Letters, Aug. 5

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/08/2025 (234 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Toughen up, prime minister

Re: Trade deadline passes without a deal (Aug. 1)

Reading Friday’s paper regarding the so-called trade deal with the U.S. made me sick! In my opinion Prime Minister Mark Carney needs to step up and show the U.S. that we are tired of being played with! Instead of “elbows up” it is “heads down.” We are puppets to Donald Trump.

Whenever a plan is implemented to help Canada (digital sales tax) Trump comes in and threatens higher tariffs. Carney is always talking about how strong Canada is, but it sure doesn’t look that way to the U.S. or to me! We might as well become the 51st state if Carney doesn’t start standing up for Canada.

Debbie Painter

Winnipeg Beach

Painful reminder

Re: Stranded without home care for weeks (July 31)

The article Stranded without home care for weeks brought back memories for me, and none of them good. In 2008, my wife Lynne and I moved from Island Lakes to Riverview. Lynne had advanced stage Alzheimer’s disease and I planned the move so that I would be closer to where Lynne would live when she transitioned into a PCH, which was imminent.

I still worked full time and the care Lynne received before our move was excellent. The home care staff doted on Lynne and wanted to continue care in the new location. The response to this request from home care management was a hard no.

After the move the extent and quality of care that Lynne received declined significantly, and I often needed to go into work late or leave early because of no-shows. During one long weekend when no one showed up to work, I ran out of food and after many futile calls to the home care office, I had to leave Lynne tucked tightly in bed in a locked bedroom so she wouldn’t get lost or hurt while I rushed to buy groceries.

I’ve walked Ms. Guard’s walk, and it enrages me that after all these years home care is still operating in such a slipshod manner, to the detriment of folks who are doing their level best to care for their loved ones.

Perhaps some deputy ministers and managers should role up their sleeves and do some productive, positive work. Or be held accountable for their ineptness and shown the door.

Tom Pearson

Winnipeg

Sifting through the grading issue

Re: The politics and process of grade inflation (Think Tank, July 30)

John Wiens’ exploration of grading practices rightly argues that grading is more a political issue than an educational one. However, I was pleased to see his essay mention students’ “self-worth” when discussing the characteristics of good teaching.

As a retired clinician-educator, I’ve often looked through the other end of the political telescope. Over time, I’ve seen how grading practices powerfully shape how students view themselves — especially through the lens of how parents and teachers perceive them. Many of the students I worked with faced specific learning challenges, yet they would often generalize those difficulties as reflections of their overall ability. I recall one middle years student who couldn’t accept my assurances that, despite his low report card marks, he possessed strong general abilities. When I pointed out that some tests I administered revealed just that, he responded, “Maybe it was an error in calculation.” (His own words!)

In an ideal world, students would be offered learning tasks that are “not too hard, and not too easy” — targeting a 90-95 per cent success rate. In such a model, report card ratings would reflect work habits and effort rather than markers of general ability. That, in my view, would be a just and fair way to evaluate students from kindergarten through graduate school.

Of course, we live in what is often called the “real” world. Educators must work with the students in their care to the best of their abilities. Yet positive change comes from embracing the tension between “what is” and “what could be” — with a focus on what students truly needs to grow into their fully realized selves.

Edwin Buettner

Winnipeg

Thank you to John Wiens for confirming again that grades and assessments, as they are currently provided, are largely subjective and meaningless.

In addition to being an educational and political issue, I would like to add that assessment is a legal issue. According to the Public Schools Act (58.6 and 58.9(2)), students and parents are entitled to regular testing and evaluation. The Public Schools Act also outlines responsibilities. Reframing concerns about grade inflation as about blame or disciplinary egos leads to defensiveness.

Beyond the responsibilities outlined in the Act, experts in chemistry, math, reading instruction, etc. have a societal responsibility to speak up about curriculum and assessment when there are concerns that it is negatively impacting children, now and in the future.

Accepting responsibility gives everyone in the system and students a path forward. Wiens ends his article with a plea for meaningful dialogue about “how we need to educate our young”.

Unfortunately, there is no opportunity for meaningful dialogue, hence the reliance on media and human rights systems.

Natalie Riediger

Winnipeg

Atomic tragedy

World citizenry must alert a few “rogue” leaders of the danger of unleashing atomic madness. It is only 80 years (1945) since the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9). I was only a young lad when the war abruptly ended but recall the local theatre newsreels of widespread destruction.

About ten years later, at the Beacon Theatre on Main Street, following the first half hour, I had to leave a documentary showing Hiroshima … the dropping of the bomb, the massive destruction and the burned individuals wandering about, dazed. Their hair and skin was falling away from burned flesh and there was no immediate help or aid for these individuals.

Please: care and caution for our grandchildren.

Harry F. McFee

Winnipeg

On censorship

Re: City urged to deny U.S. Christian singer permit to perform (July 29)

It may appear moot at this point to argue whether to allow Sean Fuecht to perform in Winnipeg, but the arguments laid out by Helmut-Henry Loewen proposing to ban Fuecht from singing publicly demand a response.

Mr. Loewen argues that Fuecht “is skilled at repackaging hate,” and that Winnipeg needs to “stand in solidarity with its vulnerable communities,” that is, to censor Mr. Fuecht.

Just who are the members of these “vulnerable communities,” and who is Helmut-Henry Loewen to speak for them? Are these people not able to decide for themselves whom to listen to and whom to ignore? Are they somehow less educated or less enlightened than Mr. Loewen? Hasn’t Mr. Loewen learned from the disasters of the Canadian residential schools experience that one group of people, no matter how well-meaning, cannot in good conscience dictate to another how to live their lives?

More generally, have we become so American that we cannot stand to listen to anybody who disagrees with us?

Where does censorship end? Will we start banning books in our libraries? Will we censor the homilies given by clerics? Will it become illegal to speak up for unpopular causes?

There is no right of free speech unless we are free to espouse unpopular, even hateful views, and, crucially, are ourselves willing to tolerate the public expression of opinions with which we passionately disagree. And there is no true democracy without free speech.

Francis Newman

Winnipeg