Keystone Party of Manitoba Interlake Gimli Constituency

03/28/2026

Manitobans Need Real Relief — Not Political Talking Points

Across Interlake–Gimli and all of Manitoba, families are feeling the pressure. Groceries cost more. Fuel costs more. Heating, housing, and everyday essentials are stretching household budgets to the limit.

We’re hearing a lot from the major parties—but when you look closer, the solutions being offered don’t match the scale of the problem.

What We’re Being Told — And What’s Missing

The NDP have proposed removing PST from groceries. At first glance, that sounds helpful. But the reality is most essential grocery items are already PST-exempt. That means this change would have little to no impact on what families actually pay at the checkout.

The PCs, on the other hand, continue to emphasize that they are “listening.” But after 7 years in government, Manitobans are still struggling with rising costs. Listening matters—but it has to lead to action. Right now, families aren’t seeing the results.

The Real Problem: Rising Input Costs

If we’re serious about affordability, we need to address the root cause.

The cost of fuel—driven up by taxes and added carbon charges—affects everything:
• The price of transporting food
• The cost of farming and production
• The price of heating homes
• The cost of getting to work

When fuel costs rise, everything else follows. That’s the reality families are living with every day.

A Different Approach: Lower Costs at the Source

As a Keystone member for Interlake–Gimli, I’m not running to repeat talking points. I’m running to put forward real, measurable solutions that actually lower the cost of living.

1. Reduce Fuel Costs

We need to bring down the cost of fuel by:
• Removing or reducing provincial fuel taxes
• Pushing back on carbon cost impacts wherever possible

Because when you lower fuel costs, you lower the cost of everything.

2. Let People Keep More of What They Earn

Government shouldn’t benefit from inflation while families fall behind. I support:
• Raising the basic personal exemption
• Adjusting tax brackets to reflect rising costs

This puts more money back into the pockets of Manitobans.

3. Support Local Agriculture

Manitoba farmers are some of the best in the world—but they’re being squeezed by rising input costs and red tape. We need to:
• Reduce unnecessary regulations
• Strengthen local food production and distribution

Food security starts here at home.

4. Increase Housing Supply

Housing affordability won’t improve unless we increase supply. That means:
• Faster approvals
• Fewer barriers to building

We need more homes—not more delays.

5. Keep Energy Affordable

In Manitoba, energy isn’t optional—it’s essential. We must:
• Protect reliable, low-cost energy
• Avoid policies that drive up heating and electricity bills

It’s Time for Action

Manitobans don’t need more symbolic gestures or empty promises. And they don’t need to be told, once again, that someone is “listening.”

They need leadership that understands the problem and is willing to act on it.

Real affordability doesn’t start at the checkout line—it starts by lowering the costs that drive prices in the first place.

A Clear Choice

We can continue down the path of small, ineffective changes and political messaging.

Or we can take a different approach—one focused on real solutions, lower costs, and a better future for Manitoba families.

03/22/2026

Manitobans have every reason to pay close attention to what’s unfolding around land use, Treaty Land Entitlement, and conservation policy—and to demand far more transparency than we’re currently getting.

Let’s be clear: no one is disputing that treaty obligations must be honored. But when large-scale land selections—like the 166,794 acres tied to Peguis Treaty Land Entitlement—move forward with limited public visibility, concern is not only understandable, it’s justified.

What’s especially troubling is the convergence of multiple frameworks at once. Federal commitments tied to UNDRIP, aggressive conservation targets backed by organizations like Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and ongoing Treaty Land Entitlement processes are all reshaping how land is governed in this province. Each may stand on its own. But together, they are changing who makes decisions about land, how that land can be used, and who is included in those decisions.

For rural Manitobans—especially those relying on Crown land—this isn’t theoretical. Access, leases, and long-standing land use are all potentially affected. Yet many of the discussions shaping these outcomes are happening behind closed doors or within limited consultation frameworks that exclude the very people most impacted.

Look to British Columbia, where similar policy directions have already led to major shifts in land use, increased restrictions, and new governance structures that have left many local communities feeling sidelined. Manitobans are right to ask whether the same trajectory is unfolding here—and why clear answers are so hard to come by.

