Letters, July 12

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/07/2025 (263 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Premier backing status quo

Re: Premier defends energy projects (July 11)

Premier Wab Kinew has once again gone to bat for the fossil fuel status quo.

After backing Manitoba Hydro’s proposal for a new thermal power plant back in April (despite the government’s own commitment to clean electricity), Kinew is now doubling down on supporting potential oil or gas exports from Hudson Bay. In comments this week, Kinew invoked the tired trope that oil is needed for the firetrucks, chainsaws, and flights being used to fight the province’s catastrophic fires that fossil fuels are causing.

It’s unclear where the premier is getting his information on this subject from — but it’s shockingly out of date. Society-wide electrification and rapid buildouts of solar and wind power alongside battery storage is fully possible from a technical perspective. Wind and solar are now among the cheapest sources of electricity, and the global transition is already well underway. Just look at China, which the Financial Times recently described as the world’s first “electrostate” due its sky-rocketing renewables deployment, installing an average of 100 solar panels per second.

Manitoba is well positioned to follow such an example, if its leadership can abandon its obsolete and dangerous attachment to fossil fuels.

James Wilt

Winnipeg

Smoke complaints

Re: Kinew blasts Republicans rant on wildfires (July 11); Minn., Wis. Republicans call on Canada to curb wildfire smoke (July 10)

I’m glad Premier Wab Kinew called out the six Republican lawmakers over their letter regarding wildfire smoke that has drifted over the border.

This shows the entitlement and ignorance from them. No mention of climate change and no mention of the thousands of Canadians that have been evacuated or the two people that died in May from a wildfire. They’re ignorant on how large the boreal forest is in Canada and how it is in difficult terrain and inaccessible it is.

Perhaps we need to send a letter complaining about their pollution drifting over our border. Kinew is right — they are ambulance chasers.

Leanne Hanuschuk

Winnipeg

My response to those seeking Canada to find a way to refrain from allowing Mother Nature to blow smoke from the devastating wildfires in Canada into the U.S. is: sure, right after you:

1. Stop the Red River that flows from North Dakota into Manitoba from flooding our lands every spring!

2. Stop the Red River flowing from North Dakota into Manitoba from polluting all of the water that enters our province!

3. If the smoke is causing such hardships to your voters in summertime, why not go ahead and build another great big beautiful wall to keep it out?

The U.S. Republican lawmakers involved in this ridiculous request show much lack of respect, and lack of empathy for those struggling to survive the devastating fires and protect their homes and our beautiful country.

Thank you to everyone, including many good-hearted folks from the U.S., for aiding Manitoba in its battle against its worst wildfire season ever. You are very much appreciated!

C. White

Winnipeg

The July 10 Free Press carried an article about a letter sent from U.S. Republicans asking Canada what we are going to do about the smoke from the wildfires drifting south, and affecting their air quality. I had to stop reading for a bit to wrap my head around this. Since their leader says that climate change is a hoax, they are requesting information about forestry management etc.

I guess they aren’t aware that: we have a lot more forest than they do; and the vast majority of it is pine, one of the most flammable of trees.

Neither we, nor anyone else possess the ability at present to control the air currents of this planet. The entire world does not yet have the ability to quickly extinguish forest fires as they quickly ravage through vast hectares of forest. If they think it is so easy to deal with, maybe they can ask ICE to keep this smoke from illegally crossing into the U.S.

Since this is unlikely to be effective, may I suggest these Republicans go back to school to learn about air currents, and what happens in a forest fire? Maybe, if they want to receive less smoke they could consider funding more firefighting equipment and personnel to be sent wherever wildfires are happening on the North American continent? Am I the only one who thinks maybe the letter writers need a reality check?

Linda Ross-Mansfield

Winnipeg

Don’t limit Carney

Re: Promises of big changes don’t always deliver (Editorial, July 9)

Canadians chose Prime Minister Mark Carney partly because they expected that his financial expertise would help deal with the upcoming financial storm. A storm created by the anticipated impact on our economy of the trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump, many years of government over-spending (budget deficits have left Canada with a federal debt that requires annual interest payments of over $50 billion) and the requirement to finally honour our longstanding commitment to NATO respecting military spending.

Carney is being criticized for seeking ministerial proposals that would reduce the cost of federal government operations by 15 per cent over the next three years. The reduction will negatively impact government services, we are told, and must be avoided. The assumption of the critics appears to be that the current level of funding for government operations is the correct level (although presumably even a bit more funding would be nice) and that reductions will cause serious problems. But how did we get to that “untouchable” level of funding?

In Justin Trudeau’s nine years as prime minister, the federal civil service grew by 43 per cent while our population only grew by less than 15 per cent. Did we get 28 per cent more or better service? And at the same time, the hiring of independent contractors to supplement the civil service grew even more rapidly to over $20 billion a year.

Carney has said that in addition to finding “ambitious savings proposals”, he wants to “invest more in building (the) Canadian economy.” So what he is talking about is reviewing our priorities and spending more in some areas and less in other areas.

That seems like something we should be entitled to expect from any government — continually re-examining priorities and shifting expenditures to meet the areas of greatest need. Spending part of the savings on tax cuts is a mistake as the tax cuts are not a priority given the other financial pressures we are facing. But it does not negate the reason for the review being undertaken.

We elected Carney because we had confidence in his ability to do a difficult job. Let’s not second guess how he intends to do it by trying to limit his options.

Robert Pruden

Winnipeg