Letters, Sept. 25

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/09/2025 (183 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Standing up to ambassador

Re: Message to the U.S. ambassador: we’re disappointed, too (Editorial, Sept. 24)

I, like many other Canadians, was furious when I read about the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra’s comments at the Halifax Chamber of Conference meeting.

Now having read that he has been speaking at several other Chambers of Commerce meetings across the country I have just one question: Has anyone attending these meetings stood up and challenged Hoekstra?

U.S. President Donald Trump is an ignorant, self-righteous bully, and by association, so is his administration! I hope to God someone stood up (or people walked out) during these meetings.

I hope to God that the Canadians in attendance at these meetings didn’t decide that they should not speak up because that is not protocol and that it would be rude! I very much fear that this has been the case.

If I am correct, Hoekstra has walked away believing that the Trump administration can bully and chastise Canadians all they want and we, to their face, won’t say anything!

Craig Turner

Winnipeg

Oh boo hoo! Poor U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s feelings are hurt because Canada is not licking his government’s boots after they treat our country like a doormat.

Maybe he should petition for another post in a more receptive country?

He could become the ambassador to North Korea or Russia and learn the fine art of boot licking. It might open his eyes to reality by learning this new skill.

Holding a boot to your supposed friend’s throat and a gun to their head, is not conducive to friendly negotiations.

It is a strange world when diplomacy has become a foreign concept to a diplomat.

Greg Lofvendahl

Winnipeg

A fair system

Re: Funding Transit a necessity (Think Tank, Sept. 24)

We subsidize personal vehicle use to a maddening level in Winnipeg. Users of single-occupancy vehicles don’t realize the full costs of maintaining roads for them to use, which we all pay for, regardless of how much wear and tear our chosen forms of transportation put on the roads.

Riding the bus should be free for all, as fewer people in cars will drastically reduce the amount the city has to spend maintaining the roads for private vehicles! A fairer way to allocate resources for transportation within the city would be to have a toll for those driving from the suburbs into downtown and redirect those funds to improve public transport and biking/walking infrastructure.

Or just increase the gas tax.

Kate Green

Winnipeg

Value, not waste

Re: A deal that will cost Manitobans dearly (Think Tank, Sept. 23)

Yvette Milner and Chris Gardner claim that “when governments restrict competition, taxpayers always pay more and get less.” That’s not fact, that’s partisan spin. Manitobans know government monopolies can, and often do, deliver better value. Manitoba Public Insurance provides some of the lowest auto insurance rates in the country, and Manitoba Hydro’s rates remain among the most affordable in Canada. “Always” pay more? Hardly.

They also warn that Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) will drive up costs. In reality, research shows CBAs add only a small incremental increase — often 0.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent of project costs. In return, we get enormous benefits: better wages and safer workplaces. Statistics Canada shows unionized construction workers in Manitoba earn 10–15 per cent more on average, keeping families stronger and communities more stable. Studies around the country also consistently show that unionized sites also have significantly lower injury rates, which saves on both health care costs and lives.

That’s not waste, that’s value. A tiny upfront premium delivers lasting economic and social returns. Manitobans deserve that full picture, not one-sided talking points from industry lobbyists.

Kenneth Ingram

Winnipeg

An Americanized game

Re: CFL changes beyond tone deaf (Sept. 24)

I could not agree more with Grace Paizen. Let us not be fooled here. The drastic changes that neophyte commissioner Stewart Johnson wants are just the first step to Americanizing the CFL. Moving of the goal posts and shortening the field will be followed by changing to 11 men on the field, four down football and ultimately removing the Canadian content rules. The reasons given for these initial changes are demonstrably false.

CFL games already average more points per game than the NFL and the CFL is far more exciting and always has been. The shorter field will make the game less exciting, not more. The moved goal posts will relegate field goals to an afterthought rather then an integral part of the game, eliminating returns on missed field goals, again an integral part of the Canadian game. It seems obvious the changes are meant to try to lure NFL fans to the CFL by making it less confusing for them. With no consultation with the fans, players, coaches, university or high school programs, it seems clear Johnson and his fellow conspirators are well aware what the reaction would be from people already committed to the CFL.

Was this a business decision as they say? Perhaps, but a most misguided one that could backfire spectacularly. I, for one, will never watch an Americanized version of the CFL. The reason I don’t watch NFL football now is because it is boring! Johnson seems unaware or uninterested in the chaos and financial stress these changes will cause to the high school, university and college programs across the county. I suspect he doesn’t care because once he gets the Canadian content rules removed or gutted, these programs won’t matter to him or the league anymore. Make no mistake if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely a duck. And in a few years if these changes are allowed, the CFL will be walking and quacking like the NFL.

Or worse perhaps, but perhaps not, gone forever. Is it better to have no CFL, or a zombie version of an American CFL? Perhaps with the ascending of both women’s and men’s rugby we will go back to a nation of rugby fans, from which the CFL was born.

Rob McConnell

Winnipeg

The CFL has taken the first step toward Americanizing the game. Literally moving the goalposts, shortening the field and end zones, as well as all but eliminating the rouge, is as close as you can get to the NFL. The new rules have all but eliminated the missed field goal return, which is one of the most exciting plays in our game.

With no thought to fans or those who currently play the game, the CFL has clearly made the change with the bottom line as the motivation. While I have no proof younger fans prefer the game down south, this may be a step toward attracting that crowd. I am no conspiracy theorist but I might guess eliminating the rouge makes betting lines easier to set and less tenuous than when the single point is in play.

Where does this leave university football in this country? With some shared facilities between CFL and university teams, are the games in different facilities to be played under the old or new rules? No one seems to have addressed that. Clearly the CFL has decided the “Canadian” in Canadian Football League is no longer relevant. A sad day for football fans in this country.

Neil Burke

Winnipeg

Focus on what’s important

Re: CFL changes met with shock (Sept. 23)

Unbelievable! So many people concerned about such an unimportant issue. Has the war in Europe ended? Has the war in the Middle East ended? Have wars elsewhere and other atrocities in the world ended? Apparently not, but yet football (and sports in general) seem to be the top concern of the populace.

And there are so many other much more important issues to be concerned about in Canada, never mind the rest of the world.

“Bread and circuses” always seem to work to distract people from the things that matter.

What’s next? Concerns about late-night comedians? Oh wait …

Gilles Roch

Winnipeg