Letters, April 6

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 06/04/2024 (905 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Falling policy discriminatory

Re: When a senior falls, who pays for it? (April 2)

Thank you Tyler Searle and the Free Press for highlighting this scandalous Winnipeg policy change. Unfortunately there is a need for clarity and accountability from the City of Winnipeg on this matter. Specifically, which of our disabled or seniors are to be targeted by this predatory policy change?

Coun. Evan Duncan has accused the Waverley and other for-profit corporations of “gouging” their residents. He needs to be reminded that these corporations were invited to provide basic housing and assistance services for their target demographic group’s increasing need when government were unable to provide such accommodations. There have never been regulatory requirements for such corporations to provide lift services, nor has there been any consultation with stakeholders before the ancillary lift billings were put in place.

The City of Winnipeg appears to be targeting extra billings to the for-profit corporations and not individuals as evidenced by the billings sent to corporations rather than to individuals. It remains to be seen as to whether not-for-profit corporations or individuals requiring services at their life leases, condos or apartments, or private residences would be dealt with differently.

Two weeks ago, the WFPS website showed pricing in effect for April 1, 2023, which had the long-standing traditional fees listed, the addition of assisted lift fees, and a statement that fees were the responsibility of the recipient. It should also be noted that extra assisted lift service invoices have only been issued recently irrespective of the website information. Since then the website has been sanitized with a new schedule of fees effective Jan. 1, 2024, without clarity of who is expected to be charged.

The city appears to be offloading expenses in a discriminatory way that will likely end up being litigated at the expense of taxpayers. Further, the policy is at odds with the current seniors “aging in place” mantra being promoted due to shortages of care facilities. The city’s suggestion that assisted living facilities should hire staff to assess their residents’ needs and handle assisted lifts would add competing demand for nurses and health-care professionals, further exacerbating the current critical shortages.

The City of Winnipeg should reconsider their ill-advised discriminatory self-serving policy that will affect our disabled or seniors who cannot effectively advocate for themselves.

Gordon Rybuck

Winnipeg

EV rebate unfair

Despite government handouts in the form of subsidies for both EV buyers and automakers, mandates, tax credits and other incentives, there has clearly not been the predicted consumer acceptance for the volume of EVs being produced.

No matter the push by the “greens” in government and the constant apocalyptic predictions by climate change activists, consumers are not buying their sales pitch and lining up to buy their product. So now our NDP government has announced a new incentive on EVs, of $4,000 for new vehicles under $70,000 and $2,500 for pre-owned ones, with taxpayers’ funding added to the EV money pit. So this socialism for the wealthy who can afford an EV has left the middle-class taxpayers holding the bag to help pay for cars most cannot afford or even wish to own.

I am a retiree on a set income and my 2009 Elantra is beginning to rust, so I am in the market for a new lower-priced SUV that I can afford. Well guess what, I cannot find one that I can afford to pay the monthly payments on and pay my rent, utilities, food and all other monthly bills. Yet I read more of my taxpayers dollars are being used to help wealthier people buy an EV and, on top of that, helping dealerships rid themselves of EVs because EV sales have been slower than they hoped for in Manitoba because of sticker shock.

Where is my help? My stomach turns.

Kim Trethart

Winnipeg

A little fossil fuel has its uses

Re: Fossil fuel fouls clean-grid future (March 28)

Your article blends emergency and everyday needs when quoting Prof. Mark Winfield and proposed federal regulations which you incorrectly imply do not foresee a role for natural gas turbines in emergency and extreme conditions.

As a cyclist, I scorn the massive SUVs and trucks of other commuters, especially the remotely started idling ones that spew out CO2 to provide a comfy start for someone’s day. However, if I need an ambulance, I want a large vehicle to show up quickly and, if an emergency planner decided it would be a fossil-fuelled vehicle, I’d defer to the expert.

Efficiency and renewables (better building codes, EVs, new space heating technologies and bicycles) must be our everyday choices but, in extreme weather events and disasters, practicality must trump dogma, even if it sometimes means using small amounts of fossil fuels as a backup for heating, power generation and ambulances.

Your article lacked perspective. My having a glass of wine per month (0.2 per cent of calories) is similar to Hydro’s natural gas use (54 GWh/yr in 35,000 GWh/yr of production). If, once per decade, I consumed two glasses of wine per month, you could hardly say my alcoholic consumption “spiked”, that I could not “escape (my) reliance” on alcohol or it “blemishes (my) clean (living) reputation”.

Your article is more balanced than many, but complex billion-dollar problems require more nuanced discussion. A good place to start would be to avoid false dichotomies that confuse the exception with the rule and to avoid provocative and simplistic pronouncements.

A glass of wine isn’t a nutritional “dead end.” A glass of wine doesn’t foul a commitment to healthy food and a ride in an ambulance doesn’t foul a commitment to sustainable transportation any more than limited use of “fossil fuels foul (a) clean-grid future.”

Daniel Prowse

Winnipeg

Hospital’s destruction horrific

The destruction of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza is a horrific war crime perpetrated by Israel. In cynical defiance of the International Criminal Court’s specific calls on Israel to protect civilians and prevent genocide, the Israeli army besieged Al-Shifa hospital for two weeks. It was full of thousands of patients, refugees, and health-care staff. Israel has now claimed that it killed 200 militants and its operation is over.

Are we to believe that they were protecting the civilians during this operation? What evidence did Israel have that Hamas was operating from the hospital?

Al-Shifa hospital was the largest hospital in Gaza representing 30 per cent of the health infrastructure in Gaza. It was 78 years old, having been established in 1946, and called a “House of Healing.” It has now been converted to a house of death by Israel. The infrastructure has been completely ruined, converted to a pile of dead bodies and rubble. Over 5,000 patients need to be transferred urgently. Thousands of homes in the area were destroyed.

The U.S. is complicit to this crime as it continues to send billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Israel. Thankfully, our current Canadian government, including the Liberals and the NDP, has stopped sending arms to Israel and called for a ceasefire. But this was without any support from Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives. Poilievre calls himself a “friend of Israel” and has not supported any calls for a ceasefire.

Is this the kind of leader Canadians want for our future? One who is ostensibly supporting a genocide?

Jennifer W. Rahman

Winnipeg