Letters, Sept. 14

Transit troubles and passes

Re: Growing pains? Maybe, but it’s worth it, Think Tank, Sept. 10.

Worth it for who? Our transit system has been undergoing growing pains for the past year, ever since city staff completely messed up the system with their redesign.

The net result of those changes is reduced ridership, leading to a projected deficit of $18 million in revenues this year (not including the capital costs of those changes). Add that to the annual $126-million subsidy to operate Winnipeg Transit and that’s $144 million being paid annually by Winnipeg taxpayers.

Add the estimated 65,000 students that are eligible for the free youth transit pass and the subsidy grows even larger.

Dan Hendry’s assertion that getting youth to use public transit more is somehow going to result in transformative behaviour in adulthood is well-intended but misguided.

Drive by any high school in Winnipeg and you will see that the parking lots and surrounding streets are filled with students’ cars. Not all students can afford a car when they turn 18 but all it takes is one. Pile in three or four of their school friends and you have taken four to five people out of the public transit system. Multiply this many times over and the result is significant.

The only thing that is going to get people to use the transit system is a better transit system, which is not the one we currently have.

I support the introduction of free youth transit passes but I am skeptical of its purpose.

While it will benefit youth, is its real purpose to bump up the ridership numbers to make it look like the messed-up transit design is actually working?

Looks like a typical politician’s or bureaucrat’s strategy of, “When something isn’t working, just throw more taxpayers’ money at it.”

Wally Barton

Winnipeg

The bully next door

On Sept. 8, as Canada’s government implemented retaliatory tariffs on the U.S., I was listening to a radio talk show on that very subject. The guest was a professor of economics at Toronto Metropolitan University, who seemed to really know whereof he spoke and was unequivocal that matching U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar was a grave economic mistake by Prime Minister Mark Carney and his team.

The professor stated that the U.S. economy is 15 times bigger than Canada’s, and to adopt a “tit for tat” method is like climbing into the boxing ring to do battle with a 20-year-old Mike Tyson. He went on to say there is no way Canada can win this street fight and that PM Carney is playing Russian roulette with Canada’s labour force; he predicted that industries could be decimated, and inflation would skyrocket. He urged the PM to get back to the negotiating table as soon as possible.

Since the trade talks in Washington failed a couple of weeks ago, there have been many heated exchanges between the White House and elected officials in Canada, with each side blaming the other for their last-minute breakdown.

After negotiating for three weeks, the trade agreement was supposedly settled and almost ready to be signed, when suddenly it wasn’t; that’s when the poop really hit the fan, with each side blaming the other for being dishonest.

All politicians have a proclivity for never being able to own up for their own shortcomings, so it’s evident that neither side is being completely truthful. Many now wonder what Mr. Carney meant in last year’s election campaign, by claiming that only he was able to get a trade deal and handle the vicissitudes of President Donald Trump.

That promise is unkept as are so many others. Back in the day, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said: “A week is a long time in politics.” That was 60 years ago, but the current occupant of the Oval Office changes his mind on a whim, so for him an hour is a long time in politics.

Several of Canada’s pompous provincial premiers promote themselves by gleefully trading insults with Trump’s administration. Until negotiations resume, they should tone down their rhetoric, stop wrapping themselves in Canada’s Maple Leaf flag and remember what Samuel Johnson said in 1775: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Bernie Smith

Parksville, B.C.

Keep health care public

Any government that hands out long-term contract work like any medical care, for example, to private enterprise is foolish. If the contracted company fails, then you can’t see it coming until it’s too late and must suffer the blowback from the public, plus you need to incur yet greater costs in finding a remedy for the failure; but if it is successful then you are at its mercy and will see that the price will rise over time and/or service levels will become unacceptably deficient.

In addition to covering the costs of operation and making a contingency allowance for foreseen problems, the contracted party requires a healthy profit, in fact as great a profit margin as it can obtain.

Whenever there are few private companies capable of such work, it may extort virtually any price and then find means to rationalize the increased cost to government. Although illegal, companies have been known to collude in fixing prices. In any case, the company will always put its private interests ahead of both the government’s and the public’s interests, which should both be the same.

Meanwhile, by directly controlling the nature and scope of necessary work (like health care) a government can control its costs and maintain an appropriately high standard of care with its own professionals and since it does not require a profit margin over and above the operating costs and an allowance for contingencies, the overall cost in providing the service will be less expensive.

The agency must run independent of any daily government interference. However, like any large organization, it benefits from regular reporting requirements and being subjected to annual audits, both financial and operational, for basic oversight.

When employees demand increased pay, in order to keep up with the continually inflated cost of living, then such costs should be planned for and, failing mutual agreement on a fairly negotiated amount, third party binding arbitration should be used.

Three arbiters would be required: one chosen by each party, and a third arbiter that is mutually acceptable to, and chosen by, the first two. All three arbiters should be trained in the law and in fact be experts in local labour law and, above all, have maintained reputations for fairness and honesty.

The government wisely relies upon its own experts and trained staff would be astute as well in assuring that the numbers of staff are appropriate, even allowing some measure of redundancy to well manage times of peak demand or crises.

In ordinary times, staff who are seemingly redundant can then attend to the non-essential work that has continuously been set aside in order to cover the essential work in peak demand periods.

Being an employer of choice means having access to the best personnel obtainable, sufficient amounts of the most effective equipment and ensuring that all this remain on the leading edge of technology through ongoing professional development and planned replacement of outdated equipment.

Vic Mikolayenko

Winnipeg