I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.
I write today as the director of a non-profit that has worked for many years to support persons with disabilities in Winnipeg. We have sat at countless policy tables, working groups, focus groups, and public consultations on accessible transit and equitable paratransit systems. Time and again, the message has been clear: transit is not a luxury; it is a backbone of opportunity and growth for our citizens and the City of Winnipeg. It must work -- for everyone.
The rollout of the Transit Master Plan has failed this test. Removing bus stops and routes from the very demographics most likely to rely on transit -- seniors, low-income families, persons with disabilities -- is not only short-sighted, it is harmful. These are the riders with the fewest alternatives. To cut them off from mobility is to cut them off from employment, healthcare, and community itself.
This was not an overnight change. The master plan has been in the works for years. There was ample time to do it right, to ensure service equity and accessibility were protected. Instead, what we see today is the outcome of a "do nothing" council and a "do nothing" mayor -- leaders who had the chance to launch a system that worked, but chose not to act boldly or inclusively.
We had the opportunity to get this right. Winnipeg could have set an example in building a modern, accessible, and equitable transit system. Instead, we squandered it. For the sake of those who depend on transit most, this failure cannot be ignored or excused.
The article states that "two Winnipeg police officers will be posted around the clock in the emergency department at Health Sciences Centre to respond to rising levels of violence at the city's largest hospital" and then notes that "the new police presence in the ER will also provide a huge boost to street-level policing in the downtown."
So, it seems, a very good move but so simple, straightforward, and common-sense that it makes you wonder why it wasn't done earlier. It also makes you wonder what other relatively easy and common-sense things could and should be done to increase safety in our city.
For example, as was suggested in an article on June 26 -- installing better lighting and surveillance, more police foot patrols later into the night (if not all night), more funding for organizations that run community safety teams such as Osborne Village BIZ, etc.
As it would seem like more can be done relatively quickly, I would respectfully urge decision-makers to get on with it.
It is encouraging to learn that doctors are calling for restrictions on sports betting ads in light of gambling's impact on the health of young people.
The equation of fun with sports betting has its way of normalizing a known harmful behaviour. There is a critical cost to the health of our young people. There is also, however, a cost to the health of sport itself. As Dr. Daniela Lobo pointed out, young people are watching the game through the lens of bets placed on their phones.
They are preoccupied with how the game affects their betting, not with how the game impacts the team's standing. In the words of the Canadian Olympian, Bruce Kidd, gambling has "poisoned the meaning of the sport." There is a cost to the young person gambling; there is also a huge cost to the integrity of the sport itself.
As I watch my grandson move through different levels of hockey, I wonder just what kind of sport he is committing himself to play.
I agree with Erna Buffie. Its oxymoronic to have all of these abandoned homes vacant for years, no one living in them and building these multi-unit HAF houses.
Many of which, I might add, sitting for lengthy periods of time with for sale signs on the property. They are very pricey, as Erna mentioned, so who can afford to buy them?
These abandoned homes should be utilized before building all of these multi-unit HAF houses.
Re: City could fine builders whose projects branch out without trees (Sept. 9)
I knew it was expensive to plant new trees on public boulevardes, but the $1,000 cost quoted in the article surprised me. It made me think that every planting needs some support from citizens.
This past summer, a number of young trees were planted on my street. They were under a great deal of stress due to the drought conditions of the earlier summer. I didn't see the city watering any of them after they were planted. I decided to adopt a few near my residence, and gave them a few pails of water during this dry spell, which pulled them through admirably. Sadly, some farther away that were not given support succumbed to the drought and died.
Hopefully, the city could include better follow up to watering to ensure the investment pays off. I also urge citizens to spend a few cents on a bucket of water given in a timely period to help the saplings pull through. Adopt one.
Now that the city has broken ground for the new transit garage, I'm wondering how long it will be before the city announces it needs another $50 million to complete the project.
I want to commend West Winnipeg Member of Parliament, Dr. Doug Eyolfson, for his August 2025 constituent newsletter. It models the respectful language and content that I have been craving from Canadian members of Parliament for far too long.
Words are mighty and leaders must be called to account for their choices.
Increasingly, Canadians have been exposed to the vitriolic, aggressive language and outraged posturing of too many Canadian politicians attempting to curry favour with the public, chase their next sound byte and tear down the "opposition" (who decided that was what political parties who need to work together should be called, anyway?) so they can be seen as "the winner."
I contend that this unacceptable behaviour by our elected leaders is so frequent that it has become normalized. I would also suggest that it is divisive -- one must "choose sides" after all -- and fans the flames of negativity, distrust and cynicism among Canadian voters.
As elected leaders, politicians of all levels and stripes must step back and honestly assess their own actions to see whether they consistently demonstrate dignified collegial behaviour. Do they promote the best interest of Canadians over their own, model professional respect and measured words for other politicians both in and out of the House -- and do they demand this in return?
Leaders can lead for the better or the worse. Canadians deserve the former and I, for one, am woefully exhausted by the latter.