Letters, April 17

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/04/2023 (905 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

School plan won’t save money

Re: P3 system will get schools built faster, government says (April 11)

This is, at best, an example of political dogma rather than common sense driving policy. At worst, the Progressive Conservatives may be seen as coddling the larger players in the construction industry. This is with the long-term objective of contracting out maintenance services.

P3s are most commonly used in situations where the players bring an expertise or capacity to the table that isn’t available in the local construction industry, which may include proprietary process design and maintenance and, in some cases, operation. Without any disrespect to those involved in the design and construction of schools, this is not a highly specialized or exclusive field.

The allegation has been made that this will save money and allow the schools to be constructed more quickly. This is pure fiction. P3s typically place the responsibility for financing on the contractor. Contractors cannot borrow money as cheaply as governments, and unfortunately the higher lending costs for the private sector will be passed through to the school divisions.

Aggregating the construction of nine schools into a single contract will likely result in a situation where many very good and competitive smaller contractors won’t be able to compete because they won’t have the bonding capacity. One contractor constructing nine schools at once will not likely be able to complete the work any faster, or perhaps even as quickly, as nine contractors, who will spread the work among a more diverse set of local sub-trades with a higher aggregate capacity.

And finally, P3s usually have less specific requirements relative to construction and maintenance obligations in their contracts. While this may allow for some cost saving through innovation, there are other ways to achieve this without opening the door to claims for extra construction and downstream maintenance costs, which are rampant in poorly devised “rush” contracts devised to meet political timelines rather than the public good.

Tom Pearson

Indian Wells, Calif.

Taxpayers deserve better

Re: Hole lot of trouble on Winnipeg roadways (April 12)

We moved from eastern Ontario to Winnipeg in 2022, and continue to be appalled at the dangerous conditions of the roads, specifically potholes and lane markings. This, despite letters of complaint to politicians at all levels. The situation is dangerous and financially unacceptable to motorists.

Speaking of which, given the debacle of cost overruns at MPI, it’s time to go with private vehicle insurance and scrap MPI. Since relocating here from eastern Ontario, our car insurance premium has doubled! And there’s probably half the vehicles on the road here, going half the speed!

We have clean driving records since arriving here from the U.K. in 1979, so we wonder what’s going on in this province.

Furthermore, we’re in a condo block with a very small environmental footprint, each unit paying as much in city municipal taxes as a single home, so why are the sidewalks in such a disgraceful, unsafe condition?

It’s time the city started considering the welfare and safety of the taxpayers — time we started getting value for money, that’s all we’re asking.

Jean and Paul Krepps

Winnipeg

Re-examine resource agreements

Royce Koop may bring academic expertise as professor of political studies and clout as director of a research centre to his writing, but what I don’t see in his column Don’t threaten resource rights (April 14) is any acknowledgment that we have a radically different understanding of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the federal and provincial governments than we did in 1930, when the agreements granting resource rights to the Prairie provincial governments were signed.

To dismiss federal Justice Minister David Lametti’s openness to examining the Natural Resources Transfer agreements as “trying to placate Indigenous leaders” is offensive, at the very least. By saying “I can’t pronounce on that right now, but I do commit to looking at that,” Lametti is simply recognizing the demands of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), recently passed into Canadian law by the federal government.

If a law like UNDRIP doesn’t cause all levels of Canadian government to re-examine legislation like the 100-year-old Natural Resources Transfer agreements, then our commitments to reconciliation are in fact “all talk, no action.”

Gareth Neufeld

Winnipeg

Rethink the mall

Re: Northgate housing development too big for area, opponents say (April 14)

I have always felt that having shopping malls without residential components was giving away huge potential.

I agree that this development not having proper parking and not working within city guidelines is not the right solution. But why do they not build above the current mall? You could add all of these apartments above the current structure, get all the benefits that they want and still have the parking.

We have to rethink the mall and make it so that if you want, you can live and work and not have to travel so much by car.

Will Franklin

Winnipeg

Generating discussion

The Manitoba Hydro Accountability Board claims it was elected by the public (Time to hold Manitoba Hydro to account, April 13). I am a registered voter in Manitoba and I don’t remember receiving a ballot to vote for members of this board.

Aside from that, I would like to know what this board proposes to provide ever-increasing energy demands from our collective actions. We know that energy consumption continues to rise every year; in fact it is predicted that energy consumption will triple by 2030.

I’m sure the board would not support coal-fired electric generators, the kind they are building in China unabated, nor gas-fired plants, the kind that the U.S. switched to from coal, or nuclear plants where spent fuel cells that remain radioactive for thousands of years.

Hydroelectric power is regarded by almost every energy expert on the planet as the greenest and most reliable to the generation of electric power. A hydroelectric dam will outlive any wind or solar power installation.

Seven Sisters Dam was built in 1931, almost 100 years ago and has been supplying power every day since it was built. The flooding for the reservoir has evolved into a new ecosystem with fish, wildlife and forests. So much so that it is now a provincial park.

Can you say the same for the lithium mines in Australia, the silica mines in China and the aluminum mines in Guinea? Will they become parkland one day?

Does this board have an alternate solution? Are they willing to cut their consumption of everything that directly or indirectly uses electrical power? You would be surprised at how long that list is.

Or, will they just continue to complain and offer no meaningful solutions?

Gilles Nicolas

Winnipeg

Sheer luna-cy

Re: Lunar missions aren’t just footprints (April 11)

The Artemis 2 mission is a last-ditch attempt to salvage the myth of human “progress” and the religion of “science;” back here on Earth, it will bring no benefits to the majority of humans locked in an increasingly Hobbesian world of violence, anarchy, and revolution.

Conjuring fantasies of the future and further “scientific” breakthroughs and promoting paper-thin nationalism is the true objective of Artemis 2, and the Free Press editorial board has clearly been hoodwinked by this seductive narrative; the mission is (so far) a resounding success.

Paul Robertson

Beausejour