ID’ing mystery gifter will take a bit of work

THE failures in both private and publicly funded long-term care (LTC) homes in Canada have led to 15,000 COVID-19 deaths. Calls to reform LTC through nationalization have become widespread, garnering support from unions, national advocacy organizations and political parties.

While LTC is often considered to be a necessary institution to support the complex medical care needs of seniors, LTC facilities are used to warehouse disabled people who require 24-hour care, regardless of age. And nationalizing LTC fails to adequately resolve the ableism of warehousing disabled people, ultimately maintaining the unjust and inadequate structures of care.

LTC is debilitating for disabled people who are forced to rely on institutionalized daily care. It is time to abolish LTC in Canada.

It’s time to dismantle and replace the LTC system with deinstitutional options that prioritize the flourishing of disabled people and meet the complex care needs of older and younger disabled people outside the confines of institutions.

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.