Letters, April 24

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/04/2024 (888 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Past wasn’t so great

Re: Time for a new health-care vision (Letters, April 22)

The letter writer opines that the very existence of publicly funded and administered health care is “the root cause of our health-care system dysfunction” and nostalgically imagines the golden days of the late 1960’s, with its “free market in health care provision” in which a “fabulous clinician could bring in oodles of sick patients.”

Even leaving aside such a distastefully casual reference to wanting to make money from the plight of sick patients, wouldn’t a better starting point be to reduce the burden of disease in the community in the first place? Frankly, looking only to the past to fix the increasingly complex health care problems of today is like claiming that the solution to the infrastructure debt and the oodles of potholes is for everyone to ride horses instead of vehicles.

In the late 1960s, life expectancy in Canada was only 72 years, modern medical advances that we now take for granted were non-existent or in their infancy — and the top tax rate was well over 60 per cent.

Also, as a female physician of colour, I am not eager to return to a time when there was “no place… for those who wish to promote equity, inclusion or reconciliation.” If you think that DEI policies are what’s hurting our underfunded and beleaguered health-care system, I’ve got a bridge in Baltimore to sell you.

Dr. Sowmya Dakshinamurti

Winnipeg

Invest in mental health

Re: Firefighters honour fallen colleague (April 22)

It is so sad that once again a firefighter has taken their own life. Whether it is a firefighter, a police officer or a soldier, the experiences they deal with daily so we don’t have to, can take a great toll.

“If only they talked to a professional,” is the common response. It is true. Talking to a mental health professional in some cases could make a big difference but why don’t they? Asking to speak to someone could look weak to their co-workers. Your chance of promotion could be impacted. Your income could be affected. Why take that chance?

These are professions that have a lot of toughness expected of you. Male or female. The same could be said for other professions such as sports like hockey and football. “Suck it up. Shake it off.”

I would like to suggest that the unions and management work together to institute a policy that every position that is at risk of mental health breakdowns would be required to sit down with a mental health professional for half an hour every six months. They can talk about life in general, they can open up about suicide thoughts or they can talk about hockey. It doesn’t matter.

The thing is, no one knows what you will discuss. It can possibly avoid a tragedy like we just saw for Preston Heinbigner.

If that is the result, it would be worth it.

Tom P. Scott

Winnipeg

Electoral solutions

Re: The New Democratic Party and electoral reform (Think Tank, April 20)

Professor Paul Thomas states the obvious when he writes that the Manitoba NDP isn’t interested in electoral reform because status quo favours them. In other words, he admits that when it comes to election rules, politicians are not the folks we should trust to improve our democratic institutions, because they will inevitably put how any changes could help or hamper their own political careers front of mind. In short, they have too much skin in the game.

But if we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, is this peculiar conflict of interest just unavoidable? Absolutely not! In fact, Manitoba has a distinguished record of creating innovative institutions to solve this exact issue.

Seventy years ago, the drawing of all provincial and federal electoral boundaries was the prerogative of the party which had won the previous election. As Professor John Courtney describes in his book, Commissioned Ridings, the updating and redrawing of electoral district maps had been “carefully managed, irregularly timed, and self-interested exercises controlled by the party in office. They often amounted to little more than thinly disguised gerrymandering. Gross inequities in populations of constituencies were not unusual, and boundaries were drawn to try and distribute the governing parties supporters to the best advantage for future elections.”

This started to change in 1955 when a novel solution was invented right here in Manitoba: instead of politicians drawing the maps, a permanent independent non-partisan commission tasked with updating electoral boundaries every 10 years was created. This model was gradually adopted across Canada and it is precisely why we are now spared from the ugly and undemocratic gerrymandered maps we see in the United States. This is a real made in Manitoba success story and the lesson could not be more clear; politicians can be successfully stripped of the power to decide election related law, and our democracy is improved because of it.

Professor Thomas claims electoral reform is too arcane a topic, something everyday people aren’t interested in, and yet our own history proves that is no barrier to making real improvements in our democracy, after all what could possibly be more arcane than the redrawing of electoral maps!

The Tuxedo NDP constituency association is calling for an independent citizens’ assembly to be called to make legislative recommendations for how Manitoban democracy could better serve voters. This is exactly the type of solution which solves the conflict of interest Professor Thomas recognizes.

No Canadian would argue today that electoral maps should be returned to politicians to draw, and it follows that the rules of our democracy don’t belong in their hands either.

Kieran Szuchewycz

Winnipeg

Let’s lower temperature

In May, 1856 Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten in the U.S. Senate by Preston Brooks, a representative from South Carolina. The cause of this incident was a debate over whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a free or slave state.

The reason I mention this incident is that the state of partisan politics in Canada has reached a point where such a physical assault is quite likely in the near future. Both main parties, Liberal and Conservative, deliberately twist facts to support their narrative. Both parties are quite willing to denigrate their opponents in personal terms that would have been unheard of a few decades ago.

Both Pierre Trudeau and Robert Stanfield had a respectful attitude toward one another. Stanfield recognized Trudeau’s brilliance, and Trudeau acknowledged that Stanfield had been a very successful premier of Nova Scotia. They were opponents but not enemies.

I vaguely recall an incident where Stanfield, as Leader of the Opposition, allowed the Liberals time to gather its members for an important vote. When urged by some members to push for a quick vote, he replied that he was not in Ottawa to play games (although his wording might have been different).

We need to return to a viewpoint where we can debate without casting aspersions. This is more important than any particular issue.

Kurt Clyde

Winnipeg