Search Results

We are heading into the weekend, where the Manitoba PC Party delegates will consider changes to the leadership rules; these rule changes are, in my opinion, rushed, unnecessary, and underlining the impression that PC members had from the last leadership race that the playing field is tilted to benefit certain candidates and not others. More importantly, we have other priorities that we need to be addressing as a party. The election campaign we ran in 2023 was poorly managed and without a clear strategy. We know we can do better than this as a party. The campaigns we ran in 2016 and 2019 under Brian Pallister were some of the most professional we have ever seen in this province. There are insiders in this party who want us to move on from this without studying what happened, but there are important lessons to learn from every failure, and in this case, we have a surplus of failures to learn from in many aspects of the campaign and leadership race. We need to study the decision-making process in terms of both communications decisions (for example, was there research that supported any of what we were doing?) as well as organizational, human resources, and spending decisions. More than just the failures of the last election, we need to review party operations and finances. The Party was also incapable of managing the 2021 leadership race in a satisfactory manner, leading to thousands of PC members and others losing confidence in the Party, and even a lawsuit. Financially, the party is in a tough position due to the debt left from the 2023 campaign but continues to spend money maintaining an aging building as well as significant staff overhead. Our party is not in a position to continue spending money like this, and frankly, given the performance of our party over the past 2.5 years, we are not receiving good value for our money. I recall a story from Brian Pallister, one of the first things he was asked to do as the new PC leader in 2012 was to sign a document approving a third mortgage for 23 Kennedy, but through hard work, a team approach, and leadership, he brought the party back from the brink of financial ruin. So we know this is a solvable problem, we just have to work to solve it. I support a full and transparent review of both the 2023 election campaign and PC Party operations, as well as a new interim management team to oversee the upcoming Leadership Race as well as changes at PC Headquarters to ensure competence and financial stability. If you would like your voice heard or would like to express your thoughts and opinions about the PC Party or the upcoming leadership contest, please feel free to respond to this email or message me on Facebook, Instagram or X. You can also renew your PC Membership here (every PC Membership has expired as of January 1st) https://pcmanitoba.com/become-a-member/ and call the PC Party to express your opinion at (204) 594-4080.

We hear it every day now - how unaffordable life is. Small businesses and farmers feel the pain of inflation and how impossible it is for families to put food on the table. Brace yourself; more taxes are coming at the worst possible time. On April 1, the Liberal-NDP tax on carbon goes up from $65 a tonne to $80 a tonne; that’s a 23% increase! This hike can be the difference between putting food on the table and having to go to the bank to get a loan to stay afloat. What was the point of the provincial NDP gas tax holiday if it's only to be nullified or exceeded by the carbon tax hike? This is no time to put more pressure on struggling Manitobans; we must axe the carbon tax. The Liberal-NDP government really only cares about their progressive ideology; they’ve lost touch with regular people. They don’t understand the impact this has on farmers and the families struggling to make ends meet. Simply put, this is a tax on food, and it’s a significant reason that food costs have increased and stayed high. It taxes the equipment that picks up the food, transportation of the food, and everything else in between. The obscenity of it all culminates with a sales tax charged on the goods that have already paid the carbon tax. A tax on a tax on a tax…what is this madness? We have all experienced the outrageous price of vegetables and meat at the grocery store. This carbon tax forces farmers to pass the tax on to end consumers, that’s you and I, so now food becomes even more expensive in Canada. Although the last Manitoba PC government accomplished a lot, trying to work with the Trudeau government on the Carbon Tax was a mistake. Trudeau and his quasi-coalition government can’t be trusted to stand up for the best interests of Manitobans. We need to fight back like premiers Scott Moe and Danielle Smith and stand up to the carbon tax and a hostile federal government in any way we can. Luckily for us, if the polls can be believed, Trudeau is on the way out and will be replaced by Pierre Poilievre, a common sense conservative who has committed to axing the carbon tax, at the next election. Unfortunately, Manitobans can’t afford to wait that long. When I was the Manitoba Minister of Environment and Climate, I made the argument Manitoba produces almost 100% clean power. We have done our part to protect the environment. Why are we not exempt from the punishing carbon tax that handicaps farms, small businesses, and families? The Liberal-NDP federal government gives tax breaks to large urban centres financed on the backs of rural Manitoba communities and has provided a carbon tax exemption for home heating in Atlantic Canada and only Atlantic Canada for purely political reasons. How can burdening one region of Canada with incremental taxation be justified just to