came to light that there would be shortages in vaccine and the priority list changed almost daily after that.

Hopefully, the government and health-care professionals responsible for the H1N1 vaccination program are learning from what has happened over the past couple of months and will apply what they have learned to future vaccination programs. If they do not learn from it and we have a repeat of the events of the past few months, then they are the ones who should be subject to Kehler's self-righteous condemnation.

MURRAY TARR

Winnipeg

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition November 25, 2009 A15