Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 24, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 FRIDAY JANUARY 24, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Ecological corridors helpful to Manitoba T HE Assiniboine West Watershed District (AWWD) has now formally withdrawn its involvement with the Little Saskatchewan River ecological corridor project. The river is in a beautiful wide glacial meltwa- ter channel which already functions as a wildlife corridor. It is sad to see the loss of an investment of $995,000 which could have been very helpful to people living in the watershed. This result is due largely to fear from people in the valley that the project might alter private property rights. It has not been helped by misinformation, including from Rob Olsen, with the Manitoba Wildlife Federation (MWF), in his comment that the federally funded Little Saskatchewan River ecological corridor project will neglect farmer’s needs (Federal program failing in agro-Manitoba, Think Tank, Jan. 18). In fact, a major objective was to provide fi- nancial support for farmers to maintain habitat (trees, grasslands and wetlands). The support was to be optional, at the farmer’s choice, not man- datory. Private landowner rights were not to be interfered with. Many farmers are already providing habitat stewardship at their own initiative and at their own cost. They need to be supported in this effort, which builds on the successful Alternative Land Use Services program, to compensate farmers for the stewardship they provide with an additional source of revenue for those who participate. Olsen infers the project was designed to be managed by Parks Canada. Though Parks Canada provides funding, the one-year project was to be managed by AWWD, an organization he acknowl- edges “has been doing outstanding communi- ty-based conservation work for years.” Local de- cision-making, in this case by AWWD, is critically important with ecological corridor projects. Olsen infers the project was “focusing almost entirely and exclusively on engaging with Indige- nous people only.” This is not accurate. This was not an Indigenous-led project. The Little Saskatchewan River project was to be led by AWWD, a farmer-supporting environmental non-profit organization that is not Indigenous. There is no requirement for an ecological corri- dor to be Indigenous-led or to become an Indige- nous Protected and Conserved Area. Interestingly, the project’s origin was in dis- cussions with farmers in the Rivers area. AWWD took on this project because they have a long history of working with and helping farmers and could ensure farmer’s interests were considered. The project would have involved First Nation Communities as well as municipalities and farm- ers. The project, though not Indigenous led, had the potential to build bridges and understanding between non-Indigenous and Indigenous commu- nities. Olsen infers the AWWD project would have used regulations. This is not true. AWWD does not make regulations. Regulations are set by municipalities (for land in the municipality), by First Nations (for First Nations’ communities), or by provinces for issues in their jurisdiction. The federal government may set rules within national parks; it does not do so for ecological corridors. Municipal sovereignty and municipal decision making would not have been altered. Further, AWWD cannot and could not change rules for agricultural use, or for hunting, angling, trapping, cottage leases, snowmobiling or hiking. Olsen infers the AWWD project was designed to help Canada reach a goal of 30 per cent of the land protected by 2030. This is not true. Corridors are a “complementary” approach to protected areas, but are not themselves protected areas. They link protected areas to facilitate the movement of species across landscapes, going to and from protected areas. Corridors can host a variety of land-use activities including ranching, grain farming, forestry, hunting and more. Many positives of the AWWD project includ- ed a leading-edge hydrologic map to facilitate resilience to floods and droughts, an urgent need given the severe flood in Minnedosa in 2022. Also included were actions to help improve Lake Minnedosa, and to explore the potential for proj- ects to improve fish ladders and connectivity for fish and to assess water quality. The project included collaboration with Assiniboine Community College and Brandon University to learn about the Little Saskatch- ewan River and its biodiversity. It would have provided summer employment for students. The project included making all information gathered publicly available in an archive within the Little Saskatchewan River watershed; work done would be fully and transparently available, possibly with an interpretive centre. The MWF website argues for collaboration of all stakeholders including First Nations on conservation. The AWWD project would have provided for such collaboration. The MWF is concerned about continued access for its members for hunting and fishing. But, if there is no habitat for wildlife, there will be no hunting. We need to work together rather than be divisive. If we look after our environment, our environment will look after us — including for ag- riculture — improved grazing land and improved crop yields – and for bird watchers, hunters, fishers, hikers and others — improved potential to enjoy nature and benefit mentally and physically. AWWD is withdrawing from the project as a result of pressure from Olsen and others. It is a sad loss of a major investment. Jon Gerrard is the former MLA for River Heights. Keeping school board elections fair for all A FUNDAMENTAL tenet of our democracy is the value of free and fair elections. In Manitoba, how- ever, there is a real threat to the democratic func- tioning of our public school boards by third-party interference in school trustee elections. Presently, the provincial government does not have legislation to regulate financial, goods and services contributions for school board elections. As a result, school board elections are suscep- tible to election interference by individuals and corporate organizations that exist both within and outside the province. At the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government, election financing legislation ensures elections are fair and not influenced by big money. Without the same type of legislation for school board elections in Manitoba, third parties are able to unfairly influence the results of elections. In the absence of legislation, there are a wide range of individuals and organizations who have the potential to fund election campaigns of school board candidates, as well as provide in-kind goods and services contributions. This kind of activity by third parties is perfectly legal within the pres- ent legislative environment. School board election campaigns involve a process of organizing a broad network of constit- uencies, including individuals, parents, residents, organizations, Indigenous and ethnocultural communities, members of unions, businesses and religious groups to support school trustee candi- dates at school board elections. This type of participation should take place through mobilizing members of these sectors to get involved in the school board election process, and not based on the election campaign funding role played by corporate entities or organizations to tip the scale of influence. Manitoba is out of step with other provinces in our country when it comes to school board elec- tion financing legislation. The only other provinc- es that do not have legislation are New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The