Lemieux calls Greyhound's bluff.. and wins the first round

Yesterday our intrepid Transport Minister challenged Greyhound to reveal exactly which routes were unprofitable before he'd commit to a bailout. Well, today they announced that they're not going to cease operations in Manitoba just yet:

There will be no disruption of Greyhound bus service as expected Oct. 2 nor any layoffs, CBC News has confirmed.

Manitoba Transport Minister Ron Lemieux said the provincial government and the bus company have agreed to keep negotiating.

Another meeting between the two sides is scheduled for next month, Lemieux said.

Source. We're not out of the woods yet, of course, but kudos to Lemieux for what he's achieved so far.

Does the idea of a public bus company have legs (er... wheels)?

In a recent post I suggested that the province should let Greyhound go and provide the service itself. Is this crazy? Don't know, but someone has written a letter to the editor advocating the idea. And it's not unheard of, even in Western Canada; STC was created by order-in-council in 1946 and has rendered yeoman service for Saskatchewan's rural residents ever since. This in a province that has far more roads, per capita, than Manitoba. Here, you'd just need a few main lines (the Trans-Canada, Yellowhead, one through the Interlake to Thompson, one from Brandon to Flin Flon, and one up to Pine Falls or Bissett might do the trick), with branch lines to other centres as needed. Of course, the initial outlay would be more than the $15 million Greyhound is demanding so that they'll continue taking people from isolated communities to their medical appointments, but I think it might be worth it, at least until we can start building up the province's railways again.

Greyhound demands $15M to avoid route cuts

Can you say "extortion"?

Greyhound Canada said Thursday that unless it gets $15 million in government aid, it will cease bus operations in Manitoba and northwestern Ontario because it is being forced to operate unprofitable rural routes with a lack of government help.

The company, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Greyhound Lines Inc., also said it is reviewing its operations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Despite Greyhound's insistence that it is in "dire" financial straits, federal and provincial politicians called the announcement a ploy.

Service in Manitoba will end Oct. 2 and routes in northwestern Ontario will stop operating Dec. 2, Greyhound said in a statement.

Stuart Kendrick, senior vice-president of Greyhound Canada, said government is to blame for the company's financial situation.

Kendrick said current rules force Greyhound to run trips to unprofitable sites in small-town Canada, which can no longer be supported through money-making routes and bus parcel operations, or through other revenue sources.

Source. Maybe we should spend some money, but use it to set up our own publicly owned bus line...

Edited to add: is Jim Maloway reading this blog?

A story that needs to be read

The shocking death of Tim McLean last summer has generated the predictable torrent of blood lust on the part of the general public (check the comments section of pretty much any news story on the case). Given that climate, the Winnipeg Free Press is to be commended for running this story about the history and application of the legal finding of "not criminally responsible". Of course, many of the people leaving comments continue to decry the possibility of such a verdict:

Yes, the mentally ill definitely need treatment. However they also deserve some form of punishment to allow justice for the victim(s) and protection of society... at least keep them away from society for a couple years.

The whole idea of punishment makes sense given the premise that the person punished was aware, in some capacity, that they were doing a bad thing, and therefore needs to be taught a lesson. But the whole point of a verdict of "not criminally responsible" is that the court is convinced that the accused did not have that awareness, and that therefore punishment is not the appropriate approach to the problem. It is not a denial of the existence of a problem, simply the recognition that the problem at hand is a different sort of problem than the criminal justice system is designed to deal with.

And what the heck does the above poster mean by "to allow justice for the victim"? Now "protection of society" I can understand, and many (perhaps even most) people found to be "not criminally responsible" do need to be kept away from the public. But "justice for the victim"? Excuse me, but the guy is dead. He ain't coming back, no matter how much you torture and torment the killer. Unfortunately, a public raised on daily doses of CSI and Law and Order is very easy to whip up into a bloodthirsty frenzy when the discussion turns to crime.