Residential school book gets timely release

A book telling the story of an urban residential school located in River Heights will be launched online on Wednesday at 7 p.m., featuring the experiences of former students who attended Assiniboia Residential School between 1958 and 1973.

Did You See Us?: Reunion, Remembrance and Reclamation at an Urban Indian Residential School is written by the Assiniboia Residential School Legacy Group, edited by University of Manitoba professor Andrew Woolford and published by the University of Manitoba Press. To take part in the launch, see wfp.to/didyouseeus.

● ● ●

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.

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 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.

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.