Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - May 1, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 THURSDAY MAY 1, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Bill 43 represents a victory for all W HILE for many years Canada has enjoyed a global reputation as a predominantly safe place to live, the erosion of that real- ity — which more recently we have seen play out in communities across the country — is a clear and present threat to that reputation. The Manitoba Teachers’ Society, representing 16,600 public school teachers across the prov- ince, has taken vocal and steadfast positions in opposition to the banning of books from libraries, wresting control of hiring practices from school divisions and the spewing of hate-fuelled rhetoric at school trustee meetings. We do so recogniz- ing that efforts to undermine public education through bodies such as our school boards create a portal to a much larger prize: that of destroying systems of democracy, law and human rights. This brings me to Bill 43, The Human Rights Code Amendment Act. The amendment proposed by our provincial government is significant; it’s the kind of thing that earns a country, and a prov- ince, the reputation as a safe and secure place for all. Bill 43 proposes that gender expression be added to those characteristics already protect- ed under human rights legislation in Manitoba. According to Egale Canada, gender expression is defined as “the way gender is presented and communicated to the world through clothing, speech, body language, hairstyle, voice and/or the emphasis or de-emphasis of body characteristics and behaviours.” Let’s be clear that defending human rights for marginalized or vulnerable persons, including their right to gender expression, does not infringe on anyone else’s human rights. In fact, I would argue that the more protected marginalized or vulnerable folks are, the more each and every one of us will benefit from a safer, kinder and just society. Bill 43 represents a victory for all of us. It is a victory for parents and caregivers who want to send their children to safe and supportive schools free of harassment and bullying that far too often have lifelong physical and emotional impacts. It is a victory for parents of children who are not marginalized, shaping communities in which those who have power and voice are governed by kindness, understanding and a commitment to belonging and security guaranteed for all. It is a victory for workplaces, giving them a North Star, guiding development of organizational cultures in which colleagues welcome, support and learn from one another. It is a victory for our communities, which are the beneficiaries of the diverse, vibrant lived experiences of their citizens. And of course, it is a victory for those among us who are most vulnerable, who are counting on us to stand up for them, to speak out for them. Strengthening human rights is essential — per- haps the most important work of any government. And while the federal government passed Bill-C16 in 2017 adding gender identity and expression to Charter rights, similar protections do not exist in some provinces, Manitoba included. This leaves gaps for discrimination in areas such as health care, education and criminal justice, because these systems are governed by provincial and territorial human rights law. Genocides are born in the vacuum created by erasing human rights. We need look no further than our own backyards, to the multi-generation- al impacts of residential schools to see ample evidence of that. A quick Google search will reveal the heart- breaking trend of suicide among those who do not present in a manner that conforms with what for many is a pink and blue “gender reveal party” world. We must be firm in our conviction that no person, young or old, should be subjected to vio- lence, harassment or be compelled take their own life because the rest of us stood by in silence. Rights which for many years we have believed to be inalienable are not. We have witnessed the rolling back of rights and freedoms in other coun- tries, including the United States. Even within the context of our own federal election, the Conserva- tive Party leader made it clear that if elected he would have passed a law overriding our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If that doesn’t terrify you, it should. It’s what makes Bill 43 all the more important. To be human is to have a heart, and we are all human. No matter how we dress, no matter if we wear make-up, no matter if we dye our hair or wear it in ways some might find non-traditional, we all have the right to safety and security. Bill 43 is a crucial step in that direction, priori- tizing and protecting human rights rooted in love and compassion for oneself and one’s neighbour. If you looked at me, you’d see someone granted all the privilege imaginable. With my privilege comes the responsibility to speak out in defence of legislation like Bill 43. I’m speaking out because I’m privileged. I’m speaking out because I’m a parent, I’m speaking out because I’m a teacher and I’m speaking out because I’m a union leader. I’m speaking out — not just for me, not just for my members, but for all of us. Nathan Martindale is president of The Manitoba Teachers’ Society. Cell towers, urban planning and frustration FOR those of you concerned about the growing suppression of public dissent while casting your eyes southwards, sadly, one need look no further than the City of Winnipeg’s very own urban planning department for similar signs of the rise of autocracy. Since last autumn, residents of south Winni- peg’s Fairfield Park and surrounding areas have been in an ongoing battle with the department in an effort to prevent the erection of a highly visible freestanding Bell MTS cell tower in the heart of a densely populated residential community. The city has turned a deaf ear to public sentiment, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. The fact that the planning department has cho- sen to ignore the widespread public opposition to the tower is one thing, but their stubborn refusal to adequately address the public’s questions re- garding the rationale for a new tower is dumb- founding. If that was the only concern, one might simply chalk it up to bureaucratic issue avoidance. But the concerns do not stop there. City planning has also decided to either ignore or override certain core requirements outlined in both the city’s antenna systems policy and established guidelines published by the federal government. Here are the unsettling specifics. The city’s policy makes it clear that a tower applicant must provide details as to “potential alternative locations” to the proposed site. After a painstaking and through investigation of all the possible alternative sites, we discovered that city planning agreed to entertain Bell MTS’s proposal with absolutely no evidence of any alternate sites being considered. That’s correct, none! The policy also clearly states that the applicant must explore the option of sharing space on an existing tower prior to submitting a proposal to the city. We spoke directly with Rogers Commu- nications, which has an existing tower located at nearby 2656 Pembina Hwy. Once again, Bell MTS made absolutely no attempt to discuss sharing antenna space on the Rogers’ tower and the planning department failed to enforce this core requirement, too. The policy also states that the landowners of property located within an 81-metre radius of the proposed tower must be advised in writing, along with similar notices sent to any tenants. In this instance, Bell MTS sent a notice to an incorrect mailing address for the landowner of the nearby Fairfield Apartments. The city then neglected to compel Bell MTS to reissue a notice to the correct mailing address. If that were not enough, city planners refused to admit that tenants also needed to be notified. Only after repeated email requests did the planning department finally compel Bell MTS to do so. One of the core “objectives” of the city’s anten- na systems policy is that it “ensures the City and members of the public contribute local knowl- edge that facilitates and influences the siting — location…” It also states that “local residents’ questions, comments and concerns are important elements to be considered …” Unfortunately, these priorities do not appear to be either acknowledged or shared by the plan- ning division. They have continually referred to clauses contained within the policy as only being “guidelines” and that they have the ultimate discretion as to whether or not they should be followed. It is evident that some employees of the city’s city planning department feel that they have absolute veto power over policies approved by city council. Given this, the “tail is clearly wagging the dog” if the planning, property and develop- ment department has more power than city coun- cil in terms of determining public policy. Although this issue relates to a Bell MTS cell tower proposal for 50 Barnes St., it should not be considered an isolated local issue. The ability of the city’s various departments to waive, or ignore, established procedures should be of concern to all Winnipeggers. (For more detailed information on the Barnes tower proposal, please visit www. change.org/p/petition-to-oppose-the-erection-of- a-bell-mts-cell-tower-at-50-barnes-street-in-win- nipeg. Should you decide to add your name to the petition, your support would be greatly appreci- ated.) It is obvious that both Bell MTS and the owner of the land that this cell tower is to be situated upon (Grace Communion Church) have a vested financial interest in seeing this tower erected. Why the city’s planning department is so dedi- cated to seeing this tower go up in this specific location remains a mystery. The final decision regarding this tower now sits in the hands of the federal government’s Innova- tion, Science and Economic Development (ISED) division. Hopefully, they will compel Bell MTS to go back to stage one and fulfil the requirements that city planning has ignored. Jerry Woloshyn is president of the Barnes Area Residents Committee. Big ideas don’t grow by chance PREMIER Wab Kinew’s recent appeal to U.S.-based researchers facing uncertainty to consider relocating to Manitoba is an encouraging and forward-thinking move. As a result of growing threats to universi- ty funding and research south of the border, Manitoba can emerge as a hub for research talent. But if we truly want to capitalize on that potential, we must act strategically by strengthening the foundation of the research ecosystem we already have here at home and then building upon that in a purposeful way. As a group of researchers from across Manitoba recently articulated in an open letter to the premier, meaningful investment at scale and a long-term vision for local research is the essential first step. Without it, the province risks missing a rare opportunity to lead. Despite the premier’s welcome message to American researchers, the facts are that Manitoba ranks last in Canada when it comes to provincial per-capita research funding. Since 2016, Research Manitoba’s budget has been cut from $17.1 million to just $12 million in 2023 — a staggering reduction, even before adjusting for inflation. These cuts have undermined Manitoba’s capacity to leverage federal research funding, and to recruit and retain top research talent. Investment in research isn’t just an academic issue — it’s an economic one that affects all Manitobans. Research is directly linked to the productivity and innovation of a province and nation. Studies show that for every dollar invested in research in Manitoba, four dollars are re- turned to the economy. These dollars create jobs in construction and infrastructure as new labs, equipment and spaces are created. Research also supports new career oppor- tunities for current and future Manitoba students, enhancing the value of programs and improving their earning potential for a lifetime. However, big ideas don’t just come to frui- tion by chance. They require sustained support from con- ceptualization to commercialization, where academia and industry work hand in hand. That’s why we also need a strategy for the long-term vision of Manitoba research. Our province has many strengths — agri- culture, transportation and logistics, Arctic accessibility and health sciences to name a few — and we need a co-ordinated approach developed by academia and government that allocates increased funding to ensure these world-class abilities become world-leading. This plan would not only support our best and brightest but identify the next gener- ation of talent and provide the resources needed to meet their full potential. Despite the shortage of provincial funding, the University of Manitoba is delivering re- al-world solutions to pressing societal prob- lems through external support. For nearly 150 years, researchers at U of M have been at the centre of discovery and innovation, generating new ideas, products and services that are impactful around the world. A team of U of M researchers recently de- veloped a cutting-edge solution for detecting kidney disease earlier, called the uCR-Chip, a portable diagnostic tool that doesn’t rely on costly lab equipment. This made-in-Manito- ba innovation will improve health outcomes for individuals with kidney disease, expand access to care for rural, remote and Indig- enous communities and reduce pressure on the health-care system. Nevertheless, provincial support for these and other great ideas remains alarmingly low. In 2023-24, nearly 38 per cent of UM’s research income came from federal sources, with 57 per cent coming from foundations, industry and other grant sources. But only five per cent is from the province. While we do punch above our weight in receiving research grants from external sources, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from which U of M receives more than any other Canadian post-second- ary institution, much more is needed from the province if we want to compete on a national or global scale. Turbulent times can reveal new opportu- nities. While the government’s interest in recruiting talent from abroad is promising, it must be matched with a long-term commit- ment to support the researchers already here. Now is the time for bold action to restore and expand Research Manitoba’s funding and lay the foundation for Manitoba-based discovery and innovation to thrive. Michael Benarroch is president and vice-chancellor of the University of Manitoba, and Mario Pinto is vice-president (Research and International) at the University of Manitoba. MICHAEL BENARROCH AND MARIO PINTO JERRY WOLOSHYN ALEX LUPUL / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS / FILE A new bill presented in the Manitoba legislature represents a victory for all Manitobans. NATHAN MARTINDALE ;