Letters, Aug. 15

Please, not again

Re: “Bipole III billions” (Letters, Aug. 13); “Good debt or bad?” (Letters, Aug. 10)

Oh God, do we have to have that Bipole III debate all over again? Letter writers Marion and Tishinski illustrate perfectly why I have a love/hate relationship with engineers. Build me bridges that don’t fall down, airplanes that don’t fall out of the sky, and balconies that don’t fall off my condo building, and I love ya. Rehash old debates and bad faith arguments, and we have a problem.

The debate around the placement of the Bipole III transmission line, whether on the east side of Lake Winnipeg (preferred by engineers) or the west-side route, ultimately chosen, was then and still is a comparison between two incommensurables.

The originally proposed east-side route would have been, might have been, shorter and less costly, but it proved to be an impossibility. First Nations opposition and environmental concerns regarding the boreal forest were such that it would never be built, an abstract wet dream if you will. An apt comparison would be the current, now settled, debate in British Columbia about a northern pipeline route versus a doable route along the existing southern TMX right-of-way.

Yes, the western route was longer and ultimately more costly, but possible in an acceptable time frame. Perfect, no, of course not, but built and functioning. The alternative would have necessitated riding roughshod over the objections of the existing populations and exposing the boreal to further fragmentation. I also take exception to Mr. Tishinski’s unnecessary sideswipe of the UNESCO world heritage site, Pimachiowin-Aki. It was never mostly about tourism and remains one of Manitoba’s “crown jewels.”

A route infringing on Indigenous treaty rights would have gone against any reasonable claim to our ongoing reconciliation obligations. And we shouldn’t forget, opposition to the western route was an aspect of the Conservative Opposition’s political campaign against the Doer/Selinger government. To Mr. Marion I would add, the economic and the political are not separate realities, they are inextricably combined, and it’s always the art of the possible.

Sig Laser, Winnipeg

Relocation will require persistence

Re: Plan to move rail lines gains steam (Aug 13)

In order to ensure that a plan is indeed developed and pursued to completion, several elements must be in place. The two most important ones are money and political will. Both of these tend to diminish or disappear when a change of government occurs (e.g. Brian Pallister). To prevent this situation, the project needs to be seen widely by citizens and business leaders in Winnipeg and, more broadly, in Manitoba as being a notable social and economic benefit.

It appears that any significant benefits from the project will not accrue until relocation is completed, and this will make it difficult to maintain support for 20 years. Politicians and the public have notoriously short attention spans.

If there are benefits that can be derived during the implementation of the relocation, they would be very helpful. Given the location of the right-of-way to the south of Winnipeg, perhaps flood protection improvements could be included. Perhaps a right of way for other utilities could be incorporated. Perhaps some of the construction could be done during lulls experienced by the heavy construction industry, to help it during slumps. I’m sure many opportunities will arise during the planning phase.

Most importantly, the notoriously intransigent railways must understand that behind the carrot may well lie a stick. This falls within the purview of the federal government. Given the amount of money that is being channelled to the railways to help out the steel industry, now might be a good time to get their attention.

Tom Pearson, Victoria, B.C.

Planners’ dreams go wrong

Re: It’s one thing to climb aboard the rail-relocation train, quite another to pay for the ride (Aug. 13)

I completely agree that some form of rail-relocation would benefit the city. What I don’t understand is the lack of acknowledgement for all of the railway or rail-served businesses in the city.

Everyone has been focused on the intermodal aspect of rail volume. What about the rest of it? What about Industrial Metals, located in St Boniface? What about the businesses near Gunn Road? What about the Central Manitoba Railway? Are all these businesses expected to relocate their operations? No, they’ll close.

What about the North End water treatment plant, which receives its critical chemicals by rail?

Is there some low-hanging fruit that could remove some rail volume from the city? Yes.

I don’t like getting stuck at rail crossings. How about the province takes the untold billions of taxpayer dollars it will spend on this pipe dream and instead spend it on properly building a ring road with grade separations at railway tracks?

How about it adopts and enforces the Federation of Canadian Municipalities rail proximity guidelines to make sure we don’t build homes immediately next to rail lines or allow planners to build roads to nowhere that will require at-grade crossings? What guarantee is there that future decision makers don’t make awful planning decisions?

The railways will say, “Yes of course we can move our rail yard that has been here for over 100 years.”

Reclamation would take another 50 years.

Danielle Woodman, Winnipeg

Overlooking the obvious

Re: Hydro takes heat over $3-B gas power plan (Aug. 11)

Sustainable Brandon said “the urgency of climate change is too severe to delay possible alternatives…”

Good point. Wrong focus.

Math says a typical household’s share of emissions from Hydro’s “gas plan”, which is an insurance policy that our houses won’t freeze in the dark, are the same as the emissions from burning seven litres of gasoline per year. That’s a non-issue. Most households burn $10 or $15 of gasoline every few days in their vehicles — that’s an issue.

To make real progress, focus on alternatives to everyday emissions. Bring the gasoline tax back. Support transit systems, secure transit bike parking, EVs, E-bikes and remote work. As a bike commuter, it is beyond annoying that car commuters consider the most urgent focus for tackling Manitoba’s climate emissions to be something other than their single-occupancy gas-burning vehicles.

Daniel Prowse, Winnipeg

Will he, or won’t he?

Do you believe — or better still, does anyone believe — that next week U.S. President Donald Trump will adhere to his date to increase tariffs on Canada by 50 per cent? I don’t.

Robert Moskal, Winnipeg

Let consumers decide

Why do most provinces insist that they should continue to ban the sale of U.S. liquor and spirits? Including here in Manitoba.

Can’t those provinces treat us as adults and let us decide for ourselves if we wish to buy U.S. products? Even if it makes Trump happy that we lift the ban, it’s another thing entirely if many of us, if not most of us, choose not to buy the products on our own. Then the provinces would have no business case to carry the stuff.

Irwin Corobow, Winnipeg