Letters, Oct. 16

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/10/2024 (583 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Correction

A column by Deveryn Ross in the Oct. 15, 2024, edition of the Free Press indicated that, based on analysis of air travel costs, members of the NDP cabinet were travelling in first class, rather than in economy seats. A spokesperson for the Manitoba government said neither the premier nor any cabinet minister under the NDP administration has flown first class. One minister flew business class when rebooking after a flight cancellation due to weather. In addition, the column indicated that reporting on one trip made by Premier Wab Kinew was incomplete, because it didn’t include a claim for airfare. The government spokesman said there was no claim for airfare because Premier Kinew paid the cost of airfare personally.

Carbon tax will help

Whether or not you like him and whether or not you agree with him, you have to admire Justin Trudeau’s commitment regarding the carbon price issue. He believes that a price on carbon is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions and that it is vital to do so. Trudeau also knows that he is losing support and perhaps the next election over the carbon tax.

When someone commits to doing the right thing, takes a beating for it and then keeps on doing the right thing, that is evidence that the person has both principles and courage.

Pierre Poilievre, on the other hand, distorts the issue of a carbon tax, exaggerates its costs, ignores its benefits, but presents no viable alternatives. He ignores the fact that his party originated the idea of a tax on carbon and the fact that economists regard it as an effective and low-cost tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Poilievre knows that climate change is real, damages our health and our environment, and is already costing billions of dollars in flood, forest fires, infrastructure damage from ever more frequent and violent storms, crop damage and increasing insurance costs. Also, he ignores that climate change is getting worse at an increasing rate and is an existential threat to life on Earth as we know it.

Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” campaign slogan is cynical and cowardly politics which could easily backfire. There are many traditional Conservative voters who will be driven to other parties by Poilievre’s anti-expert, anti-science stance as he takes every opportunity to whip up rage against the price on pollution. Poilievre knows that a carbon tax is good for Canada. He knows that polluting should not be free. However, he will do or say anything in an effort to gain voter support. He appears to have no principles. He just wants power.

A carbon tax alone will not solve the problem but it will help. People make decisions every day which will affect their carbon footprint for many years into the future. The prospect of increasing fuel costs, according to economists, will drive most of us to choose less consumptive lifestyles which may mean more efficient transportation, shorter commutes, less extravagant homes. We owe that to future generations.

Dave Schwartz

Kenora, Ont.

Understanding contraceptives

Re: “Free for all?” (Letters, Oct. 12)

I am writing in response to the letter written by Dorothy Horn in the Oct. 12 edition, for the reason that it does not make a lot of sense at all.

The biggest misconception I see is around the phrase “sexual activity is a choice” and using that to justify reducing the accessibility of contraception to low-income individuals only. There are two big problems with this statement. Firstly, while sexual activity may be a choice (but also an essential aspect of human nature, I would argue), does that make it any less worthy of protection? What about sexual activity being a choice makes it OK for protection to be withheld or placed behind a cost barrier? Being able to choose when and if one has children is a fundamental human right. Restricting access to contraception flies in the face of that.

Secondly, that phrase implies that contraception is only used when sexual activity is present. That could not be further from the truth. Many rely on contraception to help regulate periods, stop menstruation and alleviate some of the pain associated with conditions like endometriosis. These are conditions that make access to contraception essential for someone’s ability to function in society; much like the medication Ms. Horn is referencing that she needs. It is valuable for everyone, regardless of income level, to have free access to contraception. I agree that free contraception is an excellent idea but means testing human rights is not a good idea.

Cara McCaskill

Winnipeg

COVID strategies

Re: “No tests” (Letters, Oct. 15)

Thank you Stewart Jacques for shining a light on our chief provincial health officer’s vague advice on COVID and COVID testing.

Dr. Brent Roussin has suggested anyone at risk for serious illness — age more than 65, the Indigenous community, anyone with a chronic health condition, pregnant women and children age six months through five years — see a clinician for assessment (when symptomatic).

This constitutes an enormous number of individuals being advised to see a clinician for the extremely frequent seasonal symptoms of an upper respiratory tract infection (sore throat, congestion, cough, fatigue).

Although their presenting symptoms may be similar, COVID and the flu are different illnesses. Recent three-year follow-up data has disclosed a substantial increase in ischemic heart disease, heart dysrhythmia, stroke and other complications from long COVID which will affect a substantial number of individuals who contract COVID; early treatment for at-risk individuals may be of benefit.

Which is a cheaper, more effective and equitable public health strategy while we await the development of a mucosal, inhaled COVID vaccine aimed at reducing the high circulating levels of COVID? Provide free tests, thereby enabling symptomatic, at-risk individuals to test then urgently seek assessment if COVID positive for treatment, thereby lessening their risk for long-COVID end-organ damage; or overwhelm clinician’s offices with visits while many symptomatic individuals, many COVID positive, remain untested because they are unable, or decline, to see a clinician in a timely manner?

Chris Jensen

Winnipeg

Regulate trucking

I drive to my cottage every few weeks from May until October to just east of Kenora. Every time I drive and I see a semi coming towards me, or is literally riding the bumper of my truck, I feel fear.

I drive slightly above the speed limit, and yet these semi drivers think the speed limit is just a suggestion. I was passed by a semi in a 100 km/h zone; me doing 107 km/h around a corner, meaning a double line. Of course I slowed down and swore at the driver (as if he could hear me). Later on after my nerve-wracking experience, another semi truck — this one heading towards me — is passing another semi on a curve (double line) and I’m forced to brake and get onto the shoulder. This past weekend, my own daughter with three of my grandsons on board watched a car drive between two semis as one was passing another semi on a curve. Endangering my family because of reckless driving will definitely get my blood to boil.

These drivers in my opinion are grossly inexperienced and poorly trained.

A recent CBC Marketplace segment about semi driver training exposed the corruptness within the training companies. Private industries are doing the training. Well, in Manitoba my driver testing is regulated by the province.

So why is the heavy trucking industry not regulated by the respective provinces, and the federal government?

After the horrific Humboldt crash, the feds said they were going to regulate the heavy hauling industry and training. It is simply not happening and innocent lives are being lost because of their inaction.

Whether it is a provincial or federal jurisdiction, I don’t know. But I damn well do care!

The lives of all of us depends on their immediate action. “Axe the Tax” be damned. This is a much greater priority.

Brad McKay

Winnipeg