Letters, Oct. 30

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/10/2023 (1046 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Shelter solution

Almost 50 years ago I worked at a northern construction camp. We lived in what were called bunkhouses — essentially big trailers that housed approximately 80 individuals. The rooms were of decent size with two beds, a closet and a desk. The bathrooms were communal with showers, toilets, and sinks. They were well heated and maintained. These same bunkhouses are still available today. In many cases they sit idle, being unused.

I think daily about the people who live on the riverbanks, bus shelters, under bridges, and the temporary shelters provided by the non-profit organizations. I despair about their living conditions.

I would like to propose that the city and province purchase these bunkhouses and put them on the large vacant lots such as the old Vulcan plant on Main Street. They can be hooked up for electricity, water and be connected to the sewer system. Other office trailers are also available to provide counselling, and medical assistance. There are also trailers that were used, and still can be used, to cook meals.

Yes, it will cost money, but much less than building houses. Volunteers, professionals and staff would have to be added, but at the end of the day these shelterless people would have a safe, warm, and supportive place.

Seems like a shelter solution to me.

Brad McKay

Winnipeg

Allow for no preference

Re: Voting by not voting (Think Tank, Oct. 27)

The claims by elected governments that they have a mandate are emphatically stated by them on election night. When you have only +/- 25 per cent of the eligible electorate supporting, you do not have a mandate! Elections are not decided by popular vote percentages, but even if they were, the popular vote generally does not include almost half of the eligible electorate. Some would see this as an argument that those who don’t vote have only themselves to blame.

Before lamenting the state of democracy, let us consider what we are actually doing when we vote. We are electing legislators. That is to say people who make laws, laws that we are expected to obey. Thus, anyone that puts themselves forward for election must convince me that I should authorize them to make laws on my behalf. If the candidates in my constituency fail to do this, am I supposed to choose the lesser of two evils?

At election time, people who I don’t know suddenly appear and ask me to legitimize their authority over me. Is it democracy if your best option is to vote for the least objectionable candidate? The belief that every vote counts is specious. The only votes that really count in our electoral system are those that constitute the difference between the winner and the runner-up in each constituency.

In the 51 years since I was first eligible to vote I have voted for candidates from each of the mainstream parties, a number of fringe parties, I have supported independents,I have spoiled ballots and I have, in accordance with provisions of the electoral legislation, “declined” my ballot.

I personally believe that political parties would be less mendacious if ballots included an option “None of the above.” If the majority of votes are for “none” of the candidates, the contenders might have to accept the reality that they are not supported by the majority of electors. This might actually convince them that they need to consider the interests of the majority whose support they fail to obtain and not just the interests of the minority that elects them.

Leo Nijssen

Grandview

Silver linings

I never thought, in all of my 76 years, I would ever welcome snow and winter. The only reason this year is different, is because at least now the snow will fill in all the horrendous potholes in our back lane!

Naomi Finkelstein

Winnipeg

Disheartening reality

Re: Truth ditched in long-running Project Nova drama (Oct. 26)

This also goes to prove the value of an independent Public Utilities Board and the manner in which it operates and provides third parties with the ability to present information to said board to help understand the difference between a required rate increase and the impact of a possible rate increase. Had the Tories been left in charge, this board would have been essentially gutted, declawed, and had strings attached to every limb and head so the government could use it like a marionette.

The floodway expansion project is an example of how capital projects can be run and completed within a set time frame and budget while using multiple private companies and suppliers.

I have no idea why so many other large projects in Manitoba are so flawed in their design, estimates, and executions. No one can say it’s because government is involved. Government is required to tender bids. From the virology lab to the home of the Bombers, the Public Safety Building to the Leaf, all were designed by architects.

Outside consulting firms brought in to consult from the outside and present their findings and estimates. Bids tendered and decided on based on lowest price regardless of value for money. And all were or are still shrouded in controversy and contradiction. Finger-pointing and financial irregularities.

And here we have another example of the bill of goods we were sold and the bill we received being inexplicably far apart. Why is it everyone seems to make money off these cost overruns? Shouldn’t there be the opposite of bonuses, or a reduction of profit margins, when projects don’t come in on time or on budget?

The workers doing the work and supplying the materials should get paid first out of what the bid was awarded for. Anything left over should go to the people at the top.

And any bonuses should come out of funds saved by coming in under budget.

Of course, this all has to happen in a world where people don’t just inflate the numbers to ensure they get a bigger cut. It really does feel hopeless some days when the only difference between a grifter on the street and the boards and top brass at a construction company, consulting firm, and in this case the former leadership of a Crown corporation, is that the last three have business cards and fancy titles.

Brian Spencler

Winnipeg

Odd parallels

In his recent public musings Donald Trump compared himself to Nelson Mandela. An apt comparison indeed.

Let’s see. Both men are tall. Nelson Mandela had a fine head of close-cropped hair. Mr. Trump also has some hair. Mr. Mandela spent his life in service — to humankind. Mr. Trump has also spent a lifetime of service — to himself. Mr. Mandela was persecuted by those who promoted racism. Mr. Trump is being prosecuted by those who oppose racism. Mr. Mandela suffered permanent eye damage from hours spent breaking white rock. Mr. Trump’s eyes are permanently white from wearing eyepatches under his sun lamp.

Mr. Mandela had broad national and worldwide support — from those who oppose racism. Mr. Trump also has broad national and worldwide support — based on racism.

Mr. Mandela was resolute and unwavering in his response to those who opposed or oppressed him — offering forgiveness and reconciliation. Mr. Trump is equally steadfast in his response to his opponents — seeking vengeance and threatening violence.

Mr. Mandela was quietly Christian and governed his life by the highest of Christian morals. Mr. Trump also professes to be Christian and is equally consistent in governing his life by Christian morals — ignoring them all.

Mr. Mandela made the world a better place while spending 27 years in prison. Mr. Trump could also make the world a better place by spending 27 years in prison.

Robert Sproule

Winnipeg