November 2024 provincial throne speech acknowledges this vulnerability regarding school board elections in Manitoba. The throne speech states that the provincial government will further promote freedom and democracy by “introducing legislation to protect our elections and democracy from third-party and foreign interference.” As well, the throne speech identified that “Man- itobans may be surprised to know that, in 2024, not all First Nations can vote in school board elections. We are going to change this so everyone has the right to vote.” Legislation will be intro- duced to provide on-reserve First Nations band members with the right to nominate and vote for school trustee candidates. The NDP government is to be commended for addressing these long-standing school board governance issues. Guiding principles of school board election financing legislation should be based on: (1) trans- parency — accountability to the public; (2) acces- sibility — minimizing barriers for community members to run for school board; (3) evidence — based on the best practices of school board election financing legislation in other provinces; and (4) precedent — consistency with election financing legislation for federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. A review of the best policy practices of the oth- er provinces regarding transparency for school board election financing legislation identifies that prohibiting corporate, union and out-of-province non-resident contributions are key elements of the legislation. As well, campaign spending limits and the public disclosure of campaign contributors is important. Accessibility is addressed in the other jurisdic- tions by making sure that the campaign financial disclosure statements required at the end of election campaigns are simple and straightfor- ward, with user-friendly reporting templates to facilitate the reporting requirements. Potential barriers involving onerous reporting expectations are minimized and streamlined. Manitoba is an outlier among the provinces when it comes to legislation to protect and pro- mote free and fair school board elections. These contemplated changes to the Public Schools Act will bring our province in step with the rest of the country regarding school board election financ- ing legislation. Just Elections, a newly developed coalition of organizations and individuals, supports the provincial government’s recent announcement in the throne speech to enact legislation to protect school board elections from third-party interfer- ence. The coalition includes education stakeholders, organizations and community members who are committed to working with the provincial govern- ment in this upcoming spring legislative session to develop and pass legislation for school board election financing, as well as the right for all on-reserve First Nations peoples to vote, in time for the next school board elections in 2026. Kathy Mallett is the first Indigenous woman elected on the board of trustees of the Winnipeg School Division and Order of Manitoba re- cipient, and Liz Ambrose is former chairperson of the Winnipeg School Division. They are co-chairs of Just Elections. Elon Musk’s AI silence ELON Musk has painted himself as a hu- manitarian figure building a utopian future through a passel of companies. Don’t fall for it. The billionaire’s silence on the sudden reversal of U.S. government guidelines for building safer artificial intelligence shows his priorities are political capital — and his own business interests. Among the cornucopia of executive orders that U.S. President Donald Trump enacted this week was a repeal of Joseph Biden’s order on AI. Launched in October 2023, it called on major AI companies to share safe- ty test results with the government. It was a simple list of requests. The executive order couldn’t legally force tech firms to do any- thing, but it was the strongest signal so far that the U.S. government was serious about the safety and oversight of AI systems. Trump did say on the campaign trail that he would revoke the order, following grumbling from members of the Republican party that it stifled innovation. But Musk, now serving as an adviser with a White House role and direct access to Trump, has remained conspicuously silent on an action he might once have forcefully opposed. In March 2023, he signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on advanced AI, warning it posed “profound risks to society and humanity.” A few months later he told BBC News that AI could cause “civilization destruction,” comparing it to nuclear weapons. Musk ended his longtime friendship with Google co-founder Larry Page over an argument about AI risk, ac- cording to Walter Isaacson’s biography, and he co-founded OpenAI over concerns that Google wasn’t paying enough attention to the technology’s existential threat to humanity. “I think we need to regulate AI safety,” Musk said in 2023. “It is, I think, actually a bigger risk to society than cars or planes or medicine.” If Musk truly believed that, he’d be advis- ing the new president to maintain the system already in place, which wasn’t that onerous to begin with. So far, the largest AI labs have voluntarily co-operated with AI safety institutes both in the U.S., based in the National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology in Maryland, and in the U.K. Biden’s order hadn’t set hard standards so much as guidance for reporting and transparency on the part of tech firms. That’s sorely needed at a time when, thanks to the opaque nature of the largest AI labs, we know more about the ingredients in a packet of Doritos than we do about a gener- ative AI model that banks and legal firms are plugging into their systems. Yet the stakes of AI development have only grown bigger, with OpenAI and part- ners including Softbank Group Corp. and Oracle Corp. now planning a US$500-bil- lion infrastructure investment that would dramatically accelerate AI development — exactly the kind of rapid scaling that Musk once warned could be catastrophic. Yet on this, too, the former doomsayer remains quiet. Such selective silence is hardly surpris- ing from someone who launched Tesla Inc. to combat climate change but now aligns with anti-electric vehicle politicians, or who claims to champion free speech while kick- ing journalists off his platform and suing his critics. Musk’s principles seem to be as erratic as his tweets and, right now, being Trump’s new best friend seems to outweigh being humanity’s self-appointed sentinel. Musk’s warnings on AI weren’t necessari- ly right. There are more near-term concerns about the security and fairness of AI mod- els, and their impact on the job market. But his current hush speaks volumes about how a billionaire’s apocalyptic concerns can be set aside for political convenience. Perhaps we should expect to see less agi- tating from Musk on AI standards, and for him to spend more time and energy unblock- ing policies that could impede his companies from getting ahead in the AI race, including Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Tesla and X.AI Corp. If the man who once called AI humanity’s greatest existential threat won’t speak up to defend basic safety mea- sures, it’s worth asking what other principles of his might crumble in the face of power and access. - Bloomberg TIM SMITH/ THE BRANDON SUN FILES Tubers float down the Little Saskatchewan River west of Brandon in August, 2024. JON GERRARD PARMY OLSON Musk’s principles seem to be as erratic as his tweets and, right now, being Trump’s new best friend seems to outweigh being humanity’s self-appointed sentinel. KATHY MALLETT AND LIZ AMBROSE ;