Letters, Sept. 21

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/09/2023 (946 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Look at the options

Everywhere one goes we are bombarded with election advertising that the acrimonious PC party is fighting. One has to wonder why aren’t they governing instead of fomenting conflict?

Case in point. When Heather Stefanson was health minister, she was neither fighting nor governing for healthcare. When advised of a significant nursing shortage, she did nothing. I guess that is what “liking to sit in the background” gets you! We’ve lived this dream for this summer as we had a family member taken to the Grace ER.

We ‘lived’ in there for five days observing highly competent and dedicated staff in a state of constant crisis management. In chatting with them about their dire work situation, personnel, lack of beds and resource shortages were significant contributing factors. Every room in the ER had two patients crammed in there; the rooms were designed for but one. Every nook and cranny of the ER had a gurney with a patient, including the hallways. The PCs did not end hallway medicine, they have taken it to a new low.

During this week’s leader’s debate, the acting premier (she was not voted in by the electorate!) stated her party took over a broken health-care system. I heartily agree. The NDP, over 17 years of failed leadership and mismanagement did not improve the system, but why then did the PCs choose to make it worse? Last year after a three-year wait, I finally got my bilateral knee surgery. Three years including one cancelled surgery. Why? A lack of resources.

I wish someone had been proactively fighting to address the surgical capacity shortfall instead of taking it to new lows! To try to overcome the surgical backlog we send patients out of province. Just like during the pandemic. How is it that other provinces not only have the capacity to deal with their health-care demands, but they can take on our caseload? Perhaps they have someone governing and not fighting?

Indeed, elections have consequences. Our Manitoba challenge is the lack of a credible choice to elect into the legislature. The NDP were turfed out due to hallway medicine, the Bipole III boondoggle and a duplicitous PST hike. The PCs have systematically made our health-care even worse; they are working on destroying our already fragile education system and sadly hold the worst record for handling the pandemic in the Western world. Where do we as the electorate turn for credible leadership?

Do we actually have an option to give us a ‘fighting’ chance for positive consequences from our upcoming election? Is there a viable third option because the NDP and PCs have shown they can’t meet the challenge?

Mr. Lamont, Ms. Gibson. Fellow Manitobans. Are you listening?

Gary Hook

Winnipeg

 

Little incentive to return to workplace

Re: Back to the office (Letters, Sept. 19)

Derek Rolstone writes his fury at city staff working from home, and the mayor thinks improved lights will make downtown more attractive to citizens.

Yesterday, I paid over $3 for a cup of watery coffee at a downtown establishment. Workers, like most Winnipeggers, do not want to be downtown because wages have not kept up with inflation, and governments (all three levels) have entirely failed to address the addictions and homelessness crisis. Within my lifetime, homelessness has exploded to epidemic proportions due to trickle-down economics. Tax-cut obsessed political parties have severed the social contract.

Now, workers have demonstrated they can work effectively from home, despite nay-saying old school management styles, and avoid overcrowded buses (thanks to funding cuts), save wear-and-tear on vehicles while avoiding $20 day parking, and not risk their bikes being stolen with so few proper bike storage facilities at workplaces.

If public sector employers want their workers back downtown they must ensure their pay keeps up with inflation and stop with service cuts. Governments are to serve all citizens, not just the wealthy ones, and some need more help than others.

Ciara Shattuck

Winnipeg

 

Rules of the road

Re: Cyclist injured in apparent road rage incident with truck (Sept. 20)

So terrible to read what happened to Elliot Long. Like he said, anyone who rides a bike in this city has dealt with something similar, though usually less violent or dramatic. To anyone who read this story and immediately tried to figure out ways to blame the cyclist (and I know there are a lot of people doing this), I want you to know that you are the problem.

The problem isn’t cyclists, it isn’t drivers. The problem is entitled people who don’t realize we’re all just trying to get around safely, and that we’ll all get there eventually.

Be a courteous driver and cyclist and when others aren’t courteous to you, you just gotta let it go. We all do that and we won’t have any problems.

Chris Harvey

Winnipeg

 

Better engagement needed

Re: Ban mulled on pharmacy inducements (Sept. 20)

I took the survey on the College of Pharmacists of Manitoba’s website, and I agree with Neil McArthur (Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at U of M) that it is biased and vague.

If the pharmacists are truly interested in meaningful consultation, they should hire a reputable public opinion survey firm to engage the public.

As one with chronic conditions requiring many medications, I am happy to collect points when I pick up my prescriptions. I have not been induced to change pharmacies nor have I deviated from my prescribing doctors’ recommendations just to collect potential bonus points.

And I resent the slur that those of us who use a government-funded program (Pharmacare) might fill prescriptions we don’t need to gain points. I use the points to buy groceries and other necessities, offsetting part of our food budget.

It’s also hard to reconcile the CPhM’s concern for patient safety with the fact the story appeared on the business page.

Julie Mikuska

Winnipeg

 

Nature-based solutions have role

Re: Ambition needed to tackle climate crisis (Editorial, Sept. 18)

I appreciated reading the Free Press editorial team’s Ambition needed to tackle climate crisis. I couldn’t agree more that we no longer have the luxury of delaying action to address this existential threat.

The editorial is absolutely correct that “leaders need to get serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

Leaders also need to get serious about protecting nature, which acts as a shield against climate change. I add that the essential element of protecting nature as one-third of the climate solution always needs to be a key part of the conversation.

Natural lands and waters store carbon, which keeps it on the ground and away from the atmosphere. Every time a wild area is developed, the carbon escapes into the skies, which further exacerbates global climate change.

What I am referring to is commonly coined as nature-based solutions for climate change. We need to ensure we balance conservation with sustainable developments for the sake of people and wildlife.

Ron Thiessen

Executive director

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Manitoba chapter