The nutrition plan for Seine River School Division is being submitted to the Province with the goal of reaching the kids most in need first.

Superintendent Dr. Ryan Anderson told the school board at its meeting April 23 that there will be three levels of food availability this fall after the provincial government doled out money to school divisions with an end goal of eventually providing food to all students.

The three levels are described as grab and go, grab and go plus breakfast, and grab and go with breakfast and lunch.

“Primarily through the lens of equity and provision of food to students who are in the most need, and not doing so in a way that discriminates which students can access food,” explained Anderson.

One of the greatest assets to a community is a public school system that is functional, inclusive, and known for high quality education. The communities of Hanover have long enjoyed this reputation, and this has added to their prosperity. People move to our towns and cities knowing they will be good places to raise and educate their children.

Recently, however, the HSD board has shown some signs of dysfunction. The worst thing for public education in our communities would be a rogue board that does not understand its role as protector and trustee of the public school system. I am referring to a recent wave of policy changes and attempted changes, driven by a group of trustees that seems to want to reverse much of the positive progress that has been made in the areas of hiring and family life education. The most controversial of these reversals is the 5-4 decision to include trustees in the interviewing and hiring of music and Phys-ed teachers only. The stated intention is to use the same process as that used to hire vice-principals. The public needs to know that this means that all trustees are welcome to take part in the interview – along with a superintendent and the school principal. However, once the principal has stated their preference the principal is asked to leave, and the trustees vote for the candidate they feel is most suitable. It is not hard to see that this could easily lead to discriminatory hiring practices. A potential candidate for a music or Phys Ed Position could face a panel of 11 interviewers, if everyone were to attend. After the interview, without the principal present, they would be judged and hired or rejected by the trustees present. I would imagine that they might be judged less on their qualifications for the job and more on whether they might present the kind of Christmas concert desired or on their perceived suitability for teaching sensitive issues. School boards are expected to be “governance” boards – meaning that they make policy and hire a qualified CEO or superintendent to administer the division and to hire and supervise teachers. Trustees are expected to stay out of the direct administration of the school division – not to “play with the trains” as such interference is often referred to. This is a dangerous game, for trustees, for the board as a whole, and also for the teacher candidates. By getting involved in the hiring process in such a direct way, the trustees are surely risking human rights complaints, which could be filed against them as individual trustees or against the entire board.

Qualified new music and Phys Ed Teachers may choose to avoid applying in HSD. In the case of an interview, they would be well-advised to avoid answering any questions that they perceive as being discriminatory and know their right to launch a human rights complaint if warranted.

Public school trustees are by definition caretakers of the public system and hold this precious asset in trust for the thousands of parents and students who depend on a functional public system which respects the needs of every child. Thankfully there has been push back from those trustees who show a clear understanding of the role of their board and the importance of an inclusive public education. They have so far been able to stand up for what is right and limit the potentially harmful changes that are being brought forward. Those trustees who wish to use their position of trust to impose their personal or private expectations on the public system might need to reconsider their participation on the board. Several trustees in the group attempting to reverse HSD direction may in fact have a significant conflict of interest. One serves on the parent advisory council of the Steinbach Christian School. I respect the right of parents to choose private schooling for their children, but should they then also be involved in setting direction for the thousands who have chosen the public system? Another trustee has chosen to homeschool their younger children. Again, I respect the right of parents to educate their children at home, provided they register an acceptable program with the province, and take this task as seriously as public-school teachers would. But again, should a trustee who does not themselves trust in the public system they are tasked to represent continue to hold a seat on the public-school board? We should strongly encourage the trustees who are holding fast to a vision of a strong and inclusive public-school division. We would hope that trustees who cannot uphold the public system they are tasked to protect would have the strength of their convictions and reconsider their involvement in the public board. Would we elect someone to the local credit union board if they did all their banking at one of the big banks? Would we buy a Ford from a salesperson who only drives imported cars? Should we then allow those who have chosen private and homeschooling to make policy for the rest of us? Let’s not wait for the next elections to make our voices heard. And when those school board elections come up, I challenge every community in HSD to encourage excellent candidates to step up to represent you. As we are now seeing, the school board still has the power to significantly impact our communities in a positive or negative way. Let’s fight for an educational system we can all be proud of and be vigilant in maintaining one of the most valuable assets to our communities – a public and inclusive school division.

In an interview with The Carillon last week, local House of Commons member Ted Falk contends that introducing pharmacare benefits as the Liberal government proposes in its latest budget is both dangerously socialist and fiscally imprudent.

Interestingly Canada is the only country with a universal health care plan that does not include coverage for prescription medication. Countries like Great Britain, France, New Zealand, and Germany all do. Would Mr. Falk consider these countries to be dangerously socialist?

The proposal for initiating pharmaceutical benefits begins with coverage for diabetes medication and birth control pills. This seems fiscally prudent.

2024 research studies carried out by The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and The Canadian Cancer Society revealed that 22 percent of Canadians don’t take medicines prescribed by their physicians because they can’t afford them.

The NDP’s early April announcement to scrap a combination of a 50 percent education tax rebate and a $350 credit for education taxes on residential properties was a good one.

That’s because in its place they’re bringing in a $1,500 homeowners affordability tax credit.

What this does is focus tax savings on those with lower value homes, while ending the rebates to the rich who occupy much larger homes, as well as corporations.

While exactly how it shakes out depends on the tax rate of your jurisdiction, based on an average school rate across the province, those with homes assessed at less than $437,000 will see an increased benefit, while those with a higher assessment will pay more.

Spring is in the air in Manitoba and with that comes budget time in the Manitoba legislature. We have witnessed two budgets in the past few weeks in Manitoba and in Ottawa; both the NDP provincial budget and the federal Liberal budget seem to be following Justin Trudeau’s motto that “budgets balance themselves.” A policy that will work no better for the NDP here in Manitoba than it has for Trudeau after nine years.

The debt of the federal government is approaching two trillion dollars and the interest on that debt has now reached $54 billion annually; endangering Canada’s triple A credit rating. Taking their cues from Justin Trudeau, Wab Kinew and his finance minister are on their way to adding over $5 billion to the net debt of our province by next spring. To put that in perspective, it took eight years and a major pandemic crisis to accrue the last $9 billion of net debt. At the NDP’s current spending rate, they will add close to $20 billion in debt to Manitoba in the next four years.

Budget 2024 was a disappointment for education with almost no new investment. Instead, the NDP have asked school divisions to raise your school taxes at the local level to fund our K-12 education system. They are scrapping the school tax rebate and are ending the phase out of education property taxes, which would have seen homeowners and farmers pay no more school taxes by 2028 under our PC plan. This NDP tax increase on residential homeowners will have Manitobans paying $148 million more in taxes next year to fund over $3 billion in NDP election promises.

Thankfully our PC income tax changes that indexed tax brackets every year since 2016, and significantly bumped up the Basic Personal Amount to over $15,000 last July 1, have been left in place and are still helping Manitobans. We are also benefiting from new tax brackets that started January 1, passed in last year’s PC budget, that is significantly reducing taxes on families. The tax changes we introduced will make Manitoba more competitive with neighbouring provinces, and will help attract professionals and workers to settle in Manitoba to grow our economy.