Ethiopian Society of Winnipeg

10/09/2026

Are you teaching your children how to handle money?
==================================
At different times, I have heard parents in our community talk about their children asking questions such as, “Are we rich?”, “How much money do you make?” or “Why can’t I have what my friends have?” These questions may seem simple, but they can leave parents wondering how best to respond. These conversations remind me an important but often overlooked aspect of parenting: teaching children about money and the values that should guide how they use it.
Talking about money can feel uncomfortable. Parents may worry that discussing family finances will expose too much, encourage materialism, or place unnecessary burdens on young children. As a result, money is sometimes treated as a subject children shouldn't ask about. However, children are more aware of money than adults may realize. They notice what their parents buy, what they refuse to buy, how their family compares with others, and how money affects everyday decisions.
My central message is that raising financially responsible children isn't about making them wealthy. It is about helping them become grounded, generous, patient, modest, and thoughtful about money. These qualities don't develop automatically when children grow up. They require guidance, example, and honest conversations.
One lesson is that money can be used to teach values, not only to purchase things. Parents who give their children an allowance can use it to introduce saving, spending, and giving. Children can learn to set aside money for something they want, make decisions within a limited budget, and experience the consequences of spending everything too quickly. Household responsibilities, meanwhile, can be taught as part of contributing to family life rather than always being treated as work that deserves payment.
Another important lesson is that everyday financial decisions present opportunities to teach. When a child asks for an expensive phone, fashionable clothes, or shoes that friends already own, the conversation can go beyond saying, “No, we can't afford it.” If the family can afford the item but chooses not to buy it, parents can explain. May be the money has a more important purpose, or the less expensive option meets the same need. Such conversations help children distinguish between what they want and what they need, while learning that spending is a matter of priorities.
Parents can also use birthdays, holidays, gifts, and charitable giving to discuss gratitude, generosity, and moderation. Children should understand that receiving more expensive gifts doesn't make someone more important, and that helping others is a meaningful use of money. When possible, allowing children to decide how a small portion of their money might be saved, spent, or given away helps turn these lessons into habits. The most important point is that being spoiled has less to do with how much a family earns than with the attitudes a child develops toward money and possessions. Wealth alone doesn't teach gratitude, just as financial hardship doesn't automatically produce wisdom. Children need to learn that their worth isn't determined by the clothes they wear, the phones they own, or their family's income.
I encourage parents in our community to become more comfortable having age-appropriate conversations about money. This doesn't mean disclosing every detail of household finances or making children responsible for adult concerns. It means answering their questions honestly, explaining family choices, and allowing them to learn through small, manageable decisions.
Parents work hard to provide their children with education, security, and opportunities. It is equally important to prepare them to manage what they receive. A child who learns to save patiently, spend thoughtfully, appreciate what they have, and give generously is gaining skills that will serve them throughout life. The goal should be not to raise children who have everything they want, but to raise children who understand the value of what they have. Let's help them to be grounded, generous, and wise.
Learn, Relearn, Unlearn

10/07/2026

What happened to our conscience?
=======================
I followed the news about Christa Pike the way I have followed countless other stories. I read the headlines, heard what had happened, and moved on. For a moment, it was simply another disturbing story in the news. Then I stopped.
Christa Pike was guilty. What she did to Colleen Slemmer was horrific, and nothing I say should diminish the suffering of Colleen's family. Pike was 18 when she committed the crime. She should be held accountable, and I believe serious wrongdoing must have serious consequences. A civilized society has a duty to protect people and to restrain those who are capable of causing grave harm.
As a Christian, I don't believe accountability means revenge. I believe punishment has a legitimate place. A person can lose their freedom, be separated from society, and live with the consequences of what they have done. What I struggle with is the idea that punishment must end with the state deliberately taking that person's life. What disturbed me most as I followed this story wasn't only the ex*****on itself. It was how normal the whole process seemed.
The language was clinical. The procedure was discussed. The machinery, the chemicals, the protocol. When the ex*****on failed and Pike survived, the immediate concern was that the ex*****on hadn't succeeded. The story became, in large part, about why she was still alive and what would happen next. I found myself asking a much more uncomfortable question: when did the brutal killing of a human being become so normalized that our first concern is whether the state successfully completed it Where was the moral shock at what was being attempted? We are accustomed to condemning brutal treatment when it happens somewhere else. We use words such as cruel, barbaric and inhumane when another government deliberately takes a person's life. But when our own institutions carry it out, the language changes. We call it a sentence. We call the procedure lawful. We even speak of making the ex*****on humane. Such word troubles me. There is nothing humane about deliberately killing a human being. Making the process cleaner, quieter or medically controlled doesn't change its nature. It only changes how comfortable we are with watching it happen. This is where I have to speak honestly as a Christian.
I believe human beings are capable of terrible evil. I believe victims deserve protection, recognition and accountability. I believe offenders can and should face severe consequences. I don't believe Christianity requires me to excuse what Christa Pike did because she was young, nor does it require me to ignore the suffering of the family she harmed. But Christianity also makes it impossible for me to treat another human life as disposable.
Pike was 18 when she committed the crime. That doesn't make her innocent. It does remind me that the person who committed that terrible act was still at the beginning of adulthood. If repentance is real, if transformation is possible, and if no human being is beyond the reach of God's mercy, then I can't easily accept the argument that the only meaningful form of accountability is to end her life. I also can't see what her killing gives back to Colleen Slemmer's family. It doesn't restore Colleen. It doesn't remove the memories. It doesn't undo the violence. It doesn't close the wound. What it does is add another deliberate killing, this time carried out by the state and accepted as lawful. That is what I find hardest to accept.
I live in a society that calls itself civilized and democratic. I have benefited from its laws and institutions. But being civilized can't simply mean that we have developed more controlled ways of doing something brutal. The question we should ask isn't whether an ex*****on can be carried out humanely. We should ask why we have become so comfortable with killing that question rarely gets asked at all.
As a Christian, I believe punishment can protect society without becoming vengeance. I believe accountability can be severe without becoming retribution. I believe a person can be confined for life and still remain a human being capable of repentance.
I don't know what Colleen Slemmer's family feels when they hear about Christa Pike. I would never presume to speak for them. I only know what I feel when I watch a society calmly prepare to kill someone, then treat the failure to kill her as the problem. That should disturb my conscience. For sure, it did.
Learn, Relearn, Unlearn

10/06/2026

Winnipeg Transit: Where do the candidates stand?
================================
The long-term success of public transit depends on more than the price of a fare. Riders need a system they can rely on, understand, access and trust.
Affordable fares matter, but they are only one part of the experience. Reliable service, reasonable wait times, simple payment options, accessibility and consistent service all influence whether people choose transit regularly.
As approaches the municipal election, we encourage residents to participate and ask candidates where they stand on the future of public transit.
We want candidates to address some basic questions:
-What will you do to improve transit reliability and reduce excessive wait times?
-How will you make transit more accessible for seniors, people with disabilities, families and newcomers?
-What can be done to make fares and payment options simpler and more affordable?
-How will you improve the overall rider experience?
-Where should Winnipeg prioritize investment to get the greatest long-term benefit for riders?
-What specific changes do you believe can make more Winnipeggers choose transit?
For the Ethiopian Society of Winnipeg Inc., transit adoption is an important measure of whether improvements are actually meeting the needs of riders and the communities the system serves.
We encourage Winnipeg residents to take part in the , ask candidates these questions, listen to their proposals, and consider how each vision would affect the future of public transit in our city.
Transit is more than a fare. It is about whether the system works well enough for people to choose it.
For the final list of nominated candidates, including the order of names to appear on the ballot, visit winnipeg.ca/election2026

Election day - October 28, 2026 Nominated candidates Candidates who have been nominated to run for office Campaign signage When and where campaign signage can be erected Voting options Advance voting opportunities Voter eligibility Are you eligible to vote?

