In support of real engineering

Jerry Storie’s op-ed Take advantage of hydroelectric potential and Laura Cameron’s op-ed Lasting legacy or pining for a pipe dream, both in the Free Press Aug. 17, provide quite different perspectives on what should be done to provide reliable power to Manitoba residents in the future.

Mr. Storie advocates construction of more hydroelectric projects rather than new natural gas generated capacity to offset looming power shortages. He argues that these hydroelectric projects will benefit Manitoba for the next century, and observes there will be significant increases in the demand for electricity in upcoming years. He is not wrong in any of these observations. However, hydroelectric developments are very capital intensive and have long lead development periods. Natural gas generation can be brought on line far more quickly with less investment. And perhaps Mr. Storie’s minimization of the environmental impacts of these developments deserves more scrutiny. Any First Nations impacted by development deserve to be consulted and participate in any benefits. Having said this, Mr. Storie is a former minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, and thus has a fairly deep understanding of the issues at hand.

Laura Cameron advocates against construction of the LNG pipeline and terminal at Churchill, citing “the technical challenges of building a pipeline over thawing permafrost; the prohibitive cost of ice-breaking tankers that move LNG through the Arctic; and a forecasted global oversupply of LNG and uncertain long-term export markets.” These would all be persuasive arguments if Ms Cameron possessed any credentials indicating an expertise in engineering or economics. She does not. The balance of Ms Cameron’s op-ed focuses on ways for Manitoba to reduce its carbon footprint while taking a few shots at the proposed LNG pipeline to B.C. Her opposition to the pipeline to Churchill is almost a Trojan horse.

As I was working in my garden today, I was thinking that, while I still enjoy it, I am starting to wonder how much longer I will be able to care for a house and a yard. Like many my age, I have been thinking about the condominium option here in Winnipeg.

I am a mother and a grandmother and I am also very concerned about climate change and the need to recognize that our emissions from coal, oil, and gas are warming the Earth. As a climate activist, I do not want to pollute. Yet as a condo purchaser, I would have no control over how the building is insulated, heated and cooled or how much energy it would take to do so.

When I moved to Winnipeg four years ago, I intended to buy a house and install a heat pump, which heats and cools a home using electricity only.

Before that purchase, I phoned Manitoba Hydro and was advised to buy a home built after 1985, when national standards were upgraded to require better insulation. That was no trouble for me, given I had already moved from a 1960s house into a new house in 1989 and even though the new home was larger, our gas bill was cut in half because of the added insulation.

As a non-Jewish Canadian, I have watched our public conversation about Israel and Palestine become increasingly polarized. One feature of that debate has particularly caught my attention—not the disagreements themselves, but the moral courage required of Jewish Canadians who publicly dissent from influential voices within their own community.

Ironically, many non-Jewish Canadians who may have little familiarity with Jewish history assume that disagreement is somehow un-Jewish. The opposite is true. Debate has been central to Jewish intellectual life for centuries. The Talmud itself preserves arguments rather than erasing them.

To outsiders, minority communities can easily appear to speak with one voice. In Canada, organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), Jewish Federations of Canada (UIA) and B’nai Brith are often perceived as representing the Jewish perspective on Israel and antisemitism. They undoubtedly represent many Canadian Jews. But they do not represent them all.

There are also Jewish organizations and individuals — including Independent Jewish Voices Canada, the United Jewish People’s Order, the recently formed Jewish Faculty Network and others — who reject the notion that any single institution or political perspective can define what it means to speak as a Jew in Canada. They frequently offer perspectives that differ from those advanced by many established Jewish organizations about Israel; defend the importance of free expression on university campuses; and argue that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government should not automatically be equated with antisemitism.

Mayor Scott Gillingham, with the first pledge of his re-election campaign, has promised to create a level playing field for local businesses to compete with national and multinational bidders on city contracts for goods and services.

It’s not a bad pledge, per se. There are a lot of Winnipeggers who are keenly interested in seeing government do business with other Winnipeggers and Manitobans.

But Gillingham’s newest campaign policy fails to answer two key questions: what, exactly, is a “local” company? And it is beneficial to give government business to local companies over those headquartered elsewhere?

Two recent controversies illustrate the difficulty in obtaining definitive answers.

The federal government is investing in major infrastructure, promising to expedite “projects of national interest” and pitching them to private investors at a summit in September.

The Manitoba government has its sights set on a pipeline and LNG export terminal at Churchill. Instead, Manitoba should be putting forward feasible, future-facing infrastructure proposals that would leave a positive lasting legacy of energy affordability, independence and security for Manitobans.

A pipeline and LNG terminal at Churchill are not viable for several reasons — the technical challenges of building a pipeline over thawing permafrost; the prohibitive cost of ice-breaking tankers to move LNG through the Arctic; and a forecasted global oversupply of LNG and uncertain long-term export markets.

Given these challenges, a private company coming out of the woodwork to invest seems exceptionally unlikely. Private proponents are also not interested in building oil pipelines to the west, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has now made clear his priority to work with Premier Danielle Smith on a West Coast pipeline, which would cost upwards of $35 billion (on top of the over $34 billion in public funds already spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline). It would seem this pours more cold water on the idea of a third publicly funded pipeline to Hudson Bay.

Back in June the Texas State Board of Education approved a new list of required reading for public schools and, as Adam Kirsch points out in The Atlantic, the most controversial inclusion was not a new book, but a very old one — the Bible.

Yes, going hand in hand with a requirement to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, Texas schools will also be required to teach children stories from the Bible.

One of the main arguments in favour of including passages from the Bible in educational curriculum seems to be that many of these stories are considered a foundational part of Western culture and history. There is certainly some truth to this. Many parts of the Bible have become a part of our everyday lives in some way, shape, or form.

For example, if one is unfamiliar with the Exodus narrative, in which Moses leads the enslaved Hebrews out of Egypt, then the fact that Harriet Tubman was given the nickname ‘Moses’ for her efforts to liberate enslaved African Americans through the Underground Railroad makes no sense.