I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.
As the City of Winnipeg appears poised to implement new rules that target people who live in encampments, questions should be raised about who -- if anyone -- will be safer as a result.
Winnipeg city council's community services committee recently unanimously approved a motion, introduced and amended by Coun. Cindy Gilroy and seconded by Coun. Sherri Rollins, to prohibit encampments in and around a wide range of spaces, including playgrounds, pools, schools, daycares, transit stops, bridges and rail lines. It also directs the city to expand enforcement across all other city spaces during daylight hours, which could mean issuing bylaw tickets. The motion will go to council's executive policy committee before a final vote by council.
While some, including Mayor Scott Gillingham, have described these new rules as a "balanced approach" to deal with encampments, we have seen this type of approach before and it does not work.
The motion is framed around safety, especially for children and families. That concern should not be dismissed -- no one disputes that unsafe materials have been found in public spaces, but tying those concerns directly to encampments offers a misleading choice. It suggests that the safety of families must come at the expense of people experiencing homelessness. And with Winnipeg's child poverty rate the highest in the nation, many of the children and families this ban claims to protect are also among those it targets.
And it inflates the problem. We should ask: are isolated incidents that make sensational headlines enough to justify sweeping prohibitions across the city? By basing encampment policy on a handful of visible cases, council risks distorting public understanding. It directs attention away from the scale of homelessness itself, offering the appearance of decisiveness while avoiding the harder question: what will we do to ensure everyone has a place to live?
In recent years, Winnipeggers have tragically lost their lives in tents, parks, behind buildings and along riverbanks. These deaths cannot be separated from the lack of housing, shelter, and harm reduction supports. The motion implies that homeless people themselves are the danger -- a threat to our children and families -- rather than members of our community who are human beings living outside. It reinforces an "us and them" narrative -- a shallow and false dichotomy for a complex crisis. Homelessness in Winnipeg has been increasing drastically, with conservative estimates suggesting it has doubled in the last two years. End Homelessness Winnipeg's most recent point-in-time count conducted in 2024 identified nearly 2,500 people experiencing homelessness. The actual numbers are certainly higher, and governments cannot meet the housing required, and certainly cannot develop at the rate needed to keep up.
But this is not just a housing issue -- it is also a matter of human rights. Section 7 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees life, liberty and security of the person. Courts across Canada have repeatedly affirmed that penalizing people for sleeping outside when no adequate alternative exists violates that protection. From Victoria (City) v Adams (2008) in British Columbia to more recent Ontario cases, judges have been clear: municipalities cannot criminalize survival.
By advancing this motion, Winnipeg risks ignoring this legal reality. Prohibitions and ticketing do not just trample evidence-based policy -- they invite constitutional challenge. Cities across the country have been forced to walk back similar bylaws, wasting time and resources while people on the ground continue to suffer.
This is a systemic issue, far beyond the control of someone forced to sleep in a tent because they have nowhere else to go. Yet this motion leans on problematic systems of policing and enforcement -- old practices that have consistently failed to provide needed solutions. Moving people a little further from public view, or issuing tickets to those with no income, is not a pathway out of homelessness. It only compounds instability, creating cycles of debt, mistrust and deeper marginalization. If passed by the whole of council, this motion will not solve this crisis. It will only make it worse.
The timing makes this motion even more troubling. The province's Your Way Home strategy has only just begun and has not had a chance to take hold. At the same time, the city has cut funding for outreach -- the very programs that help people move into housing and care. Instead of strengthening supports, council is doubling down on measures we already know will fail.
Real safety cannot be defined narrowly, for some but not for others. Families and children are safe when communities are stable, when housing is available and when care systems are strong. This motion offers only the appearance of safety: visible encampments may vanish for a time, but the people -- and the crisis -- remain.
If Winnipeg is serious about safety, it must recognize that bans and tickets do not create it. Housing, care and meaningful community building do.
Meredith Done is a second-year law student at the University of Manitoba who has worked in the homelessness sector, most recently as manager of the outreach team at Main Street Project.