Letters, July 28

A plea for compassion

After the loss of my husband, I was thrust into a world I was unprepared for — not just emotionally, but administratively. Settling his estate became a series of painful and frustrating encounters with bureaucracy, indifference, and inefficiency. What should have been a time for mourning and healing turned into a relentless battle with companies that seemed wholly unprepared to deal with grieving customers.

From financial institutions to telecom providers, and even online retailers, I faced repeated roadblocks: incorrect information, lost paperwork, contradictory instructions, and the need to follow up multiple times — often just to reverse charges or close accounts. At one point, I had to chase down a refund for a parking spot my husband no longer occupied. In the fog of grief, every call, every form, every email felt like a mountain.

What became clear to me is this: most companies are not set up to handle bereavement with care or competence. Worse still, when you are grieving, you are simply not in the right emotional state to advocate for yourself, let alone navigate a maze of red tape. Many people give up — not because they don’t care, but because they no longer have the strength.

This needs to change.

I believe companies — especially large ones like Rogers, Bell, and Amazon — should create dedicated bereavement support lines. These lines should be staffed with individuals trained not only in the necessary administrative procedures, but also in compassion and empathy. A single point of contact who can guide you through the process with understanding and attention to detail would make a world of difference during an already traumatic time.

We deserve better. And at our most vulnerable, we deserve to be treated with humanity.

Gwen Falkingham

Toronto, Ont.

On banning encampments

Re: Safety, image concerns drive councillor to propose ban on roadside encampments (July 22)

Throughout his years as councillor, Jeff Browaty has demonstrated time and again his lack of knowledge of the social determinants of health and a worrisome lack of empathy for homeless folks.

What Browaty fails to understand, or simply doesn’t care about, is what should prompt someone to settle at an encampment in a busy area. The biggest reason being safety, contrary to Browaty’s belief. Without meaningful support and legislation homelessness will not end.

An elected official showing more concern regarding the esthetics of how an encampment looks instead of being concerned about the people and the problems that contributed to their homelessness is frankly reprehensible and ineffectual.

Kelsey Trumbla

Winnipeg

A proposed ban on people living in tents on major streets is a necessary step.

The so-called encampments that shelter those people without safe, clean and continuous housing are a shock to our communities and inhumane for any person reduced to such a dangerous, unhealthy and unhygienic day to day living. We must do better and there must be better options that need to be undertaken because what is being tried isn’t working. The proposal to ban encampments in all non-authorized public places is a necessary start.

We are perpetuating chronic unsafe and unhealthy conditions for those citizens who are seriously compromised to the point of living in conditions worse than squalor. Undoubtedly these are very complex and long term social ills without a quick fix but our neglect and malaise as a community on this very sad and serious matter is appalling.

Well-serviced and properly resourced public space that provides an appropriate level of safety, security and hygiene need to be established in a variety of city properties. These spaces/camp parks should be organized and regulated to replace the current abominable random living circumstances in our city for those who have fallen to merely “exist” on our streets, boulevards, riverbanks and parkways.

This alternative may be a new start and to help build a pathway to more appropriate housing options for the most vulnerable. I look forward to the city making progress and taking positive strides in to cure this urgent social and civil affliction.

Roland Stankevicius

Winnipeg

There is a lot of media on homeless encampments in Winnipeg. A lot of talk about banning encampments, particularly in some areas but not in others. It is as if everyone would be OK with homeless people as long as they are not so visible and certainly as long as they are “not in my neighbourhood.”

Homelessness is a symptom of many other problems, from mental illness, to drug and alcohol abuse, to criminal activity driven by such substance abuse. All of these are problems that require treatment, not simple banning. Why are politicians not concentrating on treatment and especially residential treatment sites to tackle homelessness and related problems? According to the Free Press, “the mayor said the city could explore time limits on when tents are allowed, such as banning the practice during daytime hours.” Out of sight, out of mind, problem solved. Really!

How about exploring and acting on real solutions, such as treatment the causes leading to homelessness in the first place? How about creating residential treatment centres for people that tend to set up and live in encampments? There are reportedly about 1,500 to 2,000 homeless people currently in Winnipeg. Creating one or more residential treatment centre would not only provide a place for them to live in, it would provide people affected with an opportunity to overcome their other issues that led them to be homeless in the first place.

Would this cost money? Certainly. But think of what it is currently costing in policing, emergency ambulance and paramedic costs, health-care costs at hospitals, and finally in firefighting efforts. I would bet these costs put together would rival the cost of setting up and maintain a residential treatment program.

How about it, Mayor Scott Gillingham and Premier Wab Kinew? Don’t you think it is about time to stop just talking about homelessness, and start actually doing something productive about our homeless people?

Giovanni Versace

Winnipeg

Respecting the process

Following the tragic death of Rob Jenner, some cycling advocates are demanding the immediate installation of a bike lane on Wellington Crescent and insisting that any fatal crash trigger automatic redesign, regardless of the cause.

That’s simply not realistic. Jenner was killed by a 19-year-old learner driver going 159 k/h in a 50 zone: a reckless criminal act, not necessarily a failure of road design.

Serious policy should be driven by facts. Consider the 2023 Carberry crash, where 17 seniors died. Despite engineers recommending an RCUT intersection redesign, the Manitoba government scrapped the plan two years later after local consultation, saying it wasn’t the right fit. Even the worst tragedies don’t automatically justify instant redesign without evidence and community input.

Tone also matters. The mayor recently criticized the hostility of some council delegations, noting that disrespect only sets back dialogue.

I think most people would agree that we need safer infrastructure. But not every tragedy is the result of bad design, and not every delay is negligence. We move forward by focusing on facts, respecting process, and working together — not by vilifying those who disagree.

Kenneth Ingram

Winnipeg