Letters, May 11

On the homelessness crisis

Re: City missing opportunity to help the homeless, save significant amount of money (May 6)

Dan Lett’s claim that sanctioned homeless encampments are a “proven model” is simply not supported by the evidence.

Throughout his column, he treats tent cities and tiny-home encampments as though they are established, successful solutions to homelessness. But proven by what standard? Permanent exits from homelessness? Reduced addiction? Lower crime? Improved public safety? He never says — because the evidence is, at best, mixed.

What many cities have actually seen are temporary encampments that become semi-permanent, accompanied by ongoing problems with overdoses, fires, crime, sanitation, and neighbourhood deterioration. These are not widely recognized success stories in public policy. Oddly, Lett never mentions where exactly Winnipeg should place one of these “proven” encampments — or how enthusiastic residents might be if it were proposed in his own neighbourhood.

Lett accuses city administration of “bias” against sanctioned encampments. But perhaps the real bias lies with those so ideologically committed to the concept that any skepticism is dismissed as heartless bureaucracy. It is entirely possible city staff reviewed the evidence and concluded that institutionalizing encampments is not a responsible long-term solution.

Most importantly, encampments are not housing. A tent is not a home, and governments should not normalize outdoor living as an acceptable alternative to stable housing, treatment, and support services.

Ironically, the very program Lett criticizes — Your Way Home — is built around permanent housing and wraparound supports, which actually do have substantial evidence behind them.

Compassion requires action, but it should also require honesty. Calling sanctioned encampments a “proven model” does not make them one.

Kenneth Ingram

Winnipeg

Our disappointing government

In the spring of 1971, I believe, as a first-year teacher with Grade 6 students, I naively took my class to the Manitoba legislature.

We had regular circle discussions in our classroom which had an underlying goal of working to learn listening, speaking and thinking, respectfully and with sensitivity, learning the nuances of spoken dialogue and leadership.

The outrageous disrespectful language, primarily, but not exclusively, from one particular group of MLAs was so extreme that we left the legislature early, and spent considerable time in circle discussions in following days unpacking what we had experienced, including vulgar and name-calling language.

I am curious what long term learning was ultimately gained by the 11- and 12-year-old participants, both from their experience witnessing adult government in action and from our circle discussions before and after.

The field trip was intended to be a positive experience of leaders setting an example for us. It was quite the opposite and provided me with an unhappy but valuable learning experience. So much so that I requested a copy of Hansard.

That was about 55 years ago. I continue to be astounded and disgusted by the lack of decorum exhibited in both legislatures and Parliament. My few letters and emails sent to governments intermittently from then to some years ago have gone unanswered and clearly have had zero impact.

It is important to note, with regard to classroom discussions, that the intelligence, insight, intuition, respect and ability to remain on topic, while allowing for interjections that would often deepen or expand the discussion, were outstanding. The overall powers of learning, higher-level thinking and speaking blew my mind.

Kids can do that to anyone caring to observe and listen. Of course there was a wide diversity of engagement, but all in all the circle discussions were fascinating and without major issues.

I suppose I’ll eventually write another email to the premier as not only do he and his MLAs engage as described, their insensitivity and pompous self-righteousness is wearing thin and has begun to mimic the behaviour of the official opposition.

Just a vignette and opinion from an aging member of the voting public.

Garrett Loeppky

Winnipeg

Northern access

North-south connections – and dirigibles (May 6)

The editorial by Dr. Barry Prentice had a very significant item at the end of his article: two non-profit organizations are organizing support for a drone cargo airship from Thompson to a remote First Nation reserve. The proposal should for many reasons be headline news and an initiative espoused by both the provincial and federal governments with motivation equal to the Churchill port initiatives.

The article points out the cargo capacity long ago demonstrated by airships, but does not mention the northern communities’ dependence on supply via winter ice roads and their peril from global warming. There has been talk of establishing permanent all-weather roads to those communities (at enormous construction and maintenance costs). The cost of truck traffic to the communities, should such roads be built, would be equally large with the relatively smaller freight volume, speed per truck and cost of fuel, compared to the airship capacity and speed.

Dr. Prentice has been promoting this initiative for decades. With the current political and environmental climate, the proposed demonstration should at least be awarded the serious backing it deserves from governments.

Len Lewkowich

Winnipeg

Don’t forget the sunscreen

Summer is supposed to arrive at some point (we’re all still negotiating with the weather), and one of life’s great seasonal pleasures is simply getting outside. We’re well aware that too much sun exposure increases the risk of skin cancer — but we also have to live a little. That’s where sunscreen comes in.

This is the time of year we all buy a fresh bottle and promise ourselves we’ll actually use it — especially on our children. After all, they’ll accumulate sun exposure over a lifetime, and early protection matters. So on it goes: a generous layer of cream, transforming your child into a small, slightly sticky ghost. Mission accomplished. Or maybe not.

Spray sunscreens have become especially popular — quick, easy, and seemingly foolproof. A few seconds of spraying and every inch is covered … along with, perhaps, a bit of the surrounding air. Convenient? Yes. Completely reassuring? Not quite.

Many people assume that “kids sunscreen” must be safer. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Some children’s sunscreens contain ingredients that raise concerns.

One example is octocrylene, a common UV filter. Research suggests it may have effects on hormone systems and organ development, and it can degrade over time into benzophenone, a substance classified as carcinogenic. While studies are ongoing, that’s enough to give pause.

It’s not alone. Ingredients like homosalate, ethylhexyl salicylate, and phenoxyethanol — also found in some sprays — have been flagged for potential endocrine disruption, skin irritation, or environmental harm. In fact, some of these are restricted or more tightly regulated in Europe.

There’s also the issue of inhalation. With sprays, what lands on the skin doesn’t tell the whole story — fine particles can be inhaled, especially by children who are standing right in the mist.

Then there’s the environmental angle. After we lather up and head to the lake, some of these chemicals wash into the water, where they can be toxic to aquatic life.

So, should we stop using sunscreen altogether? No — sun protection remains important. The key is choosing products more carefully.

The good news? Being informed gives you power. By choosing safer products, you’re not only protecting yourself and your family—you’re also nudging manufacturers in a better direction.

So yes, enjoy the sun. Go outside. Take the kids. Head to the lake. Just don’t forget the sunscreen — and maybe take a second look at what’s actually in it.

Philippe Erhard

Winnipeg