Letters, Nov. 29

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/11/2023 (1021 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Flimsy attempt

That’s not an argument!

In Supreme Court decision deserves response (Think Tank, Nov. 10), University of Manitoba political scientist Royce Koop posits that there are certain Supreme Court decisions regarding Charter-based rights that justify the notwithstanding clause.

He based this on the supposed musings of a gaggle of pedestrians in relation to a particular decision, a thought experiment that, coupled with his strong feelings, he considers more compelling than the expertise and insights of Supreme Court judges.

In his Nov. 24 Think Tank piece, Business subsidies a drag on economy, he argues that government subsidies used to attract large industry to Canada show “little evidence” of overall benefit.

Without recourse to that, albeit little, or any other evidence, and along with enflamed language (the government “blew” money; “giveaways”; “outrageous”; “offensive”), he buttresses his argument with another thought experiment, rather than evidence, by which he surmises small businesses are also disadvantaged by the practice.

Perhaps by intent (if so, well done), the argumentative techniques used remind me of Fox News or other harvesters of populism. (I tried watching Fox once until quickly overcome by the barrage of outrage.) I end up disagreeing based on technique alone, rather than on any merit the case may have.

In the Think Tank section, I look for opinion, information and evidence tested against alternative perspectives with insight and expertise, rather than for affective or flimsy attempts at persuasion.

When encountering the latter, I’ll try to contain myself to a state of pique from having been swayed by the argument, nevertheless, and knowing my time might have been better spent.

Ken Clark

Winnipeg

Misguided attack

Canadian Taxpayer Federation writer Gage Haubrich (Kinew must go further on carbon tax, Think Tank, Nov. 27) couldn’t be more wrong-headed or misguided in his attack on the tax on carbon (fossil fuel pollution).

His viewpoint is shortsighted and out of touch with our current environmental realities.

Our collective health, wealth and future is doomed if, as a generation and human enterprise, we don’t curtail the catastrophic environmental effects of burning carbon.

The permafrost is melting, our forests are burning, our weather is more extreme. Science fact is that carbon burning is raising our atmospheric temperature and, if not stopped, climate change will likely be the end of many of our communities, economies and environments as we know them.

World bodies and science experts such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are crystal clear that the culprit is carbon.

The carbon tax is not a magic bullet on halting climate change but is an essential step in discouraging those fuels and activities that cause such great harm.

I can predict life in the very near future will be far less affordable (or livable) if we fail to protect a habitable human environment now.

Roland Stankevicius

Winnipeg

Tougher sentences

Re: Will somebody listen, (Think Tank, Nov. 27).

My heart goes out to Jordyn Reimer’s mom, Karen.

Who was it who said, “The law is an a–?”

Whoever said it, whenever it was said, would still say it in seeing the weakness in our laws today.

It’s abominable the minor sentence that was handed to Tyler Goodman for killing Jordyn, an innocent person.

When any driver drinks and kills, it is murder. Along with much tougher sentencing, they should never ever be allowed to drive again.

Penny Maletic

Winnipeg

Well said

Re: Forests under siege (Letters, Nov. 27).

Well said, Denis Gautron!

Both the Lemay Forest and Sumka Forest must be saved from residential development. In spite of our desperate need for housing, these wildlife habitats must not be destroyed.

Alternatives must be found.

We need co-operation and reason to prevail, and save these natural treasures.

Marilyn Bird

Winnipeg

Pick your issue

Re: Winnipeg Transit warns of delays, cancellations amid contract negotiations (Nov. 26)

The ATU (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1505) seems to have an ATU-titude problem with its membership.

If recent articles are to be believed, this is not about money, it’s about safety. As a transit rider myself I completely agree, but here’s what it gets fuzzy for me. Whilst blaming Winnipeg Transit management for not addressing these concerns, they want compensation for security concerns.

Is more money to the drivers that isn’t already being offered in terms of their contract the way to solve safety issues?

Sounds like they want danger pay as well their increased salary in a new collective agreement.

Let me state as a passenger, if the drivers are getting danger pay, I want to pay nothing to ride Transit. I’m not paying to be assaulted, conversely the drivers aren’t being paid to be assaulted either, but they have shields and soon-to-be-on-the-job Transit security, so there’s a bit of inequity at play here.

If it’s truly a safety issue, then I suggest the city go back and assess whether they can implement this Transit Security Force immediately rather than wait until the new year. Specifically, I’d like to see this Transit Security Force given policing powers, let them carry Tasers, have the ability to detain people. Other cities have this, I’m not sure why we can’t.

If the city can overcome those hurdles and get these guys on the system right away, I think the drivers’ concerns over safety should go down, or at least they should postpone further job action until they see if this is working.

If they don’t, then it’s not about safety, it’s about money, and if it is, after saying it’s not, that will lose them public support, support which is firmly on the driver’s side … for now.

Will Jones

Winnipeg

Taxes and bus tickets

After reading many letters and articles regarding the gas tax freeze, and agreeing as a car owner who bused to work for most of my career that the tax holiday isn’t particularly equitable, I can’t help but wonder why it has to be all or nothing.

By my calculations, reducing the gas tax by 10 cents a litre instead of the full 14 cents a litre would save just shy of $48 million (roughly 30 per cent) over six months.

According to Winnipeg Transit’s numbers they provide just shy of 49 million rides a year.

For the same amount of money, reportedly $165 million, we could provide a pretty decent break at the pumps, reduce the cost of bus fare by a buck for six months, and still have over $20 million towards any extra administration costs involved.

Even at 10 cents a litre, any trickle down effect on inflation would still occur (and if it doesn’t, it would not have happened at the higher number either).

Everyone benefits, not just those in the position to run a vehicle. I think it’s worth looking at.

Lori Gregorash

Winnipeg

Accolades overdue

I was delighted to read in the Paper Chase column (Literary prizes celebrate range of timely topics, Nov. 25) that Helen Humphreys was awarded the Matt Cohen lifetime achievement award by the 2023 Writers’ Trust Selection Committee.

It has long been a puzzle to me as to why Humphreys hasn’t been heaped with writing accolades.

Every book of hers that I have read has been a gem. She doesn’t seem to have a formulaic writing pattern; her books range from nonfiction (The River, The Frozen Thames) to historical fiction (Coventry, Rabbit Foot Bill, Afterimage) to hauntingly personal fiction (Wild Dogs).

If ever a Canadian writer deserved a lifetime achievement award, that writer should be Helen Humphreys.

I hope that this recognition from her fellow writers will spur more interest in this wonderful Canadian writer.

Wendy Barker

Winnipeg