Blocking Pain Without Breaking Lives

Blocking Pain Without Breaking Lives By Diana Gifford I hear paternal grumbling at what I’m about to say. Dr. Gifford-Jones often warned we are a “nation of wimps” when it comes to pain. He believed we were losing the toughening effect that ordinary aches and setbacks once gave us. Furthermore, anyone who has run a marathon, climbed a mountain, or given birth knows that discomfort can be part of life’s great achievements. But we can agree that when pain becomes relentless, disabling, or overwhelming, medicine should do better. Here’s a familiar story. Mrs. B. arrived in the recovery room after surgeons repaired a fractured hip. The operation was textbook. The pain was not. The medical team’s routine treatment was an opioid. Within an hour Mrs. B. was comfortable. A few days later she was calling for refills. Soon she was taking more than prescribed, feeling anxious when she tried to stop, and sleeping poorly. Older people may remember a time when pain was treated with what now seem like modest tools: aspirin, codeine, local anesthetic, ice, rest, even hypnosis. None were perfect, but none carried the dangerous seduction of modern opioids. When drugs such as oxycodone and hydrocodone arrived, they were welcomed as miracles. They work by attaching to opioid receptors in the brain and spinal cord, muting pain but also activating the brain’s reward system, the same pathway that leads to craving and dependence. What followed became one of the great public-health disasters of our time. Prescription opioid use exploded in the 1990s and 2000s, fueled by aggressive marketing and the false belief that these drugs were safe when prescribed by doctors. They were not. By 2017, about 2.1 million Americans were living with opioid use disorder, and nearly 48,000 died from overdoses in a single year. The economic cost exceeded a trillion dollars in health care, lost productivity, and broken families. Numbers like that cannot capture the grief of parents who lose a child or the despair of people trapped by addiction that began with a prescription. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug — suzetrigine — the first truly new kind of painkiller in decades. It is not an opioid. It does not act on the brain. Instead, it blocks pain at its source by targeting a protein on pain-sensing nerves called the NaV1.8 sodium channel. To explain, pain travels along nerves like electricity through a wire. Sodium channels are the switches that allow that signal to fire. The NaV1.8 channel is found almost exclusively in peripheral pain-sensing neurons, not in the parts of the brain that produce euphoria, addiction, or breathing suppression. By blocking this channel, drugs like suzetrigine prevent pain messages from ever reaching the brain, without the high or sedation. Clinical trials show that suzetrigine reduces post-surgical pain compared with placebo. It does not erase pain the way high-dose opioids do, but it takes the edge off in a way that allows healing to begin. Side effects have mostly been mild itching or muscle spasms, not the nausea, constipation, confusion, and addiction risk so familiar with narcotics. Other sodium-channel blockers are now in development, including those that could quiet pain for weeks after a single injection. These new drugs may be costly. Insurance coverage may lag. They may not work for all needs. And we may yet discover side effects. There is also the risk that a shiny new “non-opioid” label could distract us from the value of physical therapy, exercise, and other non-drug approaches. Still, this is science worth watching. And hopefully of better help to people in need.—————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians

Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians By Dale Jodoin Columnist I want to write this the way people actually speak when the microphones are off and the cameras are gone. Not as a lecture. Not as a warning. Just as a person who has listened long enough to notice a pattern. Something is shifting, and it has nothing to do with secret symbols, coded music, or hidden messages in culture. It has everything to do with trust being broken. Lately, large left leaning newspapers keep telling us the same story. They say the far right is quietly creeping into everyday life. They say it hides in jokes, fitness videos, clothes, online influencers, and casual conversation. They say regular people do not even notice it happening. They warn us to be afraid of our own culture. But that story does not reflect what people are actually living through. What I hear from Canadians is not fear of one another. It is frustration with a system that no longer feels fair. People feel talked down to. They feel managed instead of represented. And when they try to speak honestly, they are immediately labeled. That label is always the same. Far right. The term used to mean something serious. It described real extremism. Today, it is used as a shortcut to shut down debate. If you disagree with government policy, you are far right. If you question new laws, you are far right. If you worry about your children, you are far right. Once that word is applied, discussion ends. That is not journalism. That is social pressure. Most of the people being described this way are not radicals. They are parents trying to raise kids in a confusing world. They are workers watching prices rise while services fall apart. They are seniors scared to get sick because health care is overwhelmed. They are immigrants who came legally and feel angry that fairness has been replaced by chaos. These are not people being pulled into some dark movement. These are people paying attention. The idea that everyday culture is being infiltrated suggests that citizens are passive and easily fooled. It assumes people cannot think for themselves. It assumes they need to be protected from their own thoughts. That attitude alone explains why trust in the media is collapsing. Canadians know when something feels off. They know when the rules apply differently depending on who you are. They know when crime is explained away while victims are ignored. They know when speech is policed more harshly than violence. Young people see this clearly. They are not being radicalized. They are watching adults argue while institutions fail. They see fear used as a tool. They see words redefined. They see silence rewarded and honesty punished. Many of them are stepping back, not because they believe something extreme, but because they do not trust the system to treat them fairly. That is not dangerous. That is rational. Immigration is one of the clearest examples of how honest discussion has been poisoned. