Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - March 22, 2024, Winnipeg, Manitoba Where blame lies Re: Heads up would have been nice, Fontaine says of chief (March 21) A question for families critic Lauren Stone. Who ran the system for the last seven years? Are you trying to tell us that this violent behaviour by youth in care started five months ago ? URSULA DELFING Winnipeg Toxic circumstances Re: We must deal with toxic drug supplies (Think Tank, March 22) I greatly appreciated Arlene Last-Kolb’s Think Tank article. I have had some exposure to individuals suffer- ing from addiction. Several of these individuals died before they could achieve a stabilized level of recovery. One compounding factor in the understanding of these deaths was the potential for them having received “toxic drugs.” This is a term which is often heard, but seems to be vague- ly if ever defined. In some of these cases, people made purchas- es which they believe to be one drug, but which turned out to be either a mixture of other drugs or simply as totally different drug. Many addict- ed individuals have received a relatively steady supply of a drug, often from one source. In this example, the expectation is of a “safe” consistent supply of the drug. This an attempt of the individ- uals who are addicted attempting to decrease the risk by using a “regular” source, often one who uses the same drugs that they sell. When the orig- inating source of the drugs is altered, occasional- ly consciously, occasionally by misadventure, the now “toxic drug” is passed on through the supply chain to the user. Another fairly frequent occurrence happens when users of stimulants, i.e. cocaine and am- phetamines, cannot obtain it and in desperation, instead obtain some variety of “down,” of which fentanyl is one example. The results can be tragic. As drugs of abuse have, over time, become more potent, the risk of receiving toxic drugs in- creases. The higher-potency drugs require more awareness and skill when they are divided and packaged. This is compounded through the sup- ply chain. Some involved in this supply process don’t have the knowledge, some don’t care about the potential negative outcomes. These are just some of the circumstances relat- ing to “toxic drug supply.” Hopefully the discus- sion and dissemination of information regarding the nature of what “toxic drug supply” is will help us move forward with establishing compassionate and ongoing treatment options for these individ- uals. DICK FORBES, RPN BA Winnipeg Buffer zone bill should do more Re: Tories want anti-abortion protest ban ex- panded to other forms of protest, other locations (March 21) The proposed legislation to create buffer zones around clinics that provide abortions is long over- due. My problem with the bill is that it doesn’t go far enough. I would like to see a compromise between the NDP and opposition Conservatives, which sees all protests be restricted to a prescribed buffer zone, regardless of context. It ought not matter as to one’s motives to engage in protest, but it should matter that all are treated equally. DAN DONAHUE Winnipeg Amateur criticisms Tory health critic Kathleen Cook plans to move an amendment to the NDP’s bill banning abortion protests around places that provide these medical services. The new health critic claims the NDP is using the bill as a wedge issue, and that all people deserve protection from all protesters and strik- ers, not only people seeking abortions. This paper has been pointing out that the NDP’s learning curve is getting on the long side, but should we not also be concerned that the health critic has no relevant illuminations to add to this? Instead, a red herring has been thrown onto the table to send an anti-union message instead of a human rights one; what a twist. The people protesting at abortion clinics are protesting the people getting a valid and im- portant medical service, something they should be able to do privately. Strikers don’t typically harass patients, if at all. The health critic must be aware of this distinction, yet points a finger accusing the government of doing precisely what she is doing. Donald Trump uses this tactic daily, 1,000 times before lunch. Abortion is a third rail of Manitoba PC politics, and this was an amateur attempt to comment on this bill while avoiding speaking directly to what the bill is about. It looks as if Candace Bergen, who ran the PC election campaign, still has the party divining rod tightly in her grasp. Perhaps the last election was actually a dis- guised right-wing takeover of a party that has yet to recover, learn, and grow from the collapse of the Filmon era. HERB NEUFELD Winnipeg Focus on the bridge How many projects does Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham want to work on at one time, to make this a bottleneck city? Maybe Gillingham should put his focus and resources on repairing or re- placing the Arlington Bridge first. With an overabundance of traffic on Salter and McPhillips streets already, now he wants to dis- rupt downtown traffic. People don’t want to sit in traffic while driving home from work every day. Maybe the mayor can get his priorities straight, $50 million to $70 million could do wonders for the Arlington Bridge. WILLY MARTENS Winnipeg Multi-tier system Re: Time, money needed for trip to Moose Jaw clinic gets to heart of crumbling, unequal health system (March 19) I have an inconvenient truth for columnist Tom Brodbeck. We already have several tiers of health care for Manitobans. The first tier is for “regular citizens” of Manitoba. The second tier is for wealthy individuals who can afford to go out of province or country for personal health care. The third tier is for Workers Compensation Board or members of Parliament or members of the Canadian military, who get guaranteed quick access to medical care. The Canada Health Act is currently a farce. It promises timely health care to all citizens. DON PAETKAU, MD FRCP(C), RETIRED Winnipeg Another failure Re: No panic as city fuel supply shut off (March 19) This is yet another example of the government failing to protect the interests of the electorate for the benefit of corporate entities (campaign donors?). Free enterprise requires a number of players (possibly 10 or more) in any market seg- ment to drive competition and innovation. With one or two players in any area, consumers suffer and corporate profits rise. Canada has some of the highest phone and internet prices in the world (two main players with no real competition?), and a small number of corporations controlling the food production and delivery systems. The most recent example of this is the shut- down of a pipeline delivering gas to Winnipeg. With no other players in the market will anyone be surprised by a surge in gas prices in Winni- peg? There is a government agency that should be preventing this failure of free enterprise. The Competition Bureau is the independent law enforcement agency in charge of regulating com- petition in Canada, responsible for ensuring that markets operate in a competitive manner. From my point of view, this agency has failed its mandate and residents of Canada are paying the price for its failure. MARK STOKES Winnipeg LETTERS TO THE EDITOR WHAT’S YOUR TAKE? THE FREE PRESS WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU. The Free Press is committed to publishing a diverse selection of letters from a broad cross-section of our audience. The Free Press will also consider longer submissions for inclu- sion on our Think Tank page, which is a platform mandated to present a wide range of perspectives on issues of current interest. We welcome our readers’ feedback on articles and letters on these pages and in other sections of the Free Press ● Email: Letters: letters@winnipegfreepress.com Think Tank submissions: opinion@winnipegfreepress.com ● Post: Letters to the Editor, 1355 Mountain Ave., Winnipeg, R2X 3B6 Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. ● Follow us on Twitter @WFPEditorials OUR VIEW YOUR SAY COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A6 FRIDAY MARCH 22, 2024 Individual rights aren’t the only rights L EGALLY, it’s the end of the line. A group of Manitoba churches that argued their rights were violated during the days of strict COVID-19 health orders has run out of options. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case last week, after two lower courts had ruled against them. The churches had argued that public health orders between 2020-21 that prohibited large indoor gatherings effectively violated their rights to freedom in their religious practice. They were correct that the Charter rights of individual churchgoers were violated. In fact, the government of Manitoba agreed in court that a series of individual rights were violated by its public health orders that banned worship. One can understand why people who find com- fort and support in their faith would want to be free to practise their religion, especially during a crisis. But there’s more to it than the rights of individuals. The judgments that led up to the application to appeal to the Supreme Court all came to the same conclusion: that individual Charter rights are not absolute when weighed against the public good and societal rights, which, by the way, are also protected by the Charter of Rights. As the appeal court ruled when reviewing the first judgment in the case: “However, (the judge) concluded that (the public health orders) achieved the important societal benefit of protecting the health and safety of others, especially the vulnerable. He considered that they were only in effect for as long as necessary to ‘regain control over community transmission and alleviate the intense strain on the hospitals’ and intensive care units. He underscored that Manitoba’s modelling projections were proven to be correct. He noted the (public health orders) were constantly re-eval- uated as the pandemic progressed … In the result, the application judge found that Manitoba had demonstrated that any restriction on the identi- fied Charter rights flowing from the impugned public health orders was justified as a reasonable limit and constitutionally defensible under section 1 of the Charter.” The last judge to hear the case, in the Manito- ba Court of Appeal, laid the final argument out succinctly. “Considering all of the above, I would not interfere with the application judge’s finding that, ‘When examining the benefits of Manito- ba’s response in the face of the threat of such a deadly pandemic, it is reasonable and rational to conclude that despite the undeniable hard- ships caused by the limitations on fundamental freedoms, the salutary benefits far outweigh the deleterious effect.’” By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court is in essence saying it accepts that ruling. Legally, that’s the last word on the case. It certainly won’t be the end of the complaints. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed much about our society, including the extent to which people’s trust in experts, authority figures and public institutions had degraded. You can argue that people’s willingness to be part of an overarching community was degraded as well — much of the need for “freedom” in the public discourse now is personal freedom, regardless of the impacts on a broader society. Most would like to believe Canada is a land bound by the rule of law. The thing is, just because you didn’t get your way doesn’t mean the rule of law hasn’t prevailed. Sometimes, you fight the law and the law wins — because you’re wrong. Perhaps the best thing we could find from the Supreme Court’s last chapter in this story is a kind of reconciliation: an agreement and rec- ognition that yes, individual religious freedoms were restricted. And that, also, yes: sometimes individual freedoms have to be restricted for the general public good. That is, after all, the difficult balance the Char- ter of Rights is supposed to seek out. EDITORIAL Published since 1872 on Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis SEAN KILPATRICK /THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal by Manitoba churches. ;