Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - July 27, 2024, Winnipeg, Manitoba OUR VIEW YOUR SAY COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A8 SATURDAY JULY 27, 2024 Published since 1872 on Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis Committee of the like-minded I’ve been a resident of St Vital for 41 of the 51 years I’ve been eligible to vote. During that time, Coun. Brian Mayes is the only elected official who has appeared at my door prior to every election. He has responded to and followed up on my emails on more than one occasion, when safety is- sues went ignored for too long, and even stopped to chat on the street as he jogged through the neighbourhood. I consistently found him to be thoughtful and engaged. It was only a matter of time before our mayor showed his true stripes. The decision to remove Mayes from the executive policy committee was because “it’s crucial to have committee members fall on the same side of issues.” Another way of saying Yes-persons only. That a Tory mayor would want to remove a councillor with an interest in environmental issues should come as no surprise to anyone. And a real class act, removing Councillor Mayes from his position while he was out of town (on portfolio business). Isn’t that the equivalent of ending a relationship by text message? TERRY TOEWS Winnipeg Buffie, yes Re: “Don’t axe the facts,” July 26. Thank you, Erna Buffie, once again. You have outlined the facts regarding the carbon tax and hopefully your analysis will get through to those who have been taken in by a slogan rather than the truth. I am also thinking of a recent op-ed by Rebecca Chambers: we are looking for simple solutions to complex problems rather than using our powers of critical thinking to see what is really going on. JUDITH DOCTOROFF Winnipeg Buffie, no Erna Buffie is indeed confused about carbon tax. There are some inaccuracies and some facts that are either left out, ignored or she simply doesn’t know them. The carbon tax is not effec- tive in reducing CO2 emissions. In fact emissions were up 2.1 per cent in 2022 from 2021. Another fact left out is that the world’s largest aggregate CO2 emitters have no carbon tax. Only 40 countries have some sort of carbon tax. China has increased its CO2 emission output by 50 per cent since 2005 yet does not have a carbon tax. Large Canadian emitters use carbon offsets to reduce thier carbon tax. Sunoco, for example, used carbon offsets to reduce its carbon tax from $210 per tonne, about one-quarter of the full car- bon tax, while drivers pay $30 per tonne or about 6.6 cents a litre. I think the problem is not that ordinary taxpay- ers don’t understand, it is that we do understand. The Canadian taxpayer is the one who has to pay, in overpriced EVs, heat pumps that need a back- up system, and carbon taxes that can virtually be avoided by corporate Canada. GILLES NICOLAS Winnipeg Sifting the sands Re: “Sio Silica keeps digging, but failed mine still a long shot,” July 25. I agree with Dan Lett. Sio Silica shifting their operations to First Nations land could possibly avoid provincial review and set it up for a federal environmental assessment. Then there is a long and serious list of unanswered questions about the impact of drilling through valuable aquifers. There is no doubt that introducing oxygen into the aquifer system, collapse of geological material that — according to their own reports — contains selenium and pyrite, the prohibited intermixing of aquifer waters and the injection of mined water back to the aquifer is not in the public interest. The project is not viable and the province’s decision to deny licensing was correct. Can the Impact Assessment Agency of Can- ada come to another conclusion? Perhaps with a Conservative government, predicted in the upcoming federal election? Is this what keeps Sio Silica afloat? Without reform of Manitoba and Canadian legislation for a more contemporary, certain, transparent and comprehensive framework for environmental assessment and licensing, we will continue to see invalid projects politically supported. Environmental decision-making through evidence-based analysis for real environmental protections are required now. Sincerely, TANGI BELL Anola Re: “Sio Silica keeps digging, but failed mine still a long shot,” July 25. Dan Lett is sadly mistaken in his analysis of the threat of Sio Silica to rise from the ashes. Brokenhead has every right to entertain busi- ness ventures from anyone. Good on the band members for asking for a second opinion on sand mining and being skeptical of the dog and pony show put on by Sio Silica. That much, we know. However, Dan Lett is sadly mistaken if he thinks the approval of the sand mine at Hollow Water was smooth sailing. The community is still suffering from the divisive adversarial regulato- ry process under the Mining Act, Indian Act and Environmental Act. Everyone should be afraid of what happened here. When Canadian Premium Sand came back with a whole new mine with different processes, and in a new location closer to Lake Winnipeg and people’s homes, the Conservative government pulled a fast one. They labelled a different mining process as a minor designation when it really was a brand new mine, allowing them to deny public meetings on a whole new set of data, with no requirement to publish the Technical Advisory Committee’s analysis of the newly submitted research. The Public Registry has nothing recorded for this second mine. Two previous air quality reports predicted air fines at an unacceptable level as defined by Health Canada. The newly submitted research for the new mine, in a location closer to homes, was not publicly vetted. Camp Morningstar consulted with a meteorologist on the new research. His expert opinion was that it deserved to be publicly reviewed. However, the minor designation meant public meetings were denied. The only way to appeal was in writing — not a mode of communi- cation favoured by many of our Elders who know the winds. The same scientist, Dennis Leneveu, submitted research for both projects. One project had the benefit of a CEC hearing. One was denied. One project had people shadowed by the RCMP for daring to point out weaknesses in the environ- mental approval process, and one did not. One project seemed to support freedom of speech, another did not. I predict the premier will want to hold onto those new seats in the Vivian riding. I am not sure his decisions have anything to do with science as I am told the Technical Advisory Com- mittee is at 70 per cent of what it once was. That means less regulatory oversight just as the critical mineral search heats up. I would not let Wab Kinew’s ethnicity fool you. He is an econ- omist who needs money to pay for his expensive heath-care promises and is as shrewd as politi- cians come. He will let the many mining projects proposed for Keewatinook pay for his promises. The divide and conquer game is played much easier here. MARY JANE MCCARRON Wanipigow Police naming names Re: “’People are angry. They want justice,’” July 25. And this is why the names of the accused (just like the names of victims) should not be published until guilt is proven. Once your name is out there, people will as- sume guilt. Especially with crimes of this nature, there is no unringing that bell. RENE VINCENT Winnipeg LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Flat-footed and ill-equipped for Harris T WO things are apparent regarding this week’s passing of the torch in U.S. politics: first, that President Joe Biden did not come easily to the necessary decision to abandon his pursuit of a second term in office; and second, that his departure from the presidential race and endorsement of Vice-President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party standard-bearer has sent much of the Republican opposition into a full- blown trepidational tizzy. The magnitude of the unease among GOP officials and right-leaning media outlets with the sudden realignment of the presidential race — in which Republican Party nominee Donald Trump is grappling with the reality of facing Harris rather than Biden in the November election — is reflected in the desperation-bordering-on-panic of their reactions to the vice-president’s sudden and startlingly efficient seizure of presumptive- nominee status. Even more quickly than Harris could accumu- late endorsements and delegate commitments to solidify her hold on the Democratic nomination, Republicans and right-wing pundits unleashed a barrage of scattershot attacks on the vice- president that were noteworthy mostly for their utter lack of substance. Some say she can’t become president because both her parents were born outside the United States. Others say she doesn’t deserve the presi- dency because she only got her current job based on her skin colour and/or gender. Still others simply don’t like the way she laughs. By travelling down these avenues of personal attack, Republicans are venturing into what could be very perilous territory. Ad hominem argu- ments might appeal to the Trump-devoted MAGA crowd, who need no convincing that anything Democrat is worth demonizing, but attacks rooted in gender, race and family will likely land poorly with a significant number of Americans whose voting intentions currently rank as “undecided.” So real is this possibility of disillusioning a crucial voting bloc that several senior Republi- cans took it upon themselves on Wednesday to warn GOP members to steer clear of anti-Harris statements based on race or gender. “This election will be about policies and not personalities,” insisted Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Based on what else was being said in the after- math of Biden’s exit and Harris’s rapid ascension, Johnson’s statement seems mostly to be wishful thinking. Several Republicans, including Tennes- see Rep. Tim Burchett, referred to Harris as a “DEI” vice-president — a description that relates to workplace policies that promote diversity, equi- ty and inclusion. The assertion Harris lacks qualification for either her current role or the job she is seeking ignores the fact she had a successful career as a prosecutor and served as both a district attorney and attorney general in California before being elected to the U.S. senate. The Republican perspective on Harris’s quali- fications seems to hew toward what one adviser on the first Trump campaign straight-facedly referred to as “alternative facts.” Trump, for his part, this week told a New York media outlet Harris is “dumb” and “vicious” — neither of which is race- or gender-related, but both of which are illustrative of the level of the Republican nominee’s discourse. What remains to be seen, as the Trump-Harris presidential showdown engages in earnest, is how the American public — particularly those coveted margin-of-victory “undecideds” in the handful of swing states that will determine the election’s out- come — accepts or rejects the vitriol that seems destined to remain a central pillar of the Trump/ Republican campaign. This much seems clear: the party that was counting on fighting a bare-knuckle election focused on its opponent’s age and perceived infir- mity must now arm its own elderly and often- unhinged candidate with something other than insults and childish nicknames. EDITORIAL 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 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris ;