Letters, May 12

Opinion

Pest-control options

Re: Reconsidering Manitoba’s war on ‘pests’ (Think Tank, May 9)

Jessica Scott-Reid’s “live and let live” concept, with respect to the ground squirrels in eight of Winnipeg’s parks, is unrealistic.

There is no such thing as co-existence, with ground squirrels and humans sharing the same space. The holes dug by ground squirrels present a serious danger to anyone who steps into them while running, such as in soccer or in baseball. The injury from that kind of incident can result in not just a broken bone but a shattered bone, which requires complex surgery to repair.

There are only two options for the eight parks in Winnipeg. First, they can be left to the ground squirrels and become unusable for any kind of sports. The unevenness of the ground, caused by their digging, even makes it unsuitable for walking. The net result is that eight parks are lost for public use along with their associated sporting and recreational activities. Some of these parks may be in low-income areas where organized sport and outdoor activities are important to the well-being of the community.

Option 2 means removal of the ground squirrels, and it is not necessarily an easy one. Once the ground squirrels have been removed, the holes have to be filled in, the entire field regraded to remove the earth mounds and the area reseeded where the ground squirrels have destroyed the grass.

So, two options: Do nothing and turn over the parks to the wildlife with the resulting damage to the community, or do something that might be unpalatable, but necessary, to take back the parks for the public good.

Wally Barton

Winnipeg

Separation talk cynical

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is playing cute over the separation issue. She professes fealty to Canada, but it’s a ploy to further her own political standing, red meat for the right.

Occasionally Alberta seems not to understand they are part a larger country. They seem to think their good fortune will go on forever. How will they react if/when oil and gas are not society’s primary energy sources? If they have somehow figured out the immensely complex act of separating, will they want back in when their wealth is largely depleted?

And what about the rest of us? Are we to stand back when our country is being eviscerated? Why would you do that to your fellow citizens? It’s my country too.

I don’t want Canada to be reduced, particularly now with threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. I get that Quebec is unique and can feel like a separate society, and I get that Alberta feels ignored and maybe even mistreated by the federal government. But what’s to be gained by leaving? And what about such things as what currency would they use? What about a military? What portions of the national debt would they take? The negotiations would be endless.

These issues are well explored by folks better trained than I. The long and the short of it is that Quebec and Alberta are not likely to push the separation issue very far but will continue to use it to scare others and to further this or that politician’s stature. It’s cynical and hurtful. It’s a little childish.

Quebec’s chronic dissatisfaction and threats of separation has hopefully run out of steam. I hope Alberta’s can do the same.

Paul Sweatman

Vancouver, B.C.

Homeless strategy

Re: Curb expectations on province’s grandiose homelessness strategy (May 5); Homeless people again occupying cleared encampment along river in East Exchange (May 3)

In his column, Dan Lett says this: “The homeless need more than emergency shelter; longer-term housing along with mental health and addictions treatment, education, job training and other social services is more or less the approach everyone wants to take.”

Housing, Addictions and Homelessness Minister Bernadette Smith and Dan Lett both say that this is a battle that will be fought one homeless person at a time. The reappearance of homeless encampments that were cleared away attests to the accuracy of their assessment of the situation.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect many of those who choose to live in these homeless encampments to adapt to the lifestyle change which Lett says everyone wants to take. Not everyone wants to take this approach. The people who live in homeless encampments are living there because they prefer this alternative. Many homeless people have major mental health problems, will never kick their habits, and will never be able to hold down a job. Because they are dysfunctional, they do not fit into conventional housing.

Instead of focusing on housing, the focus should be on the people who are homeless. I suggest we set up encampments on vacant lots downtown with used trailers, port-a-potties, and social services and amenities that help the homeless. This will give residents of these encampments the freedom to live as they please.

It will also regulate the existence of the homeless to minimize negative impact on the city.

Rich North

Winnipeg

Stick to bike paths

Now that the weather has improved, there are even more cyclists on our sidewalks, even with a 12-foot-wide bike path on the other side of my street. They fly past me on my front sidewalk, as I walk home or work on my property.

Another close encounter last night leaves me afraid to even be out front.

The city is very worried about cyclist safety and has installed “safe” bike paths all over.

How about the cyclists use them?

R. Bodi

Winnipeg

On animal welfare

Re: Police called after dead cat found in area linked to cruelty case (May 8)

Andrew Clarke of the Winnipeg Humane Society is quoted as saying, “The Animal Care Act in Manitoba, it’s got a bit of teeth in it.” Offenders can be sentenced to up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $20,000.

Compare that to the province’s ag-gag law where an individual convicted of the “heinous act” (sarcasm alert) of providing water to an animal suffering from heat exhaustion in a metal trailer on a blistering hot summer day can receive a one-year prison sentence and $10,000 fine. Absolutely criminal.

Debbie Wall

Winnipeg

Benefits of carbon tax

Re: End the industrial carbon tax (Think Tank, May 6)

Gage Haubrich seems to think that the climate crisis is not going to affect affordability. Canadians are seeing the effects of extreme weather events on their pocketbooks. Wildfire, droughts, and rising insurance premiums caused a record-breaking $8.5 billion in Canada in insured losses in 2024. The fires in L.A. cost an estimated US$250 billion. Plus we will see rising prices of food, possibly up to 3.2 per cent a year, because of climate change.

Carbon pricing is the most cost-effective way to reduce pollution, protect health, and spur innovation without burdening future generations. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly warned that failing to price pollution from fossil fuels risks both missing climate targets and triggering debt crises.

Rather than ending industrial carbon pricing, we need to strengthen it.

There are solutions for the leakage of industries to other countries that don’t have carbon pricing. Just as the EU is doing, starting in 2026 and expanding from there, we need to institute border carbon adjustments. These would put a tariff on goods from countries that don’t price carbon. In return we will not pay tariffs to those countries that also have carbon pricing. In fact, if we don’t price carbon, we will be paying a fee anyway with a tariff on EU goods.

It is time for us all to stand for affordability and our Earth and support carbon pricing.

Lori Bohn

Winnipeg