Letters, Feb. 8

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/02/2024 (944 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Don’t repeat past mistakes

Re: Shifting sands, mounting concerns (Feb. 2)

The new government appears to be in danger of repeating their predecessors’ mistakes with the Vivian silica sand extraction project.

The minister of environment and climate change was quoted suggesting that six of the eight detailed recommendations made by the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) for the proposed sand mine could be “baked in” to an Environment Act licence, should one be issued.

The Manitoba Eco-Network and Our Line in the Sand argued strenuously against this backward approach last year during the CEC hearing as it conflicts with best practice standards for environmental assessment. The recommendations of the CEC for this project were made to help fill significant information gaps in the project proposal and address public concerns before a final licence is issued for this project.

Waiting to address most of the CEC’s recommendations until after the project is approved would be a mistake. This could mean that important processes recommended by the CEC, such as a cumulative effects assessment, meant to improve understanding of potential negative impacts to the environment and human health, would not take place until after the project is approved.

Cumulative effects assessments consider the combined effects of past, present and future activities whose effects may be individually minor but collectively significant. In short, it’s the only way to understand the project’s risks in their proper context.

Delaying the consideration of important information, like the potential cumulative impacts of a project, until after a licence has been issued is unwise and unreasonable. This approach ignores over 20 years of sound advice from the CEC, which has long recommended improvements to Manitoba’s environmental assessment process. This includes recommendations that government require or strengthen cumulative effects assessment practices in at least nine separate reports since 2003.

As the record stands, there is not enough information to adequately address concerns that plans to drill thousands of wells through one aquifer and into another, extract tonnes of sand and leave permanent gaps and cavities underground will have detrimental impacts on our groundwater and the communities in surrounding areas.

The new government has an opportunity to correct longstanding failures in Manitoba’s environmental impact assessment and licensing process. We trust that the government’s decision will reject the status quo of poor environmental decision-making and instead focus on protecting an extremely important aquifer and the people whose lives depend on it.

Heather Fast and Tangi Bell

Winnipeg/Anola

If there ever was a time when plain, common sense was needed, it is now.

Water is not a game to be utilized, like Russian roulette. Water is for our life, and our future generations.

This is the result of governments’ wishy-washy policies and the illogical practice that agricultural and commerce operators have a right to run the show. Whatever happened to the public good as the guiding principle?

Approximately 750,000 residents of Winnipeg rely on drinking water from the Shoal Lake, Ont. reservoir. The two aquifers in the proposed area of Sio drilling feed Winnipeg’s water source.

Has anyone considered this: What happens if the potential economic development destroys the water sources? Is there a plan for such a devastating catastrophe? Money will not quench the thirst for water!

Let us work and look to the future, for the sake of our children and future generations, a future that isn’t filled with disaster and water hardships.

John Fefchak

Virden

Warning for Alberta premier

I am a parent of an adult transgender son and one who helped start the support group PFFoTI, (Parents, Family and Friends of Transgender Individuals) at the Rainbow Resource Centre here in Winnipeg 18 years ago.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is going to have to be prepared to make sure many mental health supports are provided for those who request puberty blockers and hormones but are denied because of their age. My experience and those of other parents who attended the group realize that children are very aware of their sexuality at a young age and whether or not their body conforms with how they feel in their brain.

Those children, who suffer from gender dysphoria without proper medical care are more likely to do street drugs to mask their pain, drink, and act out and, as a result, sometimes suffer mental health issues because their brain and body are not in sync. Those, at a young age, who are allowed prescribed meds, allowed to dress as their chosen sex and participate in activities that match their chosen sex have a much better chance of living a great life.

The saddest option is those who are not allowed to make their choice who end their life. I preferred to have my child alive, rather than in a box.

Naomi Finkelstein

Winnipeg

Things hard enough without fines

Re: Car owner buried under $380 ticket, tow even though there’s no snow (Feb. 5)

How embarrassing for this city to go after their taxpayers in this manner. Cash grab at its finest.

People are finding it difficult to afford housing, groceries, gas and a multitude of other financial burdens and the city decides to charge the astronomical price of $250 plus $130 for the tow to this homeowner for parking on a snow route in the middle of “plus” temperatures.

They continue to hand these fines out like they were a drop in the bucket while people are in the throes of making ends meet.

Just plain embarrassing!

D. Liebrecht

West St. Paul

Problems with rail move

The relocation of the CPR rail yards has been discussed numerous times in the Free Press explaining all the benefits of moving them out of the city core; however, no one has ever discussed the logic of this move.

The first problem is the cost. A previous article in the Free Press estimated a cost of $1 billion for the move, but realistically it would likely be closer to $2 billion at today’s dollars, and that cost will only increase the longer the move is delayed. As CP isn’t going to pay that amount of money to move from someplace they are happy with, that means the people of Manitoba will be on the hook for the cost of the move.

The next problem is where to locate the new facility. CP may decide to move some or all of their facilities to other areas such as Portage la Prairie, Brandon or Weyburn in which case taxes and workers are lost by Winnipeg.

Even if they were to relocate to the industrial park at the northwest end of Winnipeg I believe some if not most of that land belongs to Warren, so Warren gets some of the tax revenue. Once the new location is decided upon, CP will have to go through several steps to move their facility such as an environmental assessment and, due to it being a heavy and dirty industry, this assessment will be very detailed. If it passes this assessment, the CP will have to contend with both the NIMBY crowd and then the First Nations who may fight the move onto their ancestral lands in the courts and this will add years onto any proposed move, so our initial cost will increase even more.

Manitoba has a history of groups fighting to keep industry, especially heavy or dirty industry, from locating in their “backyards” or onto ancestral lands. Why would the relocation of CP rail yards be different? If CP were to relocate I imagine they will go somewhere they are wanted and it isn’t in Manitoba.

Arthur Matthews

Winnipeg