Letters, Sept. 26

Opinion

Notes on slowing traffic

Re: Buses prompt call for lower speeds on Arlington (Sept. 24)

In the Sept. 24 Free Press article (in which I am quoted) Coun. Janice Lukes stated that the request by Coun. Cindy Gilroy to reduce speed on Arlington from Portage Avenue to the Wolseley Greenway would slow down the bus route. But here’s the math: This stretch of Arlington is 650 metres long. Going at 50 k/h on average takes about .78 minutes. Going down to 30 k/r for this stretch would mean an addition of .52 minutes. Half a minute might give us back more peaceful homes.

I refer you to the City of Winnipeg 2012 Transportation Standards Manual and Appendix U Transportation Standards Manual. This stretch of Arlington is 8.8 metres (29 feet) wide. According to page 20 of the Transportation Standards Manual, it looks like Arlington would be classified as Residential Local. According to page 42 of Appendix U, a bus lane must be a minimum of 3.5 metres wide. Two bus lanes would be seven metres wide. That leaves 1.8 metres.

In short, homes along this stretch of Arlington are closer to the traffic than other sections of Arlington and our stretch of Arlington leads to a Wolseley Greenway, which is already 30 k/h. This is not the same as Valour Road, which is sometimes identified as being comparable. Valour buses also go far less frequently. Arlington now has 100 buses a day (or about one every eight minutes) going up and down Arlington at 50 k/h. The individual and community costs could be mitigated by a half minute added to the bus route and reducing the speed of this residential street to 30 k/h.

Margerit Roger

Winnipeg

More to life than the bad news

Re: “Focus on what’s important” (Letters, Sept. 25)

For me, our CFL provides a fine distraction from the big world issues such as war.

It’s not healthy to allow politics and world affairs to consume us. Achieving balance is our challenge. I want to be aware of world affairs, but that’s not where I want my focus to be. There is more to life.

I never miss watching a CFL game, and I never ever watch a NFL game. I care about the new CFL rules because I love CFL football the way it is now.

Marilyn Bird

Winnipeg

Parole not a reward

Re: Drunk driver who killed woman in 2022 hit-and-run denied parole (Sept. 17)

In light of your recent article covering the denial of parole for Mr. Goodman, it’s important to clarify what was left unsaid — because justice demands that we look at the whole picture, not just the most emotional part.

The article outlines, in great detail, the facts of the original offense and the heartbreaking loss suffered by the victim’s family. But this was not a criminal trial — that happened two years ago. This was a parole hearing, which exists not to re-punish someone, but to evaluate whether they remain a danger to society and whether they’ve demonstrated accountability and rehabilitation.

By that standard, the offender did exactly what was required of him. He made one tragic, irreversible mistake — a fatal decision to drive while intoxicated — and someone lost their life. He has never denied this. He has expressed profound remorse and taken full responsibility. He completed an impaired driving program while on bail, committed to continued rehabilitation, and voiced a clear intention never to drink again.

Most importantly, the parole officer — the official tasked with assessing risk to the community — supported his release.

Yet that fact, mentioned only briefly in the article and seemingly ignored by the board, speaks volumes about what actually took place. The hearing was dominated by public pressure and raw emotion — including 16 victim impact statements. The family’s grief is real, but the structure of the hearing allowed it to overpower the legal criteria on which parole decisions are supposed to be based.

This level of public outcry is unprecedented in similar cases. And it appears to have shaped not only the board’s decision, but the narrative presented to the public — one that frames Mr. Goodman not as a remorseful individual who made a devastating mistake, but as someone who hasn’t changed. That’s simply not accurate.

Even the board’s rationale — that more counseling may be needed — is vague and unsupported, especially in light of the parole officer’s endorsement and the clear steps that have already been taken.

Parole is not a reward. It is a structured, lawful process that recognizes growth and evaluates risk. When that process is manipulated by fear, emotion, and public pressure — no matter how understandable — it becomes retribution, not justice.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason: to ensure fairness, not to ignore pain, but to avoid being blinded by it. She is meant to weigh evidence, not emotion — and certainly not outrage.

If we continue to let the loudest voices dictate parole outcomes, then we have to ask: is our system still rooted in justice, or simply in punishment without end?

L. Filma

Winnipeg

Not such a great deal

Re: Province inks jobs deal for school builds (Sept. 16)

I am concerned about Premier Wab Kinew’s announcement regarding the first jobs agreement for school construction. In the statement, the government claims to have an agreement with Manitoba Building Trades, a union organization, and that this deal is creating jobs for Manitobans. However, it seems more accurate to say that this agreement benefits only union workers, not all Manitoba workers..

Kinew asserts that this agreement guarantees contractors will prioritize Manitoba workers and sets standards for wages, benefits, and working conditions, including targets for apprenticeships.

Why is a special agreement necessary in Manitoba in the first place? Our Construction Industry Wages Act already ensures non-union workers receive fair wages, comparable to union standards. Many non-union employers, either independently or through organizations like Merit, provide health and pension plans for their employees. Additionally, Manitoba’s comprehensive workplace safety legislation and apprenticeship acts offer protections, training, and opportunities for all workers — unionized or not.

Union spokesperson Tanya Paulson claims this is a win for Manitoba workers, but she conveniently omits that this “win” is exclusive to union members. It effectively excludes approximately 70 per cent of Manitoba’s construction workforce — those employed by non-union firms.

The agreement also commits to dedicating 20 per cent of project hours to equity-deserving groups such as Indigenous Manitobans, women, and newcomers, along with a 10 per cent apprenticeship guarantee. When considering all these factors, this so-called “great” agreement could increase the cost of school construction by roughly 15 per cent compared to using Manitoba’s standard tendering process.

It’s quite clear what is really happening here: favouritism at its worst.

Additionally, I must highlight an important point: Kinew has long been associated with the “elbows up” crowd, advocating for free interprovincial trade. On May 14, he signed a memorandum of understanding with Ontario, which included labour mobility — a move that, in my view, seems more theatrical than substantive.

Rick Watts

Winnipeg

Lousy timing

I don’t know much about football but if the proposed changes to the CFL make our game look even just a little less Canadian and a little more American, the timing could not be worse! Elbows up, eh!

Gladys Bellamy

Winnipeg