09/24/2026

Canada needs immigrants
=================
Canada's immigration debate is increasingly being conducted as if immigration itself were the country's central economic problem. The latest demographic evidence that I hear recently on the news tells a different story. According to the report, on July 1, 2026, Canada's population reached 41.8 million, but the country added only 189,425 people over the previous year, a growth rate of 0.5 per cent. Statistics Canada reports that this was the lowest annual population growth in absolute terms since 1944-45 and the lowest percentage growth since 1915-16. Population growth had reached 2.8 per cent in 2023-24. It is now one-sixth of that rate. At the same time, Canada is getting older. The median age reached 40.9 in July 2026. The rapid population growth of recent years had temporarily slowed the aging process, largely because international migration brought more people into younger working-age groups. As migration has fallen, population aging has resumed. This is the demographic reality politicians should be discussing.
Immigration isn't a cure for Canada's housing shortage, productivity problems or pressure on public services. Those are failures of policy capacity. But reducing immigration doesn't solve them either. It reduces one of the few mechanisms Canada has for replenishing its working-age population while the country ages.
If housing construction fails to keep pace with population growth, the answer is to build more housing. If hospitals can't meet demand, the answer is to expand health-care capacity. If infrastructure is inadequate, governments need to build infrastructure. Blaming immigrants for shortages created by inadequate planning confuses population growth with the failure to prepare for it. The labor market makes the argument even clearer. Canada needs workers not only for economic expansion but to replace workers who are retiring. Immigration is therefore not simply about adding people to the economy. It is about maintaining the productive base of an aging society.
Manitoba provides a particularly clear example. The province projects 138,400 job openings between 2025 and 2029. Of those, 79,700 are expected to arise from retirements and deaths. Over the same period, Manitoba expects 66,200 workers to leave through retirement and another 13,500 through deaths. The province projects a further net loss of 24,000 workers through interprovincial migration. International immigration is expected to add approximately 33,500 workers. The arithmetic is straightforward. Manitoba can't afford to think about immigration solely as a population-management issue. It is a workforce issue. That doesn't mean every immigrant automatically fills a labor shortage. Canada has another serious problem: it often attracts skilled people without making effective use of their skills. Engineers drive taxis. Nurses work outside health care. Tradespeople struggle through credential barriers. Professionals spend years trying to enter occupations in which Canada claims to need workers. Canada should measure immigration by economic outcomes, not simply admission numbers. Are newcomers employed? Are their qualifications being recognized? Are they earning at levels consistent with their skills? Are they starting businesses? Are they staying in the communities that need workers? Are their children becoming successful Canadians? Those are the questions that matter.
The same principle applies to Manitoba. The province expects immigration to remain an important source of workforce growth, while also facing substantial retirement losses and continued migration of workers to other provinces. If Manitoba attracts newcomers but can't retain them, the problem isn't that immigrants came. The problem is that Manitoba failed to create the economic and social conditions necessary for them to stay.
This is where the national debate has gone wrong. Canada has treated immigration policy, housing policy, infrastructure policy and labor-market policy as separate files when they are parts of the same demographic equation.
A serious immigration strategy would connect them. Set immigration levels against housing construction. Match economic immigration to genuine labor demand. Accelerate credential recognition. Expand infrastructure where population is growing. Improve settlement and language programs. Protect temporary workers from exploitation. Give provinces and communities stronger tools to retain the people they attract. None of this requires pretending that immigration has no costs. Rapid population growth can place pressure on housing and public services. Poorly designed temporary migration programs can distort labor markets. Weak settlement and retention policies can leave communities carrying costs without receiving the long-term economic benefits. Those are legitimate policy questions. But they are arguments for better management, not for treating immigrants as the problem.
Canada's demographic numbers are moving in the opposite direction from the political narrative. Growth has slowed dramatically. The population is aging. Fertility remains low. Manitoba expects tens of thousands of workers to leave its labor force through retirement while also losing workers to other provinces. Immigration remains one of the principal sources available to replenish that workforce.
Canada doesn't need an immigration policy built around the assumption that fewer people automatically means fewer problems. It needs a government capable of turning population growth into economic capacity. The real failure isn't that Canada welcomed immigrants. The failure would be welcoming people without building the homes, infrastructure, institutions and economic opportunities that allow them to contribute fully. Immigrants aren't a substitute for good policy. They are one of the country's most important assets when good policy is in place.
Learn, Relearn, Unlearn

