Letters, Nov. 10

Vulnerable to U.S. whims

American optimism does not mean much.

While it seems as if many Americans see the Democrats’ midterm victories as a momentous shift, it is reassuring that Canadians are more cautiously optimistic. On CBC I watched as a former U.S. governor suggested this blue wave would inspire Republicans to work across the aisle on tariff relief and other issues.

However, we haven’t seen bipartisanship when, prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine for dirt on his political opponents. We didn’t see bipartisanship when Trump sent his brownshirts to the Capitol when he lost re-election in 2020.

The Republicans haven’t shown a willingness to work across the aisle when Trump hides records related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump’s foreign policy runs counter to Republican and Democratic orthodoxy, yet there has been no appetite to hold him accountable from his own party.

Likewise, we cannot trust that this represents a genuine shift in American voters’ attitudes. They had Trump’s first term to judge him by.

Any shock at Trump’s treatment of Canada is feigned; his foreign policy has been consistent across both terms. This is the man who tore up NAFTA, who used tariffs as a weapon in his first term and whose comments about Canada becoming a 51st U.S. state were played off as a joke prior to his second term.

Unless we see voters abandon the logic of American exceptionalism, we will be vulnerable to their whims every other year.

Kelsey Enns

Winnipeg

Time will tell

Re: “Tick-tock talk” (Letters, Nov. 5)

Tom Scott has it partially correct: Saskatchewan hasn’t changed its clocks in decades, but did the sensible thing and kept standard time, not daylight time.

It doesn’t make sense to me that our premier would ignore the advice of knowledgeable people and instead follow an unscientific poll to make his decision.

I guess time will tell whether it was the right decision or not.

Jean Neron

Winnipeg

Re: Dark mornings fuel school safety fears (Nov. 5)

The political machinations involved in moving away from alternating between standard time and daylight time are instructive.

Scientific studies have shown that the practice has a negative impact on the health and safety of many people. This led to government decisions in Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta to no longer change the clocks. It was characterized as principled decision-making based on scientific evidence and government’s responsibility to protect the public.

But the next question was whether to change to permanent standard or daylight time.

One would have thought that the same principled approach, focused on the health and safety of the public, would be applied.

Scientific studies have shown permanent standard time has a less detrimental effect on health and safety than permanent daylight time. Among other factors, it better aligns the time with our circadian rhythms.

But suddenly the prime consideration is what people want — notwithstanding the health and safety issues and the government’s obligation to protect the public.

Daylight time is popular in the summer because it provides more opportunity to enjoy the evenings. But the concerns of those who object to the winter morning darkness and its related health and safety concerns have been ignored.

It may be pragmatic political decision-making, but ignoring the science and selecting the option with higher health and safety risks can hardly be called principled.

Robert Pruden

Winnipeg

Voter apathy

I am ashamed of the poor voter turnout in the 2026 mayoral election. This past election saw one of the lowest turnouts ever. Only 38 per cent of eligible voters chose to vote.

Of those, Mayor Scott Gillingham only received about 40 per cent of the votes. This means many people in Winnipeg chose not to vote for him.

The more people vote, the more voices are heard and if more voices are heard, there can be better changes that will happen. It will show that their vote matters.

The long lineups are a deterrent! I feel that if there were more voting stations available, the lineups wouldn’t be so long.

Candace Desjarlais

Winnipeg

Chock-a-block

Re: “Wish-infillment,” Letters, Nov. 5

Brian Mayes is spot on in his assessment of infill housing. It’s disappointing our past city council didn’t pay more attention to his input.

I’m all for densification in older neighbourhoods, but all too often citizens are labelled NIMBYs, even when we have legitimate concerns.

In the past year, I’ve watched two local infill housing projects eliminate older, more affordable houses so a developer could split the lot to build multiple tall, narrow units and every 100-year-old tree in sight can be eliminated without a second thought.

The most recent example on Grosvenor Avenue split a lot into three so the developer can now offer three $900,000 houses. So much for affordable housing.

I’m certainly hoping for a new way of thinking at city hall that prioritizes citizens instead of developers.

Norm Sissons

Winnipeg

A city that works for all

Re: “Penalize unsafe driving” (Letters, Nov. 5), Three girls hospitalized after two collisions in Brandon — on same street (July 13), Debate over speed limit picks up after school patrol hit (Nov. 5)

I heartily second Alfred Sansregret’s letter suggesting that part of the solution to the alarming increase in the number of pedestrians (and cyclists) being hit by cars would be increased enforcement by the Winnipeg Police Service.

In particular, an enforcement campaign focusing on crosswalks (such as the one undertaken in Brandon) is much needed — I regularly see drivers accelerating through flashing crosswalks as if racing the pedestrian.

Combined with the issues highlighted by Maggie Macintosh in her article — darker mornings (thanks, Premier Wab Kinew!) and increased use of cellphones by drivers — it is clear that increased enforcement of existing laws is needed to help make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

But we need to go further. Other cities (both larger and smaller than Winnipeg) have significantly reduced injuries and deaths through initiatives that could be implemented here.

First, reducing residential speed limits to 30 km/h would have an immediate effect, since survival rates are significantly higher when someone is hit at 30 km/h than at 50 km/h.

Second, removing the ability to turn right on red would make a big difference. Daily I see drivers turning right on red looking only left for oncoming traffic and not even once to their right to see a pedestrian or cyclist crossing with the light.

It is actions like this that caused the Winnipeg Police Service to recently make the stunning statement that “having the right of way does not make you safe” and suggesting that pedestrians need to make eye contact with drivers before proceeding.

Putting aside the obvious double standard there — why not apply that to cars, and say that drivers need to stop at green lights and wait until they make eye contact with motorists stopped at red lights? — it is clear there are far too many drivers driving in a manner that guarantees more injuries and fatalities.

So we have a choice: either we continue with the status quo, knowing there will be more deaths and injuries that we can write off as “just being the cost of living in a car-focused city,” or we can enforce existing laws and implement new ones proven to work elsewhere as part of a vision of a city that works for all.

Robbie Scott

Winnipeg