alleviate another? The carbon tax threatens the security of Manitoba’s economy. That is why, when I was the Minister, I put forward a plan to develop a made-in-Manitoba regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage. This will give businesses and industries access to “Carbon Capture” and savings on the federal carbon tax. The solution lies in new technology and outrightly rejecting the crippling taxes on Manitoba farmers and families. This province's new NDP government isn’t standing up to the federal Liberal-NDP government coalition. What is our government’s solution? A one-time 3.3% rebate for an electric vehicle that costs over $120,000. A vehicle that probably couldn’t make a run across the Prairies without discharging or breaking down and that obviously the majority of us couldn’t afford. And the rebate is a drop in the bucket for people who are struggling to provide for their families and crippling taxes. We need bold action. Common sense is going to protect the environment far better than hair-brained tax schemes. Let’s invest in technology not in inequitable taxation and penalizing our business, agricultural and industrial sectors for productivity and innovation. It is time to axe the punitive Carbon Tax and instead reward the sectors of our economy that choose to innovate.

Dear Fellow Manitoba PC Supporters, We all have an important interest in ensuring our political processes are fair, equitable and absolutely democratic. If you felt that was not the case during the 2021 PC party leadership race you are not alone. It has become painfully obvious that the process and the PC Party itself need to make transparency and accountability a top priority if it wishes to restore faith and trust. Let’s face it, the voting system was badly mismanaged and vulnerable to outside manipulation - we simply cannot afford to repeat this fiasco. Like me, I’m sure you are wondering if the party has learned from both its mistakes in managing the rushed process and the perception that the party favoured one candidate over another. It seems like they have not. It seems like instead of focusing on improving processes, party insiders are more focused on changing the rules of the game at the last minute in a way that might benefit some candidates and disadvantage others. A number of rule changes were recently proposed and approved by the party executive, and they are asking for approval from delegates on Jan. 13, 2024, at a special meeting in Winnipeg. These rules are confusing and complicated, allocating ridings to a different number of points based on a variety of arbitrary thresholds. They seem poorly thought out and confusing, but more importantly than that, they seem like a transparent attempt to tilt the playing field at the last minute. If the leadership rules need to be reviewed, they should be reviewed by a transparent and competent group of people outside of the context of an impending leadership race and presented to the membership with reasonable time to review. Instead, we get a rushed process over Christmas, when all PC Memberships have expired, managed by some of the same insiders who did such a poor job managing the last leadership race and the recent disastrous election campaign. These rules do nothing to restore members' lost trust in the party, ensure that ballots will be accurately issued and collected with adequate time to count them, and ensure that memberships are legitimate and that third-party oversight is in place. Those are the issues the Party should be focused on at this time. Rather than tilting the playing field, we should focus on ensuring every vote counts. That’s why I oppose these rule changes and encourage you to do the same. If you would like your voice heard or would like to express your thoughts and opinions about the PC Party or the upcoming leadership contest, please feel free to respond to this email or message me on Facebook, Instagram or X. You can also renew your PC Membership here (every PC Membership has expired as of January 1st) https://pcmanitoba.com/become-a-member/ and call the PC Party to express your opinion at (204) 594-4080. Would you please answer two quick questions about the PC Party of Manitoba. Just click the button below;

While I was a Winnipeg City Council member and the former Chair of the Winnipeg Police Board, I advocated for body cameras for Winnipeg police officers. I don’t want to relitigate past issues, but unfortunately this proposal got sidetracked by excessive cost estimates, basically people wanting to spend more money than necessary to deliver something relatively basic. Some on the left advocate against body cameras because they claim that they don’t reduce the use of force by police, but I think this is missing the point entirely. Policing is a dangerous job, often dealing with dangerous people. The hard truth is that when there is the use of force by police, it’s most often necessary and justified, and in fact, the use of body cameras serves to confirm that police typically act with good judgment. Body cameras are not a mechanism to limit police; they are a mechanism to preserve what happened accurately. This is actually most important from the perspective of preserving evidence for a trial, an objective accounting of what happened that can be shown to a judge or a jury. We’ve all seen videos and news reports, particularly from the US, of police using force when they didn’t need to or using more force than was needed, to tragic effect. It’s important to note that this doesn’t represent the majority of our police officers, it doesn’t even represent a significant proportion. Obviously, like any other profession, it’s vital to maintain high standards