Letters, March 25

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/03/2024 (900 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Not just an intersection

Well, our mayor says “it’s just an intersection,” but this is not an actual fact. Which other intersections in Winnipeg have a fully developed retail/commercial shopping concourse built underneath them?

None.

On the surface of the corner, yes it is an intersection of two streets, but there are a plethora of other problems that need to be addressed before simply saying that this can be remediated by just dismantling the underground structure, filling it in and removing the above-ground barriers.

What is the development agreement between the city and the businesses, especially those on the four corners, that was drawn up before the concourse was built? Was there a maintenance agreement between all businesses to repair deficiencies that arise? Or was this all on the city to take care of? I would believe that an agreement was drawn up before the concourse was built.

Is there a time limit on the lifespan of the underground concourse that the City of Winnipeg will need to honour or will there be a compensation payout to any or all of the business/commercial entities that needs to be discussed prior to the city proceeding? I am just a common citizen with some questions that should be answered prior to a vote be city council, but it seems like either information is being withheld or not simply not available to those who pay their civic taxes.

There are many questions requiring answers as this is not a simple problem to solve.

Thomas Best

Winnipeg

A workable program

Re: We must deal with toxic drug supplies (Think Tank, March 21)

I’d like to weigh in again on the matter of safe consumption sites in Winnipeg, with a focus on safe supply.

Perhaps I’ve been misinformed about this approach, but I assume the issue is one of giving “carries” much like in methadone programs.

In this situation, methadone patients line up in a pharmacy every morning to receive one dose of methadone. If the patients show good compliance and reliability, aided by urine testing, the patients may be given a “carry,” which is a small dose of medication administered personally the next day. The number of “carries” can be removed if the patients are non-compliant.

On any day, the patients’ privileges can be revoked and they will go back to their morning doses. Individuals are vetted carefully before they can join the program.

This is not the system that would work for opiates. There would be no “carries” and the patients would be responsible to show up when their medications are due. Patients can be dosed more than once a day if indicated.

No “carries,” no diversion.

Of course the eligibility for this program would rely on a referral basis from health care professionals and agencies. Again, patients would be vetted extensively by staff at the safe consumption site, and would include questions about a failure at a methadone program, as well as their failure with at least two residential rehab programs. While attending the program, they would be offered an in-house rehab program.

Unfortunately, funding for an in-house drug rehab program allows only one month of intervention. Despite the work of dedicated rehab staff, one month is unlikely to produce success.

Rehab should include housing, mental health intervention, job training and acquisition, mentoring opportunities, and education in a program that provides GED certification (certified Canadian high school equivalency) or post-secondary training. Of course, this would all take funding.

Providing money for successful outcomes is better than throwing money at programs that result in few successes.

If we want real change, we have to lobby the provincial and federal governments to step up to the plate. We can do better.

David Hallatt, MD (retired)

Winnipeg

Margin of error

Re: New training needed for police (Think Tank, March 21)

I wonder if the Police Accountability Coalition has stats on the number of mental health-related incidents that are successfully resolved by uniformed police?

There will be many, but they rarely if ever become newsworthy. I attended many such calls in 35 years of policing.

Invariably it will be the ones that have tragic consequences that make the news, and too often become subject to the prejudicial opinions of some people. There will always be those types of incidents, no matter how much training. Can anyone realistically think every situation is resolvable, when there are only seconds to make a decision? I’ve been there many times. Have they?

There are many capable people in social services and the mental health field, but I’ve seen where they don’t get it right all the time. That’s life. Can we not accept that sometimes, despite best efforts, some things don’t the way we’d like them to go? And don’t think Dave Cassels knows what he’s talking about either, just because he was chief. Rank (or education) does not make up for the lack of real life experience, and police rank is mostly not based on street experience.

Maybe that should be improved, then the policies and procedures people question could improve, and I wouldn’t limit that to just policing either.

Kevin Birkett

Winnipeg

Advocate needed

Re: Tories put seniors on hold, delay NDP legislation for independent advocate (March 20)

I agree with Connie Newman from MASC (Manitoba Association of Senior Communities) that older adults, similar to children, need an advocate so people can express their concerns and needs. After what happened in long-term and personal care homes during the pandemic, the need for an independent voice becomes greater. Having a Seniors Advocate was an issue I brought up with candidates who came to my door during the last provincial election.

Let’s join British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Alberta, in having someone who will speak up and advocate on behalf of older Manitobans.

Cindy Kelly

Winnipeg

Confidence man

Re: Poilievre threatens no confidence vote on carbon price, Guilbeault calls him a liar (March 20)

Pierre Poilievre wants to make the carbon tax the issue in the next election and right away in a confidence motion in the House of Commons, that’s OK with me, and I suspect it’s OK with the prime minister. Poilievre really is the literal definition of the classic confidence man, with the parlance of a con man. He has his mark, the Canadian electorate — or at least 30 to 38 per cent of them — and he has his script, “axe the tax”, which, like all confidence schemes, is designed to dissemble and obfuscate.

Anyone who pays attention to the news will remember that the prime minister quite clearly articulated that this would happen at the outset of the tax being implemented, that it would continue to increase the price on carbon but as well, the rebates would continue to rise, so none of this should come as a shock to anyone. Yet Poilievre seems to have convinced quite a few that indeed this is new information and that it is shocking, which is how you sell a narrative, one that doesn’t benefit you, or the climate, but him.

In the last year, there have been a number of studies that have reported findings that the carbon tax is actually quite beneficial, it was conclusively proven that the tax has next to no impact on food prices, a key plank of Poilievre’s narrative.

It’s also fairly well understood that if the carbon tax was to be done away with, it would only benefit the rich rather than the poor who would either be no worse off or worse off while the rich get richer and have nicer toys.

The brilliance of Pierre’s con is convincing people who aren’t disaffected by taxes that taxes are detrimental to their lifestyle and cloak this under the guise of freedom, and it works.

But what is also true is that a majority of Canadians want action taken on climate change. There is debate on what that should look like, I grant you, but action nonetheless. Poilievre and his goon squad have presented no alternative, all they offer is fiddle-playing while the world burns.

And that is the real choice in this election, action or doing nothing and having no plan and leaving the world a cindering pile of rubble for future generations.

I think you know who I’m voting for.

Will Jones

Winnipeg