Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 28, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 MONDAY APRIL 28, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Little pictures, big ears and bad examples W HAT are we teaching our kids? One of the pillars of a thriving democrat- ic society is exemplified through the civil conduct of our elected political leaders. The ethos of honesty, humility and empathy are becoming increasingly relinquished in lieu of posturing public vitriol and moral indifference. In this era where dehumanizing language has become so routinely normalized, I ask my fellow citizens: What moral lessons are we teaching our youth? If we readily embrace the hostile spirit embodied by our elected officials, how can we reasonably expect any different conduct among our young people? The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been exceptionally successful in desensitizing the discourse of name-calling and divisive politics. A recent example was demonstrated through the president’s Easter holiday message, posted to Truth Social, extending his well-wishes to the “Radical Left Lunatics who are fighting and scheming so hard to bring Murderers, Drug Lords, Dangerous Prisoners, the Mentally Insane, and well known MS-13 Gang Members and Wife Beaters, back into our Country.” Such ignominious rhetoric has also been stra- tegically targeted to discredit his political rivals and critics. Monikers such as “Crooked Hillary,” “Pocahontas” and “Ron DeSanctimonious” are but a few examples of such juvenile mannerisms. Name-calling practices have lamentably begun to manifest in Canadian political contexts, as ev- idenced in recent “Sneaky Carney” and “Sellout Singh” titles. We would not tolerate such bullying behaviour in our public schools, and yet why are we so will- ing to tolerate this among our elected officials? Degrading asylum seekers and newcomers has, likewise, been purposefully used to sow fear among political bases. The U.S. president has recurrently asserted baseless claims that immigrants are eating pets, terrorizing neigh- bourhoods, and has equated such humans with “vermin” and “animals.” Denigrating our fellow humankind is overt and purposeful, coinciding with a grander collective effort to advance the agendas of these aspiring demagogues. A further precarious development in American politics has been deporting U.S. residents to El Salvador prisons without judicial process. In es- sence, the president is conditioning young people to disregard others’ humanity and to embrace dogmatism, as exemplified through his concerted efforts to assert guilty verdicts without the pres- ence of judicial review or evidence. Public school teachers are bestowed with an enormous responsibility to cultivate criti- cal-thinking capacities, a sense of democratic citizenship, and facilitate historical learning among our youth to better understand our present reality. However, many of these areas in cognitive and attitudinal development have become so conten- tious and politically laden. Teaching the history of the Jan. 6 insurrection, as an example, is so peculiarly ambiguous. Was this event a criminal conspiracy to invoke insur- rection or was it the manifestation of American “patriotism”? Even though U.S. courts resound- ingly rejected the president’s desperate “election fraud” assertions, his political base remains adamant in trusting his word over fact or judicial process. We as a global society have become desen- sitized to the president’s pathological lying, a worrisome precedent that suggests integrity and honesty are no longer relevant qualities among our political leaders. We have navigated approxi- mately a decade with the concept of “alternative facts” and the politicization of “truth.” The president is conditioning our young peo- ple to disregard the insights of academics and scientists, while embracing the perspectives of conspiracy theorists and neophytes. Evidently, our youth are increasingly subject to a culture that embraces dogma and negates critical thinking capacities. Policies pertaining to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) have been further problematized by the president and his MAGA acolytes. Such attitudes have been curiously equated with being “woke,” spoken against with disdain, and have been disregarded for meritocratic mindsets whereby the strong and hardworking earned their social and/or economic status. And yet, if we are truly committed to an equita- ble and inclusive democratic society that cele- brates our diversity, why is there such vehement opposition to such policies and practices? In public schools, would we not expect equitable learning environments for our children so that all youth are included, may grow, pursue dreams and otherwise fulfil their human potential? Do we not value the rich diversity of perspec- tives, backgrounds, histories and cultural practic- es of our fellow neighbours? The ethical character of our elected officials is increasingly disconcerting and a sinister example for our youth to emulate. Hateful conduct would be deemed reprehensible and not tolerated by youth in our public schools, and would be hastily reprimanded. And yet, many world leaders are acting in such derogatory fashion. Cognizant of these despondent political develop- ments, I ask my fellow citizens: What example are we setting for our youth? Jordan Laidlaw is a public school teacher, union activist and Ph.D. candidate in Educational Administration. The pope and the need for difficult conversations THERE were many noteworthy moments this past week. From Earth Day to horrendous headlines about our economy to the upcoming election, it was a long week. However, it was the passing of Pope Francis that gave me pause to reflect on the challenge of embracing difficult conversations, particularly about Indigenous people and the environment. Francis did not rely on his cardinals or his church underlings to do the heavy political lifting — he spoke to the people directly affected by church policies and history. As Canadians, we are now familiar with the apology for residential schools that resulted from those conversations and the role Manitobans played in moving the conversation forward. The hurt remains in many and the dialogue must con- tinue, but no progress will be made if there are no difficult conversations initiated. We are in challenging times, and I fear that some politicians are using this moment to take advantage and forward their personal agendas, especially when it comes to economic develop- ment and the environment. Camp Morningstar has been attempting to have a conversation with Manitobans about resource extraction from an Indigenous perspective. The passing of the pope this week led me to reflect on our failed attempts to initiate difficult conversa- tions with people in power. Few probably know that camp was represented at the Vatican as part of a cohort of Indigenous land defenders from around the world. The pope was an environmentalist. Who knew? I texted with Camp Morningstar’s Lisa Raven while she was hosted in Vatican City. She shared that her plain room was in stark contrast to other rooms showcasing the vast wealth taken from Indigenous lands. It was a moment of awakening, and a little creepy, but at least it was the start of a conversation. These land defenders who gathered at the Vat- ican were encouraged to share their truths with the cardinals on how remnants of the Doctrine of Discovery, terra nullius and the papal bulls still contaminate Manitoba’s Environment Act, Mines and Minerals Act and of course, the Indian Act. So if the Vatican can initiate difficult conversa- tions, what is holding us up from having conversa- tions about balanced legislation? The press has a role to play in ensuring their coverage is balanced and includes these historical truths. For example, whining from the likes of Ontario Premier Doug Ford about Indigenous consultation holding up mining in the Ring of Fire and his call to get the federal government out of the way is troublesome. The imperfect adoption by Canada of UNDRIP is the one reason some Indigenous nations must resort to the courts. In Manitoba, Canadian Premium Sand was ap- proved within months. The six-year and counting delay in the mine start-up has nothing to do with delayed licences. The constant myth that there is too much regu- lation is unfounded. A more likely culprit is the lack of staffing in the provincial licensing offices. The Technical Advisory Committee is tasked with enforcing some sort of standard for environmental protec- tion and they can only go so quickly. If a company submits a weak environmental application, it creates a lot of work as the government wants the mine to succeed, but liabilities are real. No one is questioning the right to self-determi- nation. The question is what constitutes informed consultation? When Camp Morningstar erected a teepee in the dead of a cold February night to protest the lack of information about a proposed mine, free speech was not a Constitutional right for First Nations on reserve. The legal journey to include that right did not start until 2020, long after Canadian Premium Sand had received their license. Let that sink in. Take Earth Day. It should have been a politi- cian’s handshaking delight — school children galore and people hopeful for a nod in their di- rection. I understand our premier was elsewhere. From the saddling of the environment minister with an extra portfolio to the lack of action on early promises to have the best environmental legislation, this government continues to dodge difficult conversations about the environment and balanced decision-making Premier Wab Kinew gets the last laugh. My riverfront home on the stunning Manigotagan River, the generational location of my husband’s Indigenous family, has been prospected by 1911 Gold. So, in addition to the continual threat of a sand mine starting up in my front yard, I now have to think about a gold mine under my house and the river in what serves as my backyard. Seriously, is this anyone’s idea of balance? Kin- ew, I call uncle. When the ice melts, you will find me out on the land that is left. Mary Jane McCarron is a lapsed Catholic. In defence of facts and farmers JESSICA Scott-Reid and Kaitlyn Mitchell’s recent opinion piece, Canada’s horse export trade and the election (Think Tank, April 23) casts Canada’s live horse export industry as a national disgrace. However, their article relies heavily on emotionally charged language, exaggerated claims and misleading portrayals that do little to inform a thoughtful public debate. Their narrative leaves no room for the facts on the ground. As the Senate critic of Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amend- ments to certain Acts, I made it a priority to observe first-hand how the industry works from one end to the other. I met with farmers, feedlot owners, vet- erinarians, animal transportation experts, exporters, animal rights groups and more. I visited feedlots to observe the loading process, followed the trucks to the airport, and watched as the horses were loaded into crates and then onto the plane. At every stage, I examined the claims made by animal rights activists and found them riddled with distortions and misrepre- sentations. For example, Animal Justice repeatedly asserts that horses “are crammed into wood- en crates so tightly they can barely move around or balance during turbulence.” This is categorically false. The spacing provided for each horse not only meets but exceeds the mandatory standards estab- lished by the International Air Transport Association. Unlike stalled horses, which are often cross-tied and cannot raise and lower their heads or turn around, export horses have free range of movement within their crates. But the factual misrepresentations go beyond transport conditions. Animal Justice also claimed that I “refused to allow the bill to be voted on and sent to committee study.” This, too, is categorically false. The timetable of a bill’s passage is not determined by any one senator, but by the Senate as a whole. Suggesting otherwise is absurd and betrays a poor understanding of Senate rules. Senate procedure permits any senator who wishes to speak to a bill to do so before it proceeds to a vote. A number of senators had indicated to me their desire to do so and as critic of the bill, I was ready to speak to the bill as soon as these other senators had their opportunity. In actual fact, my speech on Bill C-355 was written last November, and I was look- ing forward to giving it in order to counter the constant stream of misinformation disseminated by Animal Justice. Regrettably, due to the government’s pro- rogation of Parliament, I now will not have the opportunity to do so. That lost opportunity matters, because the bill’s stated intent did not match its content. Bill C-355 claimed to address animal wel- fare and yet it would have made it illegal to transport horses by air only if their end use was human consumption. The same horses could still have been transported the same way under the same conditions to the same destination for any other purpose. This demonstrates that the legislation was not about animal welfare but rather a tool of animal activists who are ideologically opposed to the human consumption of horse meat. While some may find the idea of rais- ing horses for livestock distasteful, it is a long-standing and common practice both in Canada and around the world. Horse meat is a significant part of the culinary traditions of over one billion people in 77 countries worldwide and is a legitimate part of our agricultural trade. As our current trade challenges have reminded us, we should be strengthening Canadian export markets, not undermining them based on political opportunism and unsound evidence. Senator Donald Plett is Leader of the Opposition in the Can- adian Senate, and a senator from Manitoba. ALEX BRANDON / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on April 17, as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick listens. JORDAN LAIDLAW SENATOR DON PLETT MARY JANE MCCARRON At every stage, I examined the claims made by animal rights activists and found them riddled with distortions and misrepresentations. ;