in policing. Body camera footage can be used to give police officers the guidance they need to improve their performance or, more rarely, to discipline or remove officers who operate outside of professional standards, particularly those who use force when it is unnecessary or use more force than is necessary. But in most cases, body camera footage will be used to show that an officer was justified in their use of force and also to provide evidence that a crime was committed. This is important for our justice system as well as to allow the public to have confidence in our police. Moreover, body cameras have been proven to enhance the efficiency of police work. Officers can record statements, gather evidence, and document crime scenes more effectively, which ultimately leads to more streamlined investigations and quicker resolution of cases. This efficiency is not only beneficial for the police force but also for the victims of crimes and the community at large, as it helps restore trust in the criminal justice system. That’s why, for reasons of both digital recordkeeping in our justice system and to ensure that the public has confidence in the professional standards of our police force, Winnipeg and other cities in Manitoba should move forward with body cameras for police officers. Obviously, we need to do this in a fiscally responsible way, and I hope that my previous interventions on council show the way on this, but let’s move forward and get this done. Our justice system, victims of crime, and our police officers deserve the clarity that comes from body cameras for police officers.

Some things take on a life of their own and before you know it those with an agenda seize the opportunity and run with it. At that point truth is no longer the issue, it’s all about the agenda and a singular focus on tearing someone down. Such is the case with the matter about my mother’s family heritage. So much has been construed by others about my personal investigation into the possibility of having Metis ancestry that I’ve started to question whether truth is even attainable now. The fallout from my journey into my heritage devolved so quickly into a mission by the CBC to target me and dismiss my discovery as brazen political opportunism. But if truth is indeed the yardstick then the CBC’s characterization of me is completely offside. I have stated previously that my journey to connect with my mother and her family history was a personal one. At no point did I ever intend to leverage any aspect about our family heritage for political gain. Ever since our mother was lost to us tragically, I wanted to learn more about her in part because it helped me honour her. My late uncle (my mother’s brother) was happy to assist me with my quest and informed me that my mother may have some Indigenous ancestry. Intrigued, I pursued the possibility which led me to information indicating she had mixed Indigenous ancestry out of Ontario. Not fully understanding what that meant I was further directed to an Ontario-based Metis organization to help me refine the finding. Their analysis concluded that my mother, Joanne Winacott, had Indigenous ancestry and by definition was Metis. They issued Metis status cards as a result. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the Manitoba Metis Federation maintains its own definition and criteria that is the final word on Red River Metis status. That's fine, the situation of my family, with mixed ancestry originating from another province, falls outside of how they define their community. As I’m sure anyone can appreciate the discovery of the ancestry of a lost loved one is invigorating if nothing else because it provides a sense of identity and brings you closer to them. It’s like finding something that was lost – something my mother may never have known but that I can share with her now and always. I had no reason to disbelieve the information. It did not matter what heritage was discovered – it was a way to honour my mother and I was proud. It was about her, not me. And why wouldn’t I want to tell the world who she was? She was amazing and I got my chance in life because of her. If she was Metis then so was I – it was a wonderful discovery and I wanted to share it. But how wrong I was to want that. When I finally disclosed this information, I was not in any position to leverage it for personal or political gain. It was only later when I ran for election provincially that the information was questioned by the CBC. I am not naïve to the blood sport that is provincial politics but I clearly did not expect to be the target of relentless CBC attacks that would maliciously construct a narrative that I was deviously deceiving the public for political gain. In the end, I cannot say with absolute certainty whether the conclusions of my research into my mother’s ancestry are accurate or if the source was credible. All I know is that I did not, or could not, have known otherwise. And that’s essentially the point – no one can know otherwise. Even my attackers have fallen well short on their evidence and they certainly don’t hold any high ground on motive. The debate about what is true is not one to be had publicly – I see that now. Looking back, it would have been best if I had kept my journey about my mother’s heritage personal and private. I understand other perspectives now and commit to removing the matter from public discussion. And finally, I regret the upheaval that this matter has caused. I was mistaken to declare what I did without more certainty. That error in judgment is my own, and I acknowledge it. I am sorry, if in the process anyone was offended. My intent was never to insult – only to connect.

