Letters,

Party switch begs questions

Re: Daudrich to run under Keystone banner in northern byelection (July 2)

Wally Daudrich’s decision to leave the Progressive Conservatives and immediately become the Keystone Party candidate in The Pas-Kameesak raises serious questions about political opportunism and representation.

The timing alone is difficult to ignore. After being prevented from seeking a PC nomination, Mr. Daudrich now presents himself as the solution to Manitoba’s political problems under a different banner. Voters are entitled to ask whether this move is driven by principle or by personal political ambition.

If the same individual, with the same views and the same political objectives, simply changes party labels after being rejected by one organization, what exactly has changed?

The Keystone Party argues that Manitoba needs a new political alternative. However, creating a credible alternative requires more than dissatisfaction with existing parties. It requires a realistic understanding of the communities one seeks to represent. The Pas-Kameesak is a northern riding with significant Indigenous populations, infrastructure challenges, employment concerns, and a strong reliance on public services. Calls for smaller government and reduced public spending may appeal to a narrow segment of voters, but they do little to address the practical realities facing many northern families.

The article correctly notes that many residents are looking for investment, jobs, health care, education, and opportunities for future generations. These goals often require an active government presence rather than a retreat from it. Political slogans about balanced budgets and shrinking government may sound attractive in theory, but they offer limited answers to the complex economic and social challenges facing northern Manitoba.

Mr. Daudrich’s candidacy may attract protest votes from those frustrated with the Progressive Conservatives, but frustration alone is not a governing vision. Voters deserve detailed plans, demonstrated commitment to local priorities, and evidence that candidates understand the unique needs of the communities they hope to represent.

Manitoba certainly benefits from political debate and new ideas. However, replacing one form of political dysfunction with ideological populism is not the answer. The people of The Pas-Kameesak deserve representatives focused on practical solutions rather than political rebranding exercises.

Sincerely,

Yog Rahi Gupta

Winnipeg

Education, advocacy preferable to speech ban

Re: MTS petition on residential school denialism garners 2,500 signatures (July 2)

One strength of democratic nations is the right of its citizens to speak freely, as long as they don’t provoke violence against others. Notably, free speech has served to advance egalitarian ideals by allowing criticism of government, of unequal rights for women, of laws against same-sex relationships, or of many societal inequities changed for the better by speech.

The value of free speech is revealed by possible negative effects of the ban on Holocaust denial. Recent surveys show some Canadians lack knowledge about the Holocaust. Perhaps if denialism was public, rather than contained to private internet chat rooms, more Canadians would understand the horror of Nazi crimes against humanity, millions of Jews murdered along with other “undesirables.”

The proper response to denialism is speech documenting historical facts, whereas a ban means lost opportunities to engage in such talk. Counter-arguments can be critical, given bans do not mean Indigenous or other Canadians are never exposed to the offensive speech, for example during “private conversation,” as allowed in the proposed legislation. Prior public discussion will better prepare everyone to cope and counter such confrontations.

Moreover, banning speech in Canada undermines our ability to promote progressive change around the world. Criticism of authoritarian governments that regulate what people can and cannot say or even read (e.g., bans on late-night jokes about political leaders, restrictions on books authorities deem “threatening”) will be dismissed as hypocritical, and rightly so.

We need to be able to say honestly “do as we do” rather than “do as we say, not as we do.”

People believe and say many ugly things. If we recognize cases of offensive speech (e.g., about residential schools) as opportunities to discredit the ideas, then individual Canadians are more knowledgeable and resilient, and our integrity as a bastion of free speech remains intact.

Both outcomes are good for all Canada and the world.

Jim Clark

Winnipeg

Salaries well-earned

Re: Payroll reveal: 18 school staff cleared $200K (July 3)

As I read the article by Maggie Macintosh, I was reminded of a quote from a favourite old movie:

“Is the view pretty good from the cheap seats?” the president asks his chief of staff (in The American President).

There is no mention of the long days or the endless petitioners looking for support and pushing their own agendas. There is no mention of the abuse, both verbal and written, these administrators accept on a daily basis.

As the wife of a former assistant superintendent, I also note that the salaries published do not indicate that the amount also includes pay for unused vacation time. Their work is hard and, make no mistake, we are getting a bargain in their salaries.

As a retired principal, I can be upfront and say that certainly there were times that I questioned the decisions made by central office. But here’s what I do know to be true:

Each of these individuals gets up every morning to start another 16-to-18-hour day, with the thought of how they can make life better for the communities they serve.

Do you?

Roswitha Dudar

Winnipeg

An honest diagnosis

Re: “Health care problems persist” (Letters, July 3)

Just when I was almost convinced that common sense had left Canada entirely, along came Dr. David Brodovsky’s letter. Thank you to Dr. Brodovsky (whom I have never met) and to the Free Press letters page for offering a glimpse of hope that common sense is still alive (even if in the ICU).

Whether or not readers agree with every detail of his prescription, surely we can agree with his diagnosis: a system that produces the same failures for 57 years deserves an honest re-examination, not another round of political finger-pointing.

Nearly every other first-world country allows a parallel private option, and many of them achieve better outcomes at lower cost. Refusing even to discuss this is not principle; it is denial.

As Dr. Brodovsky rightly says, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to be honest enough to look at it.

Martin Wayngarten

Winnipeg