Power and Authority
Please review each article prior to use: grade-level applicability and curricular alignment might not be obvious from the headline alone.
Alberta legislature committee eyes separation vote as meeting hits bizarre roadblock
6 minute read Preview Thursday, May. 21, 2026Louis Riel division hires province’s first Indigenous woman superintendent
4 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Winnipeg police get behind Ottawa’s ‘lawful access’ bill
3 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Time for change? Province launches survey to review clock changes
5 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Premier has everyone’s attention on and about social media; now it’s time for some careful thought
5 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Words matter
4 minute read Wednesday, May. 20, 2026I have been following with interest the media’s reporting of the ban in Manitoba’s Legislative Assembly on the use of the words racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist and transphobe to call out hateful speech. The stated goal of the ban is “to improve House decorum.”
I’ve appreciated the fulsome coverage of this issue in the Free Press through the publishing of editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor. I was in particular struck by Premier Wab Kinew’s comments during his May 7 monthly interview with Marcy Markusa on CBC Radio.
Kinew’s strong opposition to the ban raises a critical question: How do we keep democratic civil society alive while silencing the calling out of discriminatory language and behaviour? Of course we can’t. By confusing decorum with silence we run the risk of contributing to a “head in the sand” mindset; to what American journalist and activist Barbara Ehrenreich referred to as a “Smile or Die” culture.
But then a followup question emerges: How do we effectively voice our legitimate dissent in ways that move us towards correcting discriminatory practices? A “no holds barred” approach to voicing our opposition may not be the answer. It’s all too easy to slip into shaming people by lobbing ad hominem/ad feminam attacks across partisan lines.
Designated encampments are a poor solution
5 minute read Wednesday, May. 20, 2026The overall shrinking of public space and degradation of the policy environment on use of public space is contributing to people experiencing homelessness being less safe — and contributing to interest in ideas like designated encampments. Unfortunately, this direction fails to centre the interests of people living unhoused. Further, we forget too easily that any consideration of land use on Treaty 1 land needs to start with historic claims and ancestral rights.
Among people experiencing homelessness, Indigenous people are overrepresented. Many people are living unsheltered on their own ancestral territories. Having endured intergenerational theft that started with land (transferred to settlers whose descendants now enjoy generational wealth), and continued with limits on movement, ability to make money, access to education and more, they are now actively surviving homelessness. Yet, the limits on their person continue.
Recent years have seen the closure and limits on use of public space throughout the downtown and broader city. These include Portage Place mall, the Millennium Library and Winnipeg Transit, and previously through the closure of downtown single-room occupancy hotels and their barrooms.
For some time, the city has been telegraphing an intention to limit access to outdoor public space according to housing status. At every opportunity, those cautioning against this move have raised the problem of limiting those with ancestral rights, and further limiting free movement of citizens on public land. The latter has been decided through B.C. legal process, and suggests the City of Winnipeg’s exposure to risk as it moves forward.
Washing ceremony marks settlement of Canadian Tire racial profiling complaint
5 minute read Preview Thursday, Jun. 11, 2026Only unions consulted about jobs deal for provincial builds: industry
5 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Hydro advisory circle brings ‘wealth of Indigenous perspectives’
5 minute read Preview Tuesday, May. 19, 2026This not just in: treaty rights carry legal force and are protected in the Constitution
5 minute read Preview Tuesday, May. 19, 2026Alberta’s timing targets for West Coast pipeline ‘best-case scenario’: CIBC analysts
4 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026Americans are looking back centuries to find Canadian ancestors — and citizenship
10 minute read Preview Thursday, Jun. 11, 2026It takes a village to raise — and educate — a child
6 minute read Tuesday, May. 19, 2026The oft-quoted saying, “it takes a village to raise a child,” resembles an African proverb. In the Yoruba language, the saying goes “two eyes birth a child, but 200 eyes raise it.”
Over the past several decades, that saying has come to mean something entirely different from what villagers meant, in Africa and in the small town where I grew up. The saying meant two, equally important things. It meant the community has a stake in ensuring that children are properly cared for, but the saying also meant that children must be taught and understand their obligations to the community at large.
The 200 eyes raising the child in the village did not look away when the parents or a child failed to observe community standards. When a child disrespected someone in the community, they were corrected. The village had a clear code of conduct that governed what was expected behaviour. These mores, or societal expectations, were understood and enforced by both parents and community members.
Everyone needs to understand their society’s written and unwritten rules. It is our obligation to teach our children the expectations we have of each other.
OpenAI avoided a costly court loss to Elon Musk, but neither side is unscathed
4 minute read Preview Wednesday, May. 20, 2026People for Education explore convergence of public education and truth and reconciliation
4 minute read Preview Sunday, May. 17, 2026Fort Richmond elementary school shedding racist lord’s name
4 minute read Preview Friday, May. 15, 2026$61-M investment in high-speed Internet planned for northern First Nations
4 minute read Preview Friday, May. 15, 2026FIFA ticketing format arguably most blatant money-grab in history of organized sport
4 minute read Preview Friday, May. 15, 2026Province has to untie Winnipeg’s hands in fight against vacant, boarded-up properties
5 minute read Preview Friday, May. 15, 2026AFN chief warns against changes to major projects development rules, calls for debate
4 minute read Preview Monday, Jun. 8, 2026Supreme Court recognizes intimate partner violence as a legal basis for civil damages
5 minute read Preview Monday, Jun. 8, 2026The dangers of gambling on nuclear power
5 minute read Friday, May. 15, 2026Dismissing climate science, setting Canada apart from most nations and planting us firmly in the United States’ camp, the Carney government is betting the farm on a “nuclear renaissance.”
There have been numerous indications this was coming. But Energy Minister Tim Hodgson’s April 29 statement to the Canadian Nuclear Association, following immediately on the launch of the “Canada Strong Fund” left no doubt that our investment banker prime minister is determined to pursue his nuclear energy superpower dreams.
As the UN Climate Envoy, Mark Carney famously said there is “no path to net zero without nuclear.” This has been a mantra of successive Liberal governments even as Canada’s last nuclear build was in the 1980s, and nuclear’s share of global electricity production has been steadily declining. It’s also been the rallying cry of nuclear advocates spending big to persuade anxious populations experiencing floods, droughts and wildfires that nuclear power will solve our climate disaster in the making. That claim is false.
Eight years ago, the Liberals rolled out their “SMR roadmap,” predicting the first (slightly) smaller new reactors would be operational in 2026. It isn’t happening. A new report by M.V. Ramana and Susan O’Donnell — Assessing Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Canada — details the $4.5 billion spent by Canadian governments on SMRs with zero kilowatts of electricity generated to date. Most of that money went to the potential first SMR in Canada, the BWRX 300, an American design by GE Hitachi that uses enriched uranium fuel, not available in Canada.