Letters, Dec. 16

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/12/2022 (740 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A tale of two elections

Re: Klein pulls off narrow victory for PCs in Kirkfield Park byelection and What a Liberal win in an Ontario byelection might mean for the Tories and the NDP (Dec. 13)

For a candidate with massive name-recognition to have won by only 160 votes, and to have elicited only 36.9 per cent of the vote in a yellow-dog urban constituency such as Kirkfield Park, is hardly cause for celebration.

Herein, consider two scenarios: namely, strategic voting and ranked ballots (sometimes called “instant runoff”).

On Dec. 12, the federal byelection in Mississauga surely exemplified the strategic voting. The winning Liberal candidate took 51.2 per cent of the vote. In a voting system that used ranked ballots, no distribution of second place “preferences” would have occurred because the candidate had passed the “50-per-cent-plus-one” threshold. The fact Mississauga’s NDP candidate took only 4.9 per cent of the vote strongly suggests strategic voting occurred to prevent Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s candidate from taking the constituency.

Obviously, strategic voting did not occur in Kirkfield Park, despite the NDP’s less-than-subtle attempts to instigate it. Thus, reliance on strategic voting will always be problematic.

So, what would have happened if Manitoba had the sort of ranked ballots to which I was accustomed during six years in Australia? There, my wife’s and my primary vote was for the ALP, and our second-place preference was for the Liberals — anything to prevent Australia’s hard-right National Party from winning. (No doubt, many Australian Liberals’ second-place preference was for the ALP — and for the same reason.)

In Kirkfield Park, NDP supporters’ second-place preferences would have been for the Liberal candidate. Some “blue” Liberals’ preferences might have been for the Tory candidate, but “blue” Liberals are, seemingly, a diminishing segment. Thus most Liberals’ second-place preferences would have been for the NDP candidate. Those preferences would have carried the NDP candidate over the “50-per-cent-plus-one” threshold.

The distribution of preferences would also have had the benefit of ensuring the 71 per cent of Kirkfield Park’s voters who are centre-left have a representative who reflects their aspirations.

Edward Keith Bricknell

Toronto

Why no search earlier?

Re: Landfill pauses operations amid calls to search for slain women’s remains (Dec. 8)

Kudos to the city and the province for taking time to reassess the viability of searching the landfill for the victims’ remains. It has been reported the police knew 34 days later, by June 19, the remains had been deposited in the landfill on May 16.

At the time it was apparently felt the passage of time, safety concerns and the amount and nature of material deposited at the site had made a search impossible. If it now seems reasonable to more carefully assess whether a search is feasible, why was this not fully considered after 34 days, instead of waiting until today — 175 days later?

Obviously any such search will be more difficult now than it would have been in June. I am reluctant to second-guess police, who perform such critical roles under frequently difficult and dangerous circumstances, but if it is now determined a search is feasible, someone must be accountable for the earlier decision not to search and therefore to perpetuate an impression of police lacking concern for Indigenous victims and their families.

John D. Perrin

Winnipeg

Guillemard shows lack of knowledge

Re: Minister misled Manitobans on supervised drug sites: critic (Dec. 12)

I’ve seen the conflicting reports about Mental Health Minister Sarah Guillemard’s recent trip to B.C., which she is using to inform her decision to reject supervised consumption sites for addicts in Manitoba.

From everything I’ve read, it doesn’t appear Guillemard has made any concerted effort to investigate these sites — in fact, the B.C. government said the minister “rejected an offer to tour other harm-reduction sites with drug-policy experts.”

I stand with the NDP and Liberals in calling for her resignation. This individual continues to show a ridiculous lack of knowledge about addiction and should not be responsible for promoting policies that have life-and-death consequences for the most vulnerable Manitobans.

Robbi Goltsman-Ferris

Winnipeg

End-of-life decisions

I write in response to the editorial “Change to MAiD law should not be rushed” (Dec. 8) to thank you for your wisdom.

In the 30 years I served as a United Church minister and 23 years that followed, I have had the privilege and opportunity to sit with and offer spiritual support to the dying and their families, as an advocate for “dying with dignity” and the “right to die.”

A friend had had enough of eight years of dealing with deteriorating Parkinson’s disease. He phoned to say goodbye and to tell me, with happy resolve, that he was having what he called “MAiD service” the next week on “D-Day.” I saluted him, long distance, to B.C.

Recently I have been present at two medical assistance in dying (MAiD) gatherings that have touched my heart with great respect for those who had made their choice. We had discussed their decision in advance and I promised I would be with them through the transition to the next spiritual chapter. The woman (who had ALS) chose the location of the church sanctuary where she had sung in the choir for many years. The man (who had ALS) decided to leave “Riverview Health Centre” and spend the weekend with his family at home.

I joined them in the living room circle to lead in a “crossing over” ceremony as we welcomed the MAiD team of doctor, nurse, social worker. It was a time of reverence and respect as I offered him a blessing and the caring doctor, on her knees beside him, touched him and said, “God bless you.”

So I am in favour of MAiD for people “in their right mind” who have stated their wishes verbally or with a head nod or have written their instructions prior to dementia or medication or a fall or accident depriving them of their mental clarity.

But I echo the request in the editorial regarding putting a “pause” on government legislation expanding MAiD for the mentally ill. An emotionally distressed person needs caring and counselling, not a needle to end it all. MAiD should not be offered to veterans or the mentally ill, the emotionally distraught or anyone else as the least expensive and so-called fastest medical “treatment.”

John Wesley Oldham

Winnipeg

The lowdown on high-beams

Anyone who drives in Winnipeg knows a huge number of cars have headlights that are focused improperly. The low- beams are focused everywhere but on the road and are often worse than high-beams, and some vehicles’ high-beams seem to work only as search lamps for low-flying aircraft.

There is no doubt this situation is both dangerous and makes driving in the evening very uncomfortable. It also reflects very poorly on this city’s image as a comfortable place to live, drive and work.

Note: it is illegal, according to the Manitoba Traffic Act, to drive with high-beams on within 450 metres of an oncoming car; but of course, that would imply the “low” beams were focused properly.

Although it seems the concept of light pollution is virtually unknown, or at least unaddressed, by the city, it is time politicians and police realized these cars with poorly focused lights are a source of income for the city, and for businesses capable of adjusting lights.

I’ve heard some people suggest the new LED headlamps are the problem. Yes, they are brighter and more powerful than the older headlights, but it is the focus that is not right. When LED headlights are focused (such as the ones on my car), they do not blind oncoming cars.

May I suggest a campaign with $20 fines, and a further $200 fine if drivers do not correct the focus on their cars within 30 days.

At the very least, this campaign could be included with the Red Nose campaign this December.

Shane Nestruck

Winnipeg

Not the Boo Bombers

In his letter published Dec. 9 under the caption “True north, strong and free,” Michael R. Moskal decries fans at Jet games yelling “boo” instead of “free” during O Canada.

In fact, these folks are not yelling “boo,” they are yelling “blue.” This is a carryover from Blue Bomber games, at which Bomber fans express their loyalty by declaring themselves as true “blue” supporters of the Bombers.

There is no reason to carry this over to Jets games. Similarly, there is no reason for fans to be shouting “true north” at Blue Bombers games.

Gary Robson

Winnipeg