Recently, I wrote about the planned Polo Park protest by pro-Palestinian activists. Many of these protesters disrupt the lives of ordinary people, families, and Canadian Businesses. It seems like we already have many people in Canada inclined to justify terrorism and take the side of Hamas. I can’t imagine why we would want to import more people who might be inclined to make lives miserable for normal families. That’s why I was surprised to see that last week, NDP Premier Wab Kinew wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister to offer up Manitoba as a place for Palestinians fleeing the conflict in Gaza to seek refuge. The Premier also thanked the Canadian government for voting for a ceasefire at the United Nations (oblivious to the fact that, aside from Hamas missile barrages, there was a ceasefire before Hamas massacred Israeli civilians on October 7th). He wrote, “Canada should bring refugees in from the region. Manitoba is willing to take in those seeking refuge from the ongoing conflict in Gaza and provide them with the sanctuary and support they require.” Manitoba has always been a beacon for those in need of humanitarian aid and refuge. Our hearts and homes were recently opened to Ukrainians fleeing their war-torn homeland. Crucially, though, we don’t see Ukrainians or their supporters disrupting the lives of regular families to raise awareness of their (very legitimate) grievances. However, the current conflict in Gaza complicates our ability to provide assistance. Demonstrating our compassion and assistance is not as simple as extending an unqualified invitation for Gazan refugees to come to Manitoba. There are very real security concerns and processes that our government has a responsibility to uphold on behalf of Manitobans. Recently, the well-respected former speaker of the Manitoba Legislature took to Twitter to ask a reasonable question: “Manitoba’s NDP Premier announced that he would welcome Palestinians from Gaza with open arms to Manitoba. How does he plan to vet them so that we aren’t bringing terrorists into our province?” Her concern is well-founded. based on a recent poll of people within Gaza, almost 3 in 4 Palestinians support the October 7th attack on Israel. The poll also reveals that the Palestinian people’s support for Hamas has grown since the attack. These findings come from a Palestinian polling institute reported on by Reuters. “Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was ‘correct’ given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was ‘incorrect’. The remainder were undecided or gave no answer. The PCPSR found that, compared to pre-war polling, support for Hamas had risen in Gaza and more than tripled in the West Bank, which has seen the highest levels in violence in years, with repeated deadly clashes between Israeli troops and settlers and Palestinians.” So, how did the NDP government respond to this reasonable and well-founded criticism? Did they seek to reassure people by talking about proposed vetting measures? Of course they didn’t. It’s the NDP, driven by pure ideology and grievance. Deputy Premier Uzoma Asagwara took to Twitter to respond, calling the former Speaker “deeply racist, without compassion and completely disgraceful.”. A childish and divisive response like this does nothing to assure us that they have even thought about this issue. Manitoba must always take a pragmatic approach to security – not a political one. The fact that 72% of respondents believe that Hamas’ decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" must give us reason to pause and consider the risk that we are taking. Those who come to this country must fully understand we are a society of social, religious and ethnic tolerance and that hate speech and inciting violence are absolutely not acceptable in our communities. Additionally, it's important to acknowledge that many Arab nations do not admit Gazan refugees into their territories. There have been extensive reports regarding the presence of individuals with known ties to terrorism in Canada, which has raised concerns among other nations. I'm not opposing the idea of welcoming refugees to Manitoba; rather, I emphasize the necessity of conducting comprehensive and diligent background checks and assessments. The Manitoba government would do well to consider the consequences of its actions before declaring that our province is “unconditionally” open to Gazan refugees. It’s past time that Canadian politicians used their common sense when evaluating our policies, from the immigration system to the education system to the justice system.

Premier Wab Kinew's recent directive to establish a supervised consumption site in downtown Winnipeg has sparked a crucial debate about the most effective way to address addiction in our city. While some argue that these sites are a compassionate response to addiction, we must take a closer look at the evidence from other cities before proceeding. Over the past five years, the track record of supervised consumption sites in saving lives has been questionable at best. Advocates of these policies often tout them as a compassionate approach to addiction, but the reality, as seen in Vancouver, is far from that ideal. Vancouver, a pioneer in North America in establishing such sites, has witnessed a devastating increase in drug deaths over the years. In 2003, when the first site opened, the drug death rate stood at 4.6 per 100,000 people. In 2022, this rate had skyrocketed to an alarming 42.7 per 100,000. Vancouver's experience is not an isolated one; other cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle have also tried and failed with similar policies. In contrast, the Government of Alberta took a different approach in 2019 by freezing funding for new supervised consumption sites while reviewing the impact of existing ones on their host communities. The results were damning. These sites have shown an abysmal record in moving drug users toward treatment and recovery programs, leaving areas like Vancouver's east side overrun with homeless individuals struggling with addiction and mental health issues. This, in turn, creates dangerous environments for neighbors, communities, and small businesses. Proponents of these sites often argue that crime rates in their vicinity remain unaffected. However, Alberta's report contradicts this claim, showing that overdose deaths, opioid-related emergency calls, and crime rates increased alongside these sites, along with the proliferation of needle hazards and disorder in surrounding communities. Funding sites where fellow Canadians continue to struggle with addiction may not be the compassionate way forward. The result has been the emergence of tent cities as a consequence of this failed experiment. Instead, we should adopt a humane approach by allocating resources to fund rehabilitation centers. Alberta has heeded the advice of health officials and communities and has taken a more compassionate path. The government has invested in six residential treatment facilities across the province. While BC pursues drug decriminalization, Alberta prioritizes treating and supporting the recovery of our loved ones. One such facility, the Red Deer Recovery Community, serves as an exemplar. With separate wings for women and men, it provides a safe and supportive environment for addiction recovery. At a cost of $4 million annually, this investment pales in comparison to the thousands of dollars per day spent on addicts in emergency rooms ill-equipped to aid long-term recovery. The Red Deer facility embraces a long-term approach to treatment, allowing residents to remain for up to a year, with the ultimate goal of drug-free reintegration into society. This approach contrasts with "harm reduction" policies that facilitate drug use, only offering minimal referrals to rehabilitation. At the Red Deer Centre, residents are supported through withdrawal symptoms while actively working toward a life free from drugs. Our duty as a society is to provide our most vulnerable citizens with the resources they need to heal and return to their communities and loved ones. Drugs are not the solution. The failed experiment in Vancouver should serve as a stark warning for Manitoba. Let's choose compassion and prioritize the recovery of our fellow citizens over offering them drugs and leaving them to perish on our streets.

The escalating rate of violent crime in Winnipeg speaks volumes, needing no further emphasis. A glance at recent weeks alone underscores the severity of the situation: from a distressing mass shooting to numerous stabbing incidents and a shooting involving law enforcement. The surge in violent and organized crime within our city is evident, yet our capacity to combat these issues remains stagnant. It’s one of the major reasons that people in Winnipeg feel, and have felt for years, that things in the city are not on the right track. Winnipeg, a city of resilience and promise, has seen its population burgeon over the years, evolving into a vibrant hub of cultural diversity and economic opportunity. Yet, while we have had economic success, this growth has outpaced the expansion of critical public services, particularly law enforcement. The need to feel safe in your community is one of the most basic human needs, and governments must work together to ensure people in Winnipeg feel safe in their communities. In 1999, Winnipeg had 27 patrol units to maintain order and protect its citizens. Fast forward to 2023, with an incremental increase to only 28 patrol units, the disparity between population growth and available policing resources is stark, concerning, and warrants immediate attention. The numbers may seem subtle at first glance—an increase of one patrol unit over nearly two and a half decades. However, juxtaposed against Winnipeg’s population surge, it unveils a disconcerting truth: we are paying more but getting less in terms of policing services. The city’s population has been on an upward trajectory, marked by a steady influx of residents seeking opportunities and a better quality of life. This growth isn’t just about numbers on paper; it signifies the expansion of our neighbourhoods, businesses, and the very fabric of our community. But with growth comes the responsibility to ensure the safety and security of every individual within our city limits. Law enforcement agencies tasked with the critical role of protecting and serving the populace are confronted with mounting challenges. They are expected to navigate a city that has evolved in size and complexity, yet the resources at their disposal remain stagnant. The demand for police services has escalated, with increased calls for emergency assistance, crime prevention, and community engagement. However, the capacity of our law enforcement to address these needs hasn’t kept in stride with the rising demands. The consequences of this imbalance are felt in our neighbourhoods. Response times to emergencies might stretch longer, the visibility of law enforcement on our streets might dwindle, and community-oriented policing initiatives could suffer. The gap between what our growing city needs and what our law enforcement can provide is widening, creating a concerning disparity that undermines public safety and community well-being. Allow me to emphasize a crucial point: addressing violent crimes and organized crime cannot rely solely on the efforts of social workers or other non-traditional police members as they cannot ensure public safety. We must adopt a pragmatic stance. The surge in violent crimes is exerting immense pressure on our existing services. It is imperative to augment our police force to address these escalating concerns effectively. It’s not just about raw numbers; it’s about the quality and effectiveness of the service rendered. Each additional member of the police force contributes not just to a headcount but to the potential to deter crime, engage with communities proactively, and create an environment where residents feel safe and secure. More than just increasing numbers, we need to focus any additional resources on the specific issue making people feel unsafe, the violent repeat offenders. This isn’t a call for mindless expenditure or bloating bureaucracy. It’s a call for proportional allocation—a recognition that as our city expands, so must our investment in the guardians of our safety. It’s an acknowledgment that a growing population necessitates a more robust and responsive law enforcement presence. Residents, in paying their dues and taxes, rightly expect a commensurate level of service and protection. It’s a matter of fairness, efficiency, and safeguarding the very essence of the community that we cherish. In calling for an increase in police units, we advocate not just for a number change but for a transformation in the city’s approach to security. It’s about fostering trust, enhancing community relations, and ensuring that every corner of Winnipeg feels the reassuring presence of law enforcement. Winnipeg's growth is a testament to its resilience and potential, but it’s crucial that this growth is met with a corresponding commitment to public safety. I believe it’s time to bridge the gap between our city’s expanding needs and the resources allocated to meet them.

A University of Manitoba student, Arij Al Khafagi, was suspended for the remainder of the 2023-24 school year after she made a series of posts on social media. One of the posts depicts an Israeli soldier looking in a mirror wearing a swastika. That is antisemitism, plain and simple. Arij Al Khafagi was in the nursing program at the Rady Faculty of Health Sciences. The post was undeniably anti-Semitic, so I was very surprised that two Conservative MLAs wrote a letter to NDP Minister Cable, Minister of Advanced Education and Training, asking her to step in on behalf of the student. The letter penned by Conservative MLAs Richard Perchote and Obby Khan said, “it sends an unacceptable message to academically penalize a student for expressing herself.” The post was clearly anti-Semitic, and it's disappointing to see anyone, particularly a fellow conservative, lack clarity on this issue. Nobody wants a war, nor wants to see people die. The unnecessary deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians are heartbreaking, but many forget that Hamas entered Israel illegally, killing over 1,200 people and taking women and children as hostages. These are the facts, and they are irrefutable. Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, as all countries have. As a conservative, I believe it's essential to be clear about who we are and what we believe. We stand with the Canadian Jewish community and against antisemitism. We must be united in our support for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community, and we need to stand up for what we believe. One of the reasons we lost the last election provincial election in Manitoba was because we didn't know who we were or what we stood for as conservatives. We can't continue with that. We need to recognize clearly that radical ideologies like anti-semitism are spreading within our institutions, like our universities, and we need to fight back against that. Common sense conservatives are united in their support for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community, and we need to stand up for what we believe. The situation is growing out of control. There have been reports of damage to homes owned by members of the Jewish community. We have witnessed some angry protests, with people on both sides becoming enraged. Recently, a group of people blocked the CN Rail line in Winnipeg to stop the movement of goods by Jewish-owned businesses. CN Rail has filed a lawsuit, given the millions of dollars in damage that the protest caused. During a press conference regarding a mass shooting in Winnipeg that left four people dead, police chief Danny Smyth responded to a reporter's question, stating the service is stretched thin and alluded to the protest consuming a lot of the service's time. Individuals here in Winnipeg want to bring the issues to our community and streets through protests that negatively impact businesses and people. They are creating a greater divide in our community. Thousands of people immigrate to Canada to escape persecution. The very fabric of our nation is acceptance of all races, colours, and religious beliefs. We must stand up and oppose all racism, antisemitism, and discrimination. The increasing hatred toward Jewish Canadians is unacceptable. Some people choose to ignore that Hamas is a terrorist organization known for suicide bombings and using Palestinians as human shields. They impose their extremism on the people under their control in Gaza. This includes the persecution of women, Christians, and gay people. We would not allow this in Canada. So why bring these issues to our community where it is dividing our society and hurting people in our own community? The Jewish community in Winnipeg should not be subject to the hate of protesters. We are all Canadians; we choose to live here and honour the Canadian values that all people are equal. Canada was long a beacon of hope for millions of people around the globe because of our diversity. And we must keep it that way. Canada is the land of opportunity, a safe place to raise a family and a caring country. Not a land of hateful protests and discrimination based on race, colour, or religion. Let us see the world as it is and be clear about what we believe, Hamas is a terrorist organization that must be defeated, Israel is a fellow democracy that must be supported, and we must stand with the Canadian Jewish community against hate and anti-semitism.

Throughout my tenure in politics, I frequently grappled with the conspicuous absence of fiscal responsibility within governmental realms coupled with a lack of answerability. Conversely, my experience in the private sector starkly contrasted this scenario; there, we were meticulously held accountable for each expenditure. It was in this sphere that I gained profound insights into the myriad advantages of zero-based budget reviews—a practice that I firmly believe should be adopted across all tiers of government. A Zero-Based Budget (ZBB) review might sound like a bureaucratic mouthful, but its potential impact on government finances and public accountability is immense. In a world where fiscal responsibility is both a necessity and a challenge, implementing a ZBB approach could be a game-changer. At its core, ZBB flips the script on traditional budgeting methods. Rather than simply adjusting or incrementally changing previous budgets, it demands a ground-zero reassessment of every dollar spent. This process requires departments and agencies to justify each and every expense from the ground up, regardless of prior year allocations. It's a bit like cleaning out a cluttered closet—you examine every item, deciding whether it deserves to stay or should be discarded. The virtues of ZBB are manifold. First and foremost, it promotes fiscal discipline. By forcing a comprehensive review of expenses, it eliminates wasteful spending that often hides within conventional budgets. This scrutiny compels government entities to justify their expenses, focusing on needs rather than wants. As a result, taxpayers get a more efficient use of their hard-earned money. Additionally, ZBB encourages innovation and efficiency. When every line item is up for evaluation, it prompts departments to seek alternative and cost-effective solutions. It incentivizes creative thinking to accomplish tasks in more streamlined ways. The very act of questioning the status quo often leads to discoveries of redundancies, obsolete processes, or outdated technologies that can be replaced with more efficient alternatives. Moreover, ZBB enhances transparency and accountability. In a world where citizens demand more from their governments, this approach provides a clear and transparent view of where tax dollars are being allocated. It becomes easier for citizens to comprehend and evaluate how their money is being used, fostering trust between the government and the public. Critics might argue that ZBB is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Indeed, the initial implementation might pose challenges, requiring a significant investment of time and resources. However, the long-term benefits far outweigh these initial hurdles. Once established, ZBB can lead to long-lasting cost savings, making the government more agile and responsive to changing needs. Furthermore, ZBB is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It allows for flexibility, enabling different departments to tailor their budgeting processes to suit their unique requirements. It's about instilling a mindset of continuous improvement and fiscal responsibility rather than blindly slashing budgets. Take, for instance, a healthcare department utilizing ZBB. Instead of merely continuing funding for existing programs, they might re-evaluate services, ensuring that resources are allocated to areas with the greatest impact on public health. This can result in improved healthcare delivery without necessarily increasing the budget. In essence, a Zero-Based Budget review isn't just about trimming the fat—it's about redefining priorities, fostering innovation, and ensuring every taxpayer dollar is maximized for the greater good. It's a step toward a more efficient, accountable, and responsive government—one that respects the hard work of its citizens by spending their money wisely. The virtues of implementing a Zero-Based Budget review in government are undeniable. It's a proactive approach that promotes fiscal responsibility, encourages innovation, enhances transparency, and ultimately leads to more efficient and effective governance. As governments navigate complex financial landscapes, ZBB stands as a beacon of prudent financial management and public trust. Click here to learn about the City of Calgary's success with a zero based budget review.

Multiple people are dead and some injured in a Winnipeg shooting this morning, November 26, 2023. Read more, click this link. Incidents involving guns are becoming far too common in Winnipeg. We need to have elected officials who will deal with the growing issue of gangs and organized crime in our city. They cannot continue to ignore these events and hope they will go away. I spoke the issues with crime as a member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. I spoke about the concerns with crime as a city councillor.

Cancel culture, with its swift and often unforgiving judgments, has cultivated an environment of fear and apprehension, stifling the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Its pervasive influence has inadvertently nurtured the growth of misinformation by silencing voices that may offer diverse perspectives or challenge prevailing narratives. The fear of being ostracized or "cancelled" for expressing one's beliefs has coerced many into silence, creating a vacuum where misinformation festers unchallenged. In this climate, genuine discourse and critical thinking are sacrificed at the altar of conformity, hindering the robust exchange of ideas essential for societal progress and understanding. Which is negatively impacting our province that cherishes diversity as a symbol of progress and inclusivity. It is disheartening to witness its transformation into a catalyst for division within our society. Diversity, which should ideally be a unifying force, has regrettably become a tool to deepen rifts, fuel conflicts, and amplify societal discord. The bedrock of diversity lies in the celebration of differences—acknowledging unique perspectives, cultures, beliefs, and identities. Yet, instead of fostering understanding and empathy, we find ourselves weaponizing these distinctions. The lines of race, colour, gender identity, and religion, rather than serving as bridges for connection, have turned into trenches for confrontation. It is an undeniable truth that our differences, when exploited and pitted against each other, exacerbate existing divisions. We witness communities grappling with animosity and distrust fueled by narratives that highlight disparities rather than embracing the beauty of our varied backgrounds. In a world where the rhetoric of equality and acceptance is echoed from podiums to social media feeds, the stark reality remains—a disheartening surge in animosity and hostility pervades our interactions. Ironically, those who vehemently denounce hate seem to perpetuate it, contributing to a landscape marred by divisiveness. Social media, once envisioned as a platform for connectivity, has devolved into a breeding ground for hate speech and bullying. To truly honor the principles of equality, we must cease this battle against one another and embrace acceptance, fostering an environment where hate has no place to thrive. The essence of diversity is not to breed hostility but to cultivate a rich tapestry of experiences, thoughts, and customs. It is an opportunity to learn from one another, broaden our horizons, and build a more resilient and understanding society. However, when diversity becomes a battle cry, when it is wielded as a weapon to amplify grievances and incite conflict, it negates its very purpose. The fault lines created by such division are not only tearing at the fabric of our society but are also hindering progress. The energy and resources spent on discord could instead be directed towards collective endeavours aimed at mutual growth and prosperity. As a province that proudly upholds the values of diversity, it is incumbent upon us to recalibrate our approach. Embracing diversity requires more than mere tolerance; it necessitates genuine respect, empathy, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. It demands a concerted effort to bridge the gaps that divide us and forge connections based on our shared humanity. By shifting the focus from our differences to our commonalities, we can aspire to a future where diversity becomes a source of strength rather than a catalyst for division. This requires a collective commitment—a commitment to fostering an inclusive society where every voice is heard, every perspective valued, and where unity prevails over discord. Let us not succumb to the temptation of using diversity as a tool for division. Instead, let us harness its potential to build a more cohesive, empathetic, and united society—one that truly celebrates the richness of our differences while embracing the ties that bind us together as a community.