Letters, June 25

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/06/2025 (192 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Wake up

Tom Brodbeck’s timely article in Saturday’s paper (Manitoba far from ready for current growth spurt,” June 21) should be a wakeup call for all of our politicians and bureaucrats, at all levels of government.

Population increase in Canada in general, and in Manitoba in particular, is a given during these difficult international times as displaced people migrate to safe havens, especially westernized countries like Canada, which have relatively stable governments and reasonably sustainable economies.

In answering no to the question, “Are we ready for this massive increase?”, the article addresses housing, immigration, health care, education, public safety and infrastructure. It concludes by calling for “a comprehensive provincial growth strategy.”

This is a call that we must all heed. We cannot allow a piecemeal approach to growth when it too easily means that vested interests push forward their agenda regardless of the impact on those seven, and other, elements.

Plan 2050 is one example of a growth strategy that did not fully consider (or possibly ignored) its impact on the availability of water supply to surrounding municipalities or their ability to provide sewage treatment, roads, schools etc.

In particular, it seemed not to take into account the fact that invaluable farmland would be taken out of commission to provide the necessary acreage for residential, commercial, industrial, educational and community developments. What is happening in East and West St Paul is a good example of how unchecked growth can eat up our most important natural resource.

Preservation of our precious, and limited, farmland more than any other, should be the main priority in any growth strategy else how are we to feed this increased population when we cover over the very earth that produces it?

Frederick Cooper

Winnipeg

More work needed

Tim Aubry and Jino Distasio’s “Fading into the background” (Think Tank, June 21) champions Housing First to end Canada’s homelessness crisis, impacting 34,000 people nightly. Yet, its vague roadmap risks misallocated funds, inequitable outcomes, and policy inertia, undermining progress nationwide.

The article lauds At Home/Chez Soi (2008–2013) but omits metrics on current Housing First programs. How many of the 34,000 benefit? Without data on participants or cities served, scaling up could funnel resources into uncoordinated or underfunded efforts, delaying solutions.

Funding clarity is absent. Housing First saves costs — $10,000-$15,000 per person annually versus $40,000-$100,000 for emergency services — but the article sidesteps national rollout costs, unlike At Home/Chez Soi’s $110 million. Proposing federal housing budget reallocations or provincial cost-sharing would counter skepticism and drive action.

Systemic barriers, like siloed services and a commodified housing market, are glossed over. Vague optimism ignores reforms like zoning law changes or federal incentives for affordable units. Without tackling these, Housing First risks stalling amid intergovernmental gridlock.

The call for culturally appropriate supports barely addresses Indigenous peoples, who face homelessness at 10-20 times higher rates due to colonial legacies. Indigenous-led housing models, like those proposed by the Aboriginal Housing Society, are critical but unmentioned, threatening exclusion.

Finally, “public engagement” lacks specifics.

Urging Canadians to advocate for policy reforms or support community housing initiatives would inspire action.

Aubry and Distasio’s vision is vital, but only a detailed national plan — addressing data, funding, reforms, and Indigenous needs — will ensure Housing First succeeds.

Rifat I. Rupok

Winnipeg

Kudos to contributors

Thank goodness you have contributors like Erna Buffie (Delay, delay and yet more city delays) and Martin Zeilig (Sometimes we’re left with the power of words). Their articles in the June 23 Free Press are to be applauded both for their individual and specific content but also for their underlying themes.

As citizens, we must stay informed and, when informed, we have a duty to engage. Engaging at multiple levels can enhance impact.

Firstly, we need to engage with our elected officials. Although receiving a thoughtful response from them has become distressingly rare, it is important that they know we are informed and that we care both about the specific issues we are promoting but also about our system of governance and its effectiveness and responsiveness.

We also need to engage with the bureaucracies which serve us in all orders of government.

It is true that, broadly speaking, our civil servants are under-appreciated. But it is also true that we should not tolerate sub-standard performance, services which are insensitive to timing, services which are inefficient due to the siloing of those public service agencies, services which seem to lack quality standards.

Democracy is not easy even though a lot of us seem to think it should be. We have to work at it thoughtfully and persistently. That thoughtful work has to start with us. Governments today seldom lead until we, as citizens, start the parade. Sound research and reasoning can start meaningful parades.

Individually, we need to listen, read, reason, and engage. That is what we owe to democracy and ourselves.

Thanks to Erna and Martin for making the case so eloquently.

Sheldon McLeod

Winnipeg

More work needed

I agree with Jim Clark’s letter to the editor — Health care and racism, June 21 — regarding the Shared Health study on racism.

For that study to have legitimacy, it would have to have all races in all the emergency rooms at the same time because there are too many variables.

The first variable is the demographic distribution of the races. The next variable is the location of the various emergency rooms. The next variable is the time at which the various races most frequently attend. The Shared Health study has succeeded in painting all the doctors, nurses, and staff that work in the emergency wards as racist. I am disappointed in the Free Press for their opinions on the racism in the emergency wards.

Maybe your first opinion should have been to question how Shared Health obtained those results.

Donald Hillman

Winnipeg

Bad actors

Re: U.S. attack on Iran puts world on edge, June 23

The farther away one is from a problem, the simpler the solutions appear, so I cannot claim expertise to address the current crisis.

Certain facts, however, cannot be avoided. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is calling for talks, which one would expect.

It is bizarre, however, that three of the five permanent members of the UN “Security” Council (all who can veto UN resolutions) are leaders in aggression against smaller countries. Russia is attacking Ukraine, the U.S. is attacking Iran, and China is bullying its neighbors in the South China Sea.

While Winston Churchill has been misquoted as saying “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war”, his point was that it’s better to talk to your enemies and try to negotiate with them.

Having said that, the ongoing bad behaviour of these three calls for more collective, longer-term opposition. Trump has “pooh-poohed” the European efforts on Iran talks, Putin has made a mockery of negotiations, and Xi Jinping employs “gunboat diplomacy” against Taiwan. Over time, everyone needs friends. These three, however, are solidifying their opposition even more.

Dan Furlan

Winnipeg