Letters, June 8

Blind bidding deserves second look

Manitoba’s real estate market is legally bound to the blind bidding process, whereby prospective homebuyers are asked to submit their best offer without knowing the amount of competing bids. The real estate division of the Manitoba Securities Commission is the provincial regulator of the real estate market.

Supporters argue that the process is fair, because all buyers are treated equally and sellers are free to choose how they market their properties. However, this misses the central question — is blind bidding good policy?

Buying a home is often the largest financial decision a person will make. Yet buyers are expected to commit hundreds of thousands of dollars without access to information that would allow them to make an informed decision. In a blind bidding environment, buyers are forced to guess what others may be offering and frequently bid far more than would actually be necessary to purchase a property.

This is not simply a private transaction between a buyer and a seller. Every inflated sale becomes a comparable sale, which influences future home values and contributes to rising housing costs throughout the market.

Some regulators have argued that privacy concerns prevent greater transparency. However, competing offer amounts can be disclosed without revealing the identities or personal information of bidders. Privacy and transparency are not mutually exclusive.

Many jurisdictions around the world have adopted more transparent bidding systems, including public auctions and open bidding processes. These markets demonstrate that sellers can still achieve fair market value while allowing buyers to make informed decisions.

The issue is not whether blind bidding is administered fairly. The issue is whether blind bidding itself is fair.

A process can be consistently applied and still produce outcomes that disadvantage consumers. At a time when housing affordability is a growing concern across Canada, Manitoba should review whether blind bidding serves the public interest or whether greater transparency would create a fairer and more efficient housing market.

Rocky Baronins

Headingley

AccessAbility Week highlights

Everyone deserves to be able to get to school, to work, to the doctor, out to meet friends or to visit family, run errands or attend an event, whether that is across town or across the country. But for people with disabilities, making the simplest plans often comes with an agonizing layer of added complexity due to systemic barriers.

“Will the bus ramp work today?”

“Can I travel off-peak to reduce sensory load?”

“Will my service dog be allowed to accompany me?”

“Will I be able to get an accessible taxi or will I be left stranded for hours?”

It’s been seven years since the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) came into effect, with the goal of achieving a barrier-free Canada by 2040, placing the onus on the system to identify, remove, and prevent barriers.

As the federal government moves to build new infrastructure at record speeds, accessibility must be considered every step of the way. Embedding it from the outset will maximize the impact of public investments. Failing to do so will result in costly fixes down the road and the continued exclusion of more than 27 per cent of Canadians from full participation in society. We cannot afford such a loss.

No one level of government will be able to solve the challenges alone. This year, as we celebrated National AccessAbility Week from May 31 to June 6, I called on leaders to work together across jurisdictions — federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal — to create seamless, consistent, and accessible travel experiences across the country.

Collaboration is also needed across sectors and areas of expertise. I also called on business and community leaders to make sure we get this right.

My recent report to Patty Hajdu, minister responsible for the ACA, Getting There: Accessible Transportation in Canada, includes a number of recommendations for more and faster action.

Working in silos will get us nowhere. A collective effort is needed now.

Stephanie Cadieux

CHIEF ACCESSIBILITY OFFICER OF CANADA

Ottawa

Ready for the ‘Super Grey Bowl’?

I expect the following press release from the CFL any day now:

“Today Stewart Johnston has announced changes to CFL rules and playoffs for 2028, in his continuing efforts to make it more meaningful for Canadian fans.

“The CFL playoffs will now be a 10-team playoff system. Each team in the CFL will automatically make the playoffs and a 10th team will be added to the mix.

“This team will be made up of top athletes from Canadian NHL teams. Any game with the NHL players will be a football game played on ice, with the NHL team on skates and the CFL team in regular cleats. The championship game will be called the Super Grey Bowl.

“Other rule changes will be reduction of team player count to 11 to reduce labour costs, shrinking the width of the field, as it is now out of proportion with its shorter length, and adoption of the American football shape and size to take advantage of bulk purchasing.

“There also will be slight adjustments to teams’ names and colours. The 2028

“Minneskatchewan Vike-Riders, for example, will play in purple and gold with green footwear.

“Fear not, though, Canadian fans will still be able to wear traditional colurs for a nominal $25 surcharge, added to the price of their tickets.

“Johnston is proud to serve as the commissioner of the fiercely Canadian styled CFL.”

Kurt Clyde

Winnipeg

Paramedic protocols are puzzling

There have recently been frequent calls for an increase in paramedic and firefighter services. Having experienced a bad fall on ice at my home in the spring, I can attest to the immense relief of having paramedics arrive promptly to provide assistance. They were kind, professional and patient in their ministrations, and capably provided the necessary care.

However, once I was stabilized, I was able to consider how many resources were involved in this endeavour. There were four paramedics present, with two who assisted me to get inside my home and then one who actually provided direct care. The three others waited quietly for an ambulance to arrive.

One paramedic indicated that sometimes the wait could be up to several hours, but no one could leave until the ambulance was present. Once the ambulance arrived, another four paramedics entered my home, with handoff taking some time to determine my condition before the transfer to the ambulance. Only after this was complete did the first four paramedics leave.

Upon arrival at the hospital, paramedics were then required to stay until my eventual admission to emergency.

While thankful for emergency assistance, I can’t help but wonder about the efficiency of our current system and use of what are said to be such limited resources.

Is there not a better way?

Daryl Brooks

Winnipeg