09/08/2026

ETHIOPIAN NEW YEAR CELEBRATION!
🌟 ENKUTATASH 2019 🌟
Let’s welcome the New Year together!
📅 Saturday, September 12, 2026
📍 Ethiopian Cultural Center
215 Selkirk Avenue, Winnipeg
🕘 9:00 PM – 2:00 AM
Ethiopian Music • Dancing •
Bring your family, friends, and your Ethiopian spirit!
Come dressed in your favorite Ethiopian traditional attire and celebrate our culture, heritage, and community together.
ONE COMMUNITY. ONE CULTURE. ONE CELEBRATION!
LET’S COUNT DOWN TO THE NEW YEAR TOGETHER!

09/02/2026

Our Vote Matters
===========
The Winnipeg municipal election is approaching. I want to speak directly to our Ethiopian community about something that can easily be taken for granted here: the right to vote.
For many of us, democracy isn't just an idea we learned about in school. We know what it means when people don't have the freedom to speak openly, organize politically or choose their leaders. We know that people in Ethiopia and in other parts of the world have paid an enormous price for demanding those basic rights. Some have been imprisoned. Some have been tortured. Some have lost their lives. That experience should make us appreciate what we have here. In Winnipeg, we can choose the people who run our city without fear. We can disagree with them openly. We can question their decisions. We can decide at the ballot box whether they deserve another term. That is a remarkable privilege.
The municipal election may not receive the same attention as a federal or provincial election, but the decisions made at City Hall are part of our everyday lives. They affect the roads we drive on, the buses we take, the safety of our neighborhoods, the taxes we pay, housing, libraries, recreation and many of the services our families depend on. These are not distant political issues. They are matters we encounter when we leave our homes every morning. Our community has grown significantly in Winnipeg. Ethiopian families are raising children here, building businesses, working in professions, supporting churches and community organizations, and contributing to the city in countless ways. We have become part of Winnipeg's story. Our voice should be part of its political future as well.
When candidates come asking for our votes, we should take the opportunity to ask them questions. What are they going to do about public safety? What is their plan for reliable public transportation? How will they address housing costs? What will they do to support small businesses and local economic growth? How will they make city services work better for newcomers, families and seniors? We should also look at their record. Promises made during an election campaign are easy. Governing responsibly is much harder.
We should vote for the candidate we believe will serve Winnipeg well. That means each of us should make our own decision. Talk to your family. Talk to your neighbors. Listen to the candidates. Read their platforms. Look at what they have done. Then make your choice. Some of us will reach different conclusions. That is completely normal in a democracy. What matters is that we participate. We have that opportunity here. We should not waste it. Our children are also learning from us. They are watching whether we participate in the society we have chosen to call home. They need to see that citizenship comes with responsibility, that government should be questioned, and that political power ultimately belongs to the people.
The Ethiopian community has worked hard to build a life in Winnipeg. We have faced the challenges that come with starting over, building businesses, raising families and finding our place in a new country. Now we have another way to contribute: our vote.
Please make sure you are eligible and registered, learn about the candidates, understand the issues and cast your ballot. We should never forget the value of a right that millions of people around the world still struggle to exercise freely. Your vote belongs to you. Use it. Your community needs your voice. Winnipeg needs your participation. Election Day is Wednesday, October 28, 2026!
Leran, Relearn, Unlearn

Election day - October 28, 2026 Become a candidate What you need to know to run for office Campaign signage When and where campaign signage can be erected Voter eligibility Are you eligible to vote? Registered candidates Candidates who have registered to run for office