This is not about fear-mongering. It’s about accountability.

If these changes are truly in the public interest, then there should be:
• Clear, publicly accessible maps of proposed land selections
• Transparent timelines and decision-making processes
• Meaningful consultation that includes all affected residents—not just select stakeholders

Manitobans deserve clarity, not rumours. They deserve inclusion, not after-the-fact explanations. And they deserve a voice in decisions that will shape the land, economy, and communities for generations.

Silence and ambiguity only fuel distrust. It’s time for openness.

03/20/2026

Unity or Division? Manitoba’s Bilingual Push Raises the Real Question

As Manitoba marks International Day of La Francophonie, the government is celebrating its vision of becoming a “truly bilingual province.” On the surface, that sounds positive—who wouldn’t support inclusion, history, and respect for language?

But beneath the messaging lies a more important question: does this move bring Manitobans together, or quietly pull us apart?

There is no denying that Francophones played a foundational role in Manitoba’s history. That legacy deserves recognition and respect. Supporting access to services in French, especially in communities where it is widely spoken, is reasonable and fair.

But there is a line between accommodation and restructuring society around differences.

When governments begin expanding parallel systems—separate schools, services, and institutions defined by language—they risk creating silos. Instead of one shared civic identity, we move toward multiple identities operating side by side. That’s not unity. That’s fragmentation with good intentions.

Manitoba is already diverse. We have people from countless cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrounds. If every group were to receive the same level of institutional recognition and parallel service development, the result wouldn’t be inclusion—it would be a patchwork society with less in common, not more.

True unity isn’t built by emphasizing what separates us. It’s built by strengthening what we share.

There’s also the question of fairness. Expanding bilingual courts, schools, and municipal services requires significant public funding. Manitobans should be asking: does this benefit the province as a whole, or primarily a smaller segment of the population? In a time where healthcare, affordability, and infrastructure are pressing concerns, priorities matter.

None of this is an argument against the French language or Francophone culture. Quite the opposite. Cultural heritage should be celebrated and preserved. But it should not come at the cost of a cohesive provincial identity.

The goal should not be a Manitoba divided into linguistic lanes. The goal should be a Manitoba where people—regardless of background—feel part of the same story.

If bilingualism is pursued, it must be done in a way that reinforces unity, not institutionalizes division.

Because in the end, the strength of a province is not found in how many identities it can separate—but in how well it can bring people together under one shared purpose.

03/15/2026

I've just reached 100 followers! Thank you for continuing support.

03/14/2026

My WInnipeg Sun column

Winnipeg doctor’s letter exposes the truth
A letter arrived in my inbox recently from a Winnipeg physician. Dr. Lynn Stevens has practiced medicine in our city for 33 years. Her message was not political. It was personal. And it should concern every Manitoban.

Dr. Stevens wrote to the provincial government about what happened when she needed medical care herself.

Years ago, she developed pain in both hips during an exercise program. She needed an MRI. The wait time in Manitoba was two years. Instead, she flew to Calgary and paid for a private scan. The result showed torn muscles, allowing her to adjust her training and recover.

More recently she suffered a herniated disc in her spine. Severe pain, nerve damage and loss of function forced her into emergency surgery. Even then, the surgeon told her she should have come in sooner to prevent permanent damage.
Then the same pain returned.

She went to the emergency department and waited for hours. At one point she was told some patients had been waiting more than 14 hours. She left without being treated.

Dr. Stevens eventually asked for a copy of her MRI requisition so she could pay for a private scan. She says she was told government systems would not even read results from a private clinic.

Think about that for a moment. A physician with more than three decades in medicine could not access timely care in her own city.
This is not an isolated story. It is a warning.

The truth many politicians avoid is this: the health-care system we grew up believing in no longer exists. What we have today is struggling under pressure from aging demographics, staff shortages and rising costs.

And yet the political conversation refuses to move.

Instead, we cling to the idea that our system is the envy of the world. That it is free for all and working well.

But Canadians pay among the highest taxes in the developed world while facing some of the longest wait times for specialists and elective procedures among comparable countries. Studies comparing Canada with countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Australia have consistently found Canadians reporting longer waits for appointments and surgery.

