Letters, July 3

Banking desert already here

Re: RBC closing central location (July 1)

The banking desert has already happened in the North End of Winnipeg, as there are only a handful of banks open from Higgins Avenue to Inkster Boulevard, from Main Street to Keewatin Street.

Growing up on Selkirk Avenue in the ’60s I can recall at least five banks on Selkirk Avenue alone, from Main Street to McGregor Avenue. Today there is not a single bank on Selkirk Avenue and only one on Mountain Avenue. I mention these streets as they are on bus routes.

Alfred Sansregret

Winnipeg

Separatist attitudes troubling

Re: Separatism strong among majority of Tory backers in Manitoba (June 30)

One might understand a significant minority of citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan, two “have” provinces, indicating a preference to separate from Canada, however complex and ill-advised that might actually be. It is much harder to understand those in a have-not province like Manitoba expressing similar sentiments as this survey suggests.

Do they understand that equalization payments alone constitute about $4.7 billion in provincial revenues? How could Manitoba be better off economically outside its current union? What other motivation would there be to leave Canada?

The interesting counterfactual would be what the support for separation in Manitoba would be if the Conservative party had won the federal election, as they were expected to do for several years. Is there real support for separation, regardless of its economic implications, or are the survey results just reflecting sour grapes among Conservative supporters about the election result? If so, these supporters might want to look at what the Carney Liberal government is offering and how much it aligns with Conservative positions on moving the economy forward.

Would it be so bad to have some bipartisan co-operation once parliament resumes?

Wayne Simpson

Winnipeg

No satisfying Trump

The author of The Art of the Deal has just introduced us to the art of the shakedown. And we’ve caved; the digital services tax is no more. No big deal (ha, ha). We can now move on with trade negotiations to clear up some misunderstandings on tariffs.

Unfortunately, like the blackmailer, the gangster is never satisfied. Already supply side management has appeared on the radar as the next target. What about our laws prohibiting inter basin water transfers? Or our environmental laws? American companies doing business in Canada, or eyeing our resources who feel hampered by our laws need only whisper in the ear.

At some point in the not too distant future we will have to make a choice; stand up to the bully and adjust to the economic harm that will come our way, or surrender and cease to be a credible independent nation.

Norman Brandson

Winnipeg

When U.S. President Donald Trump boasts that Canada “backed down” on the digital services tax, it’s more than political bluster — it’s a blow to our national dignity.

The tax wasn’t just about revenue. It was about fairness — ensuring tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Meta, who earn billions from Canadian users, contribute their share to the country they profit from. It was about asserting that Canada, like any sovereign nation, has the right to tax economic activity within its borders.

And yet, under pressure from Washington, we folded.

Let’s not sugarcoat it: this wasn’t a diplomatic compromise. It was a retreat. And when Trump frames it as a win, he’s not wrong — because we handed him one.

This sends a troubling message: that Canada’s economic principles are negotiable when the pressure comes from south of the border. That our policies can be dictated by the threat of tariffs or tweets. That we’ll abandon a fair and forward-looking tax policy to avoid confrontation.

Canadians deserve better. We deserve leaders who will stand firm in defence of fairness, even when it’s hard. We deserve a government that doesn’t blink when a foreign leader tries to strong-arm us. And we deserve a public conversation about these decisions — because I believe most Canadians would support a tax on Big Tech, even if it means standing up to a bully.

Backing down isn’t leadership. It’s capitulation. And it’s time we said so.

Stewart Johnson

Winnipeg

Change must be inclusive

Re: ‘Big learning curve’: Transit riders try out new city bus network (June 29)

I read with interest your recent article detailing Winnipeg Transit’s ambitious shift to a spine-and-feeder model. While officials tout it as the most significant overhaul in the system’s 142-year history, the reality on the ground paints a more complex picture — one of confusion, frustration and disruption to daily lives.

Many seniors rely on public transit not just for mobility, but for independence and connection. Transit officials insist that the new system is designed for the city of today, not the 1950s. That may be true. But in our rush to modernize, are we ignoring the needs of those who shaped the very city we now wish to streamline? A “learning curve” is one thing — but when people’s grocery runs, medical appointments and social lives hang in the balance, the stakes are far higher than abstract efficiency.

Maps and trip planners are helpful tools — for those who can access or understand them. But for the visually impaired, newcomers and older adults unfamiliar with technology, these changes feel more like barriers than bridges.

Yes, change is hard. But meaningful change must be inclusive, human-centred, and responsive. It is commendable that Winnipeg Transit has deployed support staff and is open to feedback. However, it is not enough to say “give it a chance” when people like Mr. Sojka are missing buses today. Let’s not sacrifice the present reality of our most vulnerable riders in pursuit of a better future.

A reliable transit system is the lifeblood of a livable city. Let us ensure that in the name of progress, we do not leave our elders and those most dependent on transit behind.

Yog Rahi Gupta

Winnipeg

Highway project won’t prevent tragedy

Re: Carberry residents blast highway intersection plan (June 25)

I’ve just returned from a road trip to Regina along Highway 1. In Manitoba there are several highway intersections similar to the Hwy. 5 crossing near Carberry. Between the Saskatchewan border and Headingley, highways 41, 83, 10, 34, 13 and 26 all cross Hwy. 1 similarly. There are also several provincial secondary roads, plus rural grid roads, that cross at every mile. I’d estimate there are at least 100 places you can cross the Trans-Canada in that stretch of road.

While tragic, the bus crash that resulted in the deaths of those seniors was caused by human error. That same human error could cause a similar collision at any of the countless other crossings. Are we going to build overpasses or RCUTs at all of them? Not likely.

The appropriate response to the Carberry tragedy is not to overreact. No overpass, no RCUT. Possibly spend no money on the intersection at all other than on signage or driver education and training.

Spending millions on this intersection is foolish and will not prevent the next tragedy at this intersection or any other in the province.

Cameron Laxdal

Dugald