08/27/2026

Banning Jack Daniel's or Barefoot W**e won't defend Canada
=======================================
When I see us Canadians celebrating the removal of American products from store shelves, I understand the emotion behind it. We want to feel that our country is standing up for itself. But both symbolic boycotts and dollar-for-dollar retaliation have serious limits. Removing American products from shelves may express public anger, but it doesn't build lasting Canadian economic power. Dollar-for-dollar retaliation may impose costs, but it can also raise prices for us Canadians and hurt businesses on both sides of the border. We need to look beyond gestures and short-term retaliation and focus on building the industrial, technological, energy and defence capacity that gives the country genuine economic leverage. National strength can't be built through symbolism alone.
Canada is dealing with economic pressure, political intimidation, strategic dependence, vulnerabilities in the Arctic, limited defence capacity and supply chains that leave us dependent on decisions made outside our borders. We have spent years treating national security as primarily a military question when it is also an industrial question. I have come to believe that sovereignty is ultimately measured by what a country is capable of doing for itself.
If Canada can't manufacture critical equipment, repair its own ships, secure its communications, protect its data, maintain essential supply chains or rapidly expand industrial production when circumstances demand it, our sovereignty has practical limits.
We have seen this lesson before. During the First and Second World Wars, Canada transformed its industrial capacity because the country understood that national survival required more than soldiers. Factories were converted. Shipyards expanded. Workers were trained. Industries were redirected toward a national purpose. Canada developed the capacity to produce ships, vehicles, aircraft, am******on and other equipment at a scale that contributed significantly to the war effort.
The circumstances today are different, but the underlying lesson remains relevant. Canada now needs a modern form of national mobilization. That means developing a sovereign shipbuilding and repair industry capable of supporting the Royal Canadian Navy for decades. It means acquiring submarines suited to Canada's geography and security requirements, including the Arctic and the three oceans surrounding us. It means building domestic capabilities in drones, sensors, communications, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and defence software. It also means having the industrial capacity to produce critical equipment when international supply chains become unreliable.
This can't be accomplished by government alone. Canadian manufacturers, universities, engineering firms, technology companies, investors, workers and Indigenous communities all have a role to play. First Nations should have meaningful opportunities in Arctic infrastructure, training, employment, procurement and ownership, particularly in regions where their communities possess knowledge and experience that Canada can't afford to ignore.
The Arctic deserves particular attention. Canada claims sovereignty over an enormous northern territory, but sovereignty can't simply exist on a map. It has to be supported by people, infrastructure, communications, surveillance, transportation, search and rescue capability and a credible military presence. That requires investment over decades, not announcements made during a political crisis.
There is also an economic dimension that we shouldn't overlook. A strong defence industry can strengthen the broader Canadian economy when procurement is structured to develop domestic engineering, manufacturing and technological capability. Money spent on defence can create skilled jobs, research capacity, intellectual property and companies capable of competing internationally. We have enormous natural resources. We have universities producing talented engineers and scientists. We have sophisticated manufacturers. We have capital. We have energy. We have a highly educated workforce. I don't want Canada to become a country that responds to every external pressure by removing another product from a liquor store shelf. I want us to become a country whose industrial capacity makes economic coercion much harder to use against us.
There is nothing wrong with patriotic gestures. They can matter to people. But patriotism becomes much more meaningful when it is backed by capability. A Canadian flag flying over a factory that can produce critical defence equipment means something. A Canadian shipyard capable of repairing our navy means something. Canadian satellites monitoring our Arctic mean something. Canadian engineers developing secure defence systems mean something. Canadian companies owning the technology and intellectual property behind those systems mean something. That is the Canada I want to see.
The current tensions with the United States shouldn't produce hostility toward ordinary Americans. Canada and the United States will remain neighbors, allies and deeply connected economies. Our objective shouldn't be separation from America. It should be the development of enough Canadian capacity that our relationship with America is based on choice and mutual interest rather than vulnerability. For me, that is the real meaning of sovereignty.
We should still build bridges. We should still trade. We should still cooperate with our allies. Canadians can drink whatever w**e they choose. But if we want the world to take Canada's sovereignty seriously, we need to build the economic, technological and military capacity to defend it. This is the time to think beyond the next tariff, the next headline and the next political speech. We should be thinking about the Canada we want to have twenty or thirty years from now, and building the industrial capacity today that will allow that Canada to stand on its own when circumstances become difficult.
Quebec can build ships. Ontario can build vehicles and advanced systems. Alberta and Saskatchewan can provide energy and resources. British Columbia can contribute shipbuilding and Pacific capabilities. Atlantic Canada can support naval operations and shipbuilding. Manitoba can contribute aerospace, advanced manufacturing, engineering, logistics and northern defence support. Manitoba doesn't need to wait for Ottawa to discover its importance.
I don't want to see Canada respond to every challenge with another symbolic gesture. I want to see Canadian factories producing critical equipment. I want to see Canadian engineers designing systems for the Arctic. I want to see Winnipeg companies competing for major defence contracts. I want to see Manitoba's universities and technical institutions training the people who will build the next generation of Canadian aerospace and defence technology. Most importantly, I want young Canadians to look at defence and advanced manufacturing as industries in which they can build a career, develop technology and contribute to the country. What Canada needs now is a national strategy to connect those ingredients and turn them into lasting industrial capability.
Learn, Relearn, Unlearn

08/25/2026

Who gets trusted?
============
When I read the news about the former Air Canada pilot accused of flying for years without the required Airline Transport Pilot Licence, my first reaction was not simply about aviation safety. It made me think about my own experience as an engineer trained in Ethiopia and the experience of thousands of internationally educated professionals trying to establish themselves in Canada.
According to police, Geoffrey Wall, a former Air Canada captain, allegedly operated hundreds of flights over many years without the specific licence required to serve as captain. He reportedly held a valid commercial pilot licence, but not the higher-level certification required for the position. The allegations have not been proven in court, and he is presumed innocent. What caught my attention was that the alleged discrepancy was reportedly identified only after a routine credential review many years into his career. That made me think about the enormous emphasis Canada places on credentials when internationally trained professionals arrive here. As an engineer trained outside Canada, I understand this process personally. Before an internationally educated engineer can practice independently, there can be extensive academic assessments, document verification, examinations, competency requirements, professional experience reviews, fees and years of regulatory processes before obtaining a P.Eng. through organizations such as Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba. I understand why professional regulation exists. Engineering decisions can affect public safety, just as aviation and medicine do. Competence must be demonstrated, and credentials must be verified. What troubles me is the consistency of the system. An engineer who has designed major infrastructure, managed complex engineering projects and practiced professionally for many years outside Canada can arrive here and immediately face the burden of proving that every aspect of that experience is legitimate and acceptable. Years of professional practice can count for surprisingly little until a regulatory system validates it. The Air Canada case raises a very different question. If the allegations are ultimately proven, how could an individual allegedly remain in a highly regulated safety-critical position for so many years without the required credential being identified?
The lesson I take from this is not that Canada should reduce standards for internationally trained professionals. Quite the opposite. The standards should remain rigorous, but verification should be rigorous for everyone. A professional's accent, country of education, name or immigration status should not determine how much scrutiny their credentials receive. Nor should being Canadian-born, working for a prestigious organization or holding a senior position create an assumption that credentials have already been properly verified.
As an internationally trained engineer, I do not object to being asked to prove my competence. What I question is a system that can make internationally trained professionals repeatedly prove what they know while potentially relying too heavily on assumptions about those who entered the system through a more familiar pathway.
There is also an economic cost to this approach. When experienced engineers, doctors, nurses and other professionals spend years navigating licensing requirements or working below their qualifications, Canada is not simply creating an inconvenience for immigrants. It is underusing professional capacity that the country needs. The answer is not to lower the bar. The answer is to make the bar consistent, transparent, evidence-based and proportionate to demonstrated competence. The pilot case, if the allegations are proven, should therefore prompt a broader question beyond aviation: Are our professional licensing and credential-verification systems actually measuring competence, or are they sometimes measuring how easily someone's credentials fit into the system. That is a conversation Canada should have honestly.
Learn, Relearn, Unlearn