Those countries did something Canada has largely refused to consider.

They built mixed systems.

Australia operates a universal public system but also allows private insurance and private hospitals to complement it. Roughly half of Australians purchase private coverage to access additional services and reduce wait times while the public system remains available to everyone.

France is another example. It maintains universal coverage while allowing patients to choose between public and private providers, giving people more options and helping avoid chronic wait lists.
Japan provides universal coverage as well, but care is delivered through both public hospitals and private clinics. Access to diagnostic tests such as MRIs is common and often does not involve lengthy waits.

In fact, most developed nations operate mixed systems in which public and private providers work side by side.

This should not be controversial. It should be common sense.
Looking at alternatives does not mean abandoning universal care. It means strengthening it.

If private clinics can perform diagnostic imaging, surgeries or specialized procedures under regulation, that reduces pressure on public hospitals. It shortens wait lists. It allows the public system to focus resources where they are most needed.
But politicians rarely say this out loud.

Why? Because health care has become a political symbol rather than a policy challenge. Any discussion of alternatives is immediately framed as an attack on universal care.

That shuts down honest debate.

Meanwhile the system continues to deteriorate.

Emergency rooms overflow. Doctors burn out. Patients wait months or years for tests that determine whether they can work, walk or live without pain.

Dr. Stevens’ experience illustrates the reality. A physician who has spent her career caring for others could not get timely diagnostic imaging in the system she helped serve.
We need to be honest with ourselves.

Health care as we know it is done. The current model is unsustainable. It is being managed like any other government department, with layers of bureaucracy, rising costs at the top and not enough focus on the patient.

Pretending otherwise will not fix it.

Investigating alternatives is not dangerous. Refusing to investigate them is.

If countries around the world can maintain universal coverage while allowing responsible private options, there is no reason Canada cannot examine the same approach.

The real question is simple.

How many more Manitobans must sit in pain in a waiting room before our leaders are willing to have that conversation?

03/14/2026

A new Manitoba Wildlife Federation (MWF)–commissioned Leger poll shows strong support among Manitobans for keeping parks open to the public and for having Manitoba Parks manage protected areas. Beyond the raw numbers, the survey highlights broader concerns about who makes decisions regarding Manitoba’s land and whether local residents maintain a meaningful voice.

The online survey, conducted February 9–13 with 806 Manitobans aged 18 and older, found that 90% agree any new parks or protected areas should remain open to all Manitobans, regardless of where they live. Six in ten respondents said they strongly agree.

According to MWF senior policy advisor Chris Heald, the poll was conducted as part of the organization’s broader Access for All campaign.

“We wanted to make sure our messaging was on track,” Heald said. “We wanted to know if Manitobans were happy with how parks and wildlife management areas are being managed.”

The timing is also significant. As the federal government continues to advance a national protected areas strategy, MWF wanted to understand where Manitobans stand before those plans move further ahead.

The poll also asked who Manitobans trust most to manage protected areas. Sixty-four percent selected Manitoba Parks, while only 15% chose Parks Canada. Smaller numbers selected environmental NGOs or Indigenous organizations.

Heald believes the results reflect concern about losing local influence over land-use decisions.

“I think there’s a lot of mistrust of the federal government,” he said. “When Parks Canada manages land, we lose local input. Rural municipalities lose input. The province loses input. Local residents lose input.”

Heald also highlighted differences in accountability between provincial and federal decision-making.

“If you don’t like how decisions are made provincially, you can unelect someone,” he said. “You don’t have that ability with Parks Canada.”

The survey also revealed generational differences. Older Manitobans showed particularly strong support for provincial management, while younger respondents expressed somewhat greater openness to Indigenous co-management models. Even so, Manitoba Parks maintained a clear lead across all age groups.

Respondents were also asked why protecting land matters to them.
• 57% cited protecting natural landscapes to help address climate change.
• 55% pointed to sustainable wildlife and fish management to support hunting and fishing.
• 55% said camping and hiking opportunities were very important.

The results suggest Manitobans want a balance between conservation and access.

Heald said that balance reflects MWF’s own approach to conservation.

“We all agree protected areas are important,” he said. “But they have to be sustainably managed.”

He described two competing philosophies in land management: one focused on strict preservation with minimal human activity, and another that supports conservation alongside responsible resource use and active management.

“For moose, you need disturbance,” Heald explained. “Either you have forest fires or forestry cutting to create regrowth. That’s how habitat works.”

He points to Manitoba’s wildlife management areas (WMAs) as a practical example of this balance. WMAs allow certain types of resource development under permit while still maintaining conservation protections.

“We led the charge on WMAs,” Heald said. “They protect land more than general Crown lands but still allow active management.”

He contrasted that model with experiences in some federal parks. In Riding Mountain National Park, federal aquatic invasive species regulations have created tension with local municipalities and recreational users. Meanwhile, in Wapusk National Park, hunters no longer have access to areas they once used.

“We don’t want to see that spread to other lands,” Heald said.

He also noted past communication issues between governments, saying provincial officials sometimes learned about federal policy changes through media reports rather than through direct consultation.

“We want everyone at the table,” he said. “RMs, the province, and local residents.”

The poll also found 71% of Manitobans believe preserving traditional hunting and fishing areas for Indigenous peoples is important, with the strongest support coming from Winnipeg residents and voters aligned with the NDP and Liberals.

Heald said MWF supports Indigenous rights and access but believes decision-making should remain inclusive.

“Everybody should have input as Manitobans,” he said.

Looking ahead, MWF is waiting to see how federal policy develops.

“We’re waiting to see what the Prime Minister’s strategy looks like,” Heald said. “Then we’ll see how the province reacts.”

He stressed that the issue is not about partisan politics.

“This isn’t about political stripes,” he said. “Manitoba has done a pretty good job managing protected areas.”

The poll results appear to reinforce that view. Sixty-two percent of respondents said they trust Manitoba Parks most to set rules for park access, far exceeding support for any other governing body.

For MWF, the takeaway is clear: Manitobans want parks protected, but they also want them to remain accessible—and they prefer decisions to be made close to home.

The debate over protected areas is far from settled, but the survey suggests that if future federal proposals shift control away from Manitoba, public resistance could follow.

For now, Heald says the numbers offer reassurance.

“This poll shows Manitobans feel confident with the way things are being managed,” he said.

And in a province where outdoor access is deeply tied to culture and identity, that confidence carries significant weight.

03/08/2026

03/03/2026

Manitoba Celebrates NFI Expansion — Jobs and Manufacturing Win for Winnipeg

The Manitoba government is celebrating the official opening of a new all-Canadian bus manufacturing facility by NFI Group Inc. in Winnipeg. The expansion brings full start-to-finish bus production back to the province for the first time in 15 years — a milestone for domestic manufacturing and supply chain resilience.

Premier Wab Kinew highlighted the economic impact: 250 direct jobs, hundreds more indirect jobs, and nearly 3,000 Manitobans already employed at NFI’s global headquarters. The province previously committed $23.4 million toward the expansion, alongside federal and company investment. From a workforce and industrial strategy standpoint, this is undeniably positive news for Winnipeg and for skilled trades across Manitoba.

The “Zero-Emission” Question

Where the announcement becomes more debatable is the repeated use of the term “zero-emission transportation.”

There is no such thing as true zero emissions. Electric buses may produce zero tailpipe emissions while operating, but emissions still occur:
• In mining and processing battery materials
• In manufacturing the buses and battery systems
• In generating electricity (depending on the grid mix)
• In end-of-life disposal and recycling

What’s being described is better framed as lower operational emissions, not zero emissions in total lifecycle terms.

Calling it “zero-emission” can come across as political branding — or virtue signaling — rather than precise language. For readers who value transparency, it’s fair to ask that governments distinguish between tailpipe emissions and full lifecycle emissions.

Bottom Line

This facility is a win for Manitoba jobs, domestic manufacturing capacity, and supply chain independence. Skilled trades, engineers, and assembly workers all benefit.

At the same time, honest policy discussion requires clarity. Cleaner technology? Yes. Lower operational emissions? Absolutely. But “zero emissions” in absolute terms does not exist in modern industrial production.

Celebrating economic growth and job creation is justified. Precision in environmental claims should be part of that celebration too.

03/03/2026

Manitoba Invests $3.4M in First Nation–Owned Minago Mine — Now the Real Work Begins

The Manitoba government has announced a $3.4 million investment to accelerate mining development, including $2 million toward the Minago project — a 100% First Nation–owned critical minerals initiative led by Norway House Cree Nation. The announcement was made at the 2026 PDAC conference and positioned as a major step forward for Indigenous-led development and Manitoba’s role in Canada’s critical minerals supply chain.

On its face, this is exactly the kind of project many Manitobans want to see:
Indigenous ownership. Domestic processing. Jobs in the North. Participation in the global clean technology economy.

But announcements are the easy part.

If this project is going to move from political headline to long-term success, strong and measurable benchmarks must be attached to the funding. Not to create obstacles — but to create durability.

Here’s what that should look like in plain terms.

1. Milestone-Based Funding — No Blank Cheques

Public dollars should be released in stages tied to clear achievements:
• Completion of engineering studies
• Proven metallurgical testing
• Environmental approvals
• Construction milestones

This protects both taxpayers and the project itself. If progress is steady, funding flows. If not, adjustments can be made early before costs escalate.

⸻

2. Private Capital Commitment

The announcement highlights leveraged private investment through the Manitoba Mineral Development Fund.

That leverage matters.

A strong benchmark would require:
• Confirmed private capital participation
• Transparent cost-sharing ratios
• Evidence the project can stand without permanent public subsidy

Public money should catalyze — not replace — market confidence.

⸻

3. Proven Processing Technology

Mining ore is one thing. Processing magnesium competitively is another.

Benchmarks should include:
• Demonstrated recovery rates from pilot testing
• Independent engineering validation
• Clear operating cost projections

Canada does not dominate global magnesium processing. That means technical ex*****on will determine success.

⸻

4. Employment & Training Accountability

The announcement cites:
• 20 permanent jobs
• 50+ First Nation trainees

Those are meaningful numbers — especially locally.

But success should include:
• Timelines for job creation
• Transparent reporting
• Skills certification pathways

That ensures the benefits are real, not aspirational.

⸻

5. A Path to Commercial Viability

Ultimately, the key benchmark is simple:

Can this project operate sustainably in global markets without ongoing government rescue?

That means:
• Competitive cost structure
• Stable energy access
• Confirmed buyers or offtake agreements
• Long-term operational planning

If those pieces are in place, the $2 million becomes smart seed capital.
If they aren’t, it risks becoming symbolic funding.

⸻

Why Strong Benchmarks Help Everyone

Clear performance measures are not anti-development. They are pro-success.

They:
• Protect Indigenous owners from political cycles
• Protect taxpayers from risk
• Strengthen investor confidence
• Increase the likelihood the project reaches full scale

This announcement positions Manitoba as serious about critical minerals and Indigenous-led growth.

Strong benchmarks are what will prove it.

The investment is a start.
Discipline is what will turn it into a legacy.

02/26/2026

A Task Force Sounds Good — But Will It Change Anything?

The Manitoba government says it is creating a new task force to fight drug trafficking and organized crime.

That sounds strong and serious.

But the real question is:
Will this actually make our communities safer?

What We Don’t Know

The announcement does not say:
• How much money is being spent
• How many officers will be added
• What the goals are
• How success will be measured
• When Manitobans should expect results

Without clear goals and numbers, it’s hard to know if this is a real plan — or just a new name for work that is already happening.

Meetings Don’t Stop M**h

Bringing agencies together is helpful. Sharing information is good.

But meetings alone won’t stop drug dealers.

If organized crime keeps making money, they will keep finding new ways to sell drugs. Enforcement has to be strong, consistent, and focused on real results.

What Manitobans Want

People in Winnipeg and across Manitoba are tired of:
• Open drug use
• Rising crime
• Overdoses
• Unsafe streets

They don’t want more announcements.
They want change they can see.

The Big Question

Is this a real shift in direction?
Or is it stronger language without stronger action?

If this task force is serious, the government should:
• Set clear targets
• Report results publicly
• Show how drug supply is actually being reduced

Bottom Line

Creating a task force is a start.

But Manitobans will judge this plan by one thing only:

Are our streets safer — or not?