It would be easy to assume, by just watching the daily news, that there are no longer places where elected officials of different political parties co-operate. And while it is certainly true that partisan politics has become much more divided, and some would say toxic over the past several years, there are still some parts of the political system that function on a relatively bipartisan basis.

This past week I was in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to participate as a presenter and panellist in a conference related to public accounts in Canada. For the past year I have served as the chair of Manitoba’s public accounts committee. Most people who have not been involved in the political process are likely unfamiliar with the public accounts committee. It is the only committee in the legislature that is chaired by a member of the opposition, not the government, and it is made up of members of all political parties.

The purpose of the committee is to review financial statements and the audit reports that are produced by the provincial auditor general. The auditor general is an independent officer of the legislature who is empowered to review programs in government and to produce the public accounts. These reports then come to the public accounts committee whose members are able to question both the auditor and the officials of the departments which the reports are the subject of.

While not every public accounts committee in Canada manages to operate in a collegial manner, Manitoba has, especially over the past decade or so, set a co-operative tone. Together with the NDP co-chair of the committee, longtime MLA Jim Maloway, we work together on meeting schedules and ensure that reports are reviewed on a timely basis. Questions at the committee come from all members and are a mix of suggestions from the auditor general and those which members generate individually. At its best, it is a committee where members not only learn about the operations of many parts of government, but suggestions are put forward on how to improve programs in departments with the goal of continuous improvement.

Last week, mainstream news reassured us that a deal between Canada and the United States was almost sealed. Canadians could start breathing easier as negotiators worked collaboratively to finalize the remaining terms. Then, when Canadians woke up Saturday morning and read the news, they learned that Prime Minister Mark Carney had recalled Canada’s negotiators from the U.S. trade talks, just minutes before midnight. The prime minister suspended all ongoing trade discussions with the United States, citing last-minute changes that compromised Canada’s sovereignty, the French language and Canadian culture.

Commentators from the U.S. offered a very different account. U.S. trade representatives suggested that withdrawing from negotiations was potentially related to Mr. Carney’s upcoming by-elections.

Given the conflicting accounts, Canadians deserve to hear the full story.

The prime minister’s recent handling of President Donald Trump and the Gordie Howe International Bridge should raise alarm bells to every Canadian. Canadians were assured by Prime Minister Carney that toll revenues would not be shared until all construction costs were recovered. Without clear explanation, the prime minister changed his story. When a sitting prime minister’s story changes after the fact, Canadians are entitled to ask: What else is Prime Minister Mark Carney misleading us about?

The Steinbach Arts Council is opening its doors to young families with the return of its free parent and tot art workshop series. Designed for children ages one to four and a parent or guardian, this interactive program explores creative movement, music, visual arts, theatre, and culinary arts in a fun, supportive setting.

Led by experienced local instructors, each workshop includes a healthy snack to promote wellness and early creative development. Sessions run on select Fridays throughout the 2026–2027 season, including dance on Oct. 30, music on Nov. 6, and visual arts on Dec. 4. Advance registration is required.

This workshop series is made possible with support from Healthy Child Coalition – South East and Southern Health Santé Sud.

Immersive theatre of The Crucible comes to Mennonite Heritage Village

Current local debates regarding sex and gender could benefit from some social scientific clarity. Definitions matter, and there’s no point in speaking the same language if you’re using different dictionaries. Furthermore, a good definition of something is halfway to understanding it.

Sex is based on anatomy and biology, by which persons are described as male or female. It includes sexual organs, chromosomes, and hormones, and is given by nature (ascribed). Gender is social norms assigned to sex, by which persons are described as masculine or feminine. It is nurtured by and learned from socially constructed culture (achieved), including ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

Sexual identity is a person’s subjective sense of being male or female, while gender identity is a person’s subjective sense and personal enactment of being masculine or feminine. Various types of sexual identity are included in the 2SLGBTQIA+ acronym.

Types of gender identity include cisgender–a person who identifies with their sex based on visible anatomy; transgender–a person who does not identify with their sex based on visible anatomy; gender fluid–a person whose gender identity is not fixed and shifts over time, or depending on the situation; and gender dysphoria–a person who is deeply troubled, confused, and conflicted about their gender.

I was surprised to open Saturday’s Globe and Mail and find an article about my hometown of Steinbach prominently featured. The story talked about Manitoba’s government ordering the Hanover School Division board to rescind an illegal motion they’d passed that would, as the Globe and Mail put it, “prevent students from getting counselling and medical services, including contraceptive prescriptions without their parents’ knowledge.” Globe and Mail interviews with organizations who support Manitoba’s LGBTQ youth said the motion could have a negative impact on young people looking for help in understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity. Education Minister Tracy Schmidt told the school trustees they had directly violated their constitutional and legal responsibilities by passing the motion.

In a letter to the minister, board chair Dallas Wiebe, said the motion was made in response to parental concerns. Interestingly, he gave no statistics to prove how many parents had expressed concerns. The Globe and Mail reported, however, that a parent made a presentation to the board about her opposition to the motion that included a petition signed by 1,000 Hanover residents. They were worried students wouldn’t receive appropriate care if professionals were no longer able to make judgement calls whether to notify parents about a teenager’s confidential disclosures. Had the board received a thousand expressions of concern from those who felt parents should be privy to all their child’s health information?

What bothered me about The Globe and Mail article was the way they described the Hanover School Division as a “Bible Belt” area of the province primarily populated by Mennonite farmers. This gives a very inaccurate description to the rest of the country. Firstly, while Hanover’s economy is known for agribusiness it has other diverse and thriving industries. Secondly, it implies farmers are closeminded and supported the school board’s major/minor motion. Knowing quite a number of farmers in Hanover, I’m sure their opinions on the value of the motion varied widely. Thirdly, it suggests Hanover residents are predominantly Mennonites. But a substantial number are Catholics, Lutherans, Muslims, Mormons, Pentecostals, and Baptists. A group of humanists and agnostics meet regularly in Steinbach. According to a recent census, 20 percent of residents have no religious affiliation. I found it interesting The Globe and Mail interviewed Ken Klassen, a former Hanover superintendent who called the motion the board passed “horrific”. Mr. Klassen and I were members of the same Mennonite church in Steinbach for many years. He’s a good example of the fact that not all Mennonites in the community hold the same views as the school trustees. To broadly characterize Hanover as a place filled with farmers who are of one religious bent is at best misleading.

The Globe and Mail reported Hanover school trustees had also recently passed motions to limit political activism in schools and to monitor “inappropriate” books and resources. That gives the audience of a national newspaper a picture of Steinbach and the surrounding area as being close-minded about positive change, and leery of the professional expertise of teachers and librarians. Having lived and worked in Hanover for most of my life I know so many residents who don’t fit that stereotype. A way to change that erroneous image would be to vote for trustees in the coming municipal elections with forward-thinking, legal ideas about education that are not primarily determined by their personal or religious ideology.

Recently our local radio station published a list of questions for school board candidates in the upcoming election. The questions were prepared and sent to candidates by Brad Unger - an outgoing but still sitting school trustee and now a candidate for city council.

They were answered by Jeff Friesen, a sitting school trustee, currently vice-chair of the HSD board and a candidate for election to continue as a school trustee.

The list of questions from Brad and Jeff’s answers online seem narrowly focused on non-educational issues which they seem to want to make central to the campaign. And the questions are designed as a way of determining whether the candidate fits their ideological and religious profile - not an honest attempt at open and respectful discussion.

In fact, if you follow the link to his Facebook page entitled Niverville Open Discussion Group you will find Jeff baiting the candidates online that don’t immediately respond, with the question, “Are you scared?”

A 66-year-old man in the RM of Dufferin was recently charged with careless use of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, and discharging a firearm in a reckless manner.

These sound like serious charges. Obviously, we don’t want people recklessly firing guns. But the circumstances behind these charges give us some important context and should change how we look at this case.

In fact, this man was responding to four individuals who unlawfully entered his property and stole some of his possessions. Rather than just passively let the thefts happen, the homeowner confronted the intruders and fired his rifle in the direction of the two stolen vehicles they were driving.

Police managed to apprehend three of the four alleged thieves and charged them with a variety of offences. Incredibly, the 66-year-old homeowner was charged as well, even though he obviously was just trying to defend himself and his property.