Hey there, time traveller!

This article was published 27/9/2017 (1091 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Not the right approach

The Manitoba government under Brian Pallister is planning drastic changes to the existing, insufficient health-care system, to make it even worse for the people of Manitoba.

Proposed reductions in management staff and nurses and the closing of facilities at various hospitals are not a viable solution to financial shortfalls or making the system work better. Any cutbacks to the health-care system are disturbing and are disappointing news for all seniors and other concerned people who heavily rely on the system.

The health-care system has not been performing well during the past few years. Any further trimming by closing emergency facilities at Victoria, Concordia and Seven Oaks hospitals could certainly put patients’ lives at risk.

Though the health-care system may be a contentious issue for the government, reducing basic health-care services to the public is not the right approach in making it sustainable and it should not be acceptable to the public in general. If the Progressive Conservative government proceeds with this agenda, I suspect it will pay the consequences during the next election.

Mohammad Ashraf

Winnipeg

Tax system must be fair to all

The consultation on changes to the taxation of private corporations has been a hot-button issue for the past month. There are concerns about the impacts on small business, contentions that only high-income earners will be impacted and inevitably the discussion pits two groups of people against each other. Employees and employers, high-income earners and the middle class, families and single adults have all been forced to square off. But why? If the goal is fairness, can’t we find a solution that works for everyone?

This particular battle was instigated by the federal government, declaring in their proposal for changes to the taxation of private corporations that the tax system in our country is not fair, that it picks winners and losers and that right now the winners are owners of private corporations. This claim is their justification for implementing changes that will harm small business. Small-business owners are up in arms and the employees have been unwittingly thrown into battle to defend the government’s position because the government is claiming to protect their interests.

But a small business is nothing without its employees and an employee, without the business that hires them, is unemployed. A fair tax system is not a system by which the majority of people win and the current government stays in power; a fair tax system is one that works for all Canadians, one that encourages the growth of our economy while still ensuring government can provide the services that Canadians rely on.

Piecemeal changes, without appropriate time for consultation and analysis on their implications, are not the way to implement a fair tax system. If our elected representatives are correct and our tax system is not fair for Canadians, then we absolutely do need to change it. The fundamental principles of our current system have been in place for 45 years, following a royal commission and extensive study on how a fair and just tax system can be implemented. If that system is no longer working, we need to take a look at the tax system as a whole and make adjustments so that it works for all Canadians.

We need to stop picking winners and losers, we need to stop rushing through tax changes that will have massive impacts on our country and we need to take our time, analyze the issues and create a tax system that works for everyone.

Shane Janke CPA, CA

Tisdale, Sask.

On the same page?

Re: A different story unfolds (Sept. 23)

I did not ghost-write Wab Kinew’s book The Reason You Walk.

Here is what I wrote to Gordon Sinclair Jr. following our telephone conversation:

"Wab Kinew wrote the original draft. It was the source of every fact, personal observation, recollection, emotional response and other material in the book. I worked with him to shape it into an approximation of the final work. The publisher’s editorial staff added their own expertise where needed. Nothing to my knowledge was any different from standard procedure."

Kinew’s book and his candid discussion of various events in his past stands as a testament to his openness, his candour and his directness in dealing with the facts. They, in fact, made the book the success it has proven to be.

John Lawrence Reynolds

Burlington, Ont.

Political climate must change

Re: Ignoring climate change not an option (Sept. 16)

The life-changing effects of hurricanes Harvey and Irma have had an immense impact on the political rhetoric for the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events. Harvey and Irma could be a turning point for discourse in the United States on climate change. This has led some politicians to call for improved climate and adaptation policies. Focusing events for mobilizing public attention is a way to create a climate for policy change. However, in the U.S., there is weak evidence that extreme weather events are associated with a growing concern about climate change or increased support for adaptation policies. Currently, it seems Americans are set in their stances on climate change and that even the devastating events such as Harvey and Irma are unlikely to change minds. U.S. climate discourse will only change systematically when the Republican party decides it is in its political interest to deal with the climate crisis.

Scientists must be more communicative to the public. The most important objective is to re-establish norms that people who work professionally on topics related to science should have seats at the table for making decisions regarding climate change policies. Scientists are still developing standards and techniques to confidently attribute specific events to human-caused climate change. In order to effectively change the discourse, it is necessary to switch the focus off climate change to other issues and benefits. Practical steps should be implemented by government agencies to reduce the negative effects from extreme weather conditions. It is important to tailor adaptation strategies to communities specifically in order to enhance their resilience to climate change.

It is also beneficial to emphasize the non-climate benefits of adaptations such as job creation, expanding green spaces, and improving resilience. Adaptation policies are extremely important to prevent some future damage, however, mitigation in the long term will lower the amount of adaptation needed, therefore reducing its overall cost. Most disasters alone usually do not have a long-term impact on national discourse, but impacts at other levels may in fact last as long as changes are institutionalized in public policy.

The main hope for Houston and coastal communities is to focus on the local level. In fact, looking at the high-profile hurricanes of the past three weeks, the lesson you can draw from Harvey and Irma is that of an indicator of the quality and capacity of our national, state and municipal government bodies and economic institutions.

In the case of the United States, communities will need to adopt local level adaptation strategies tailored to their specific vulnerabilities. However, ultimately it is mitigation toward climate change that is necessary.

Celina Penny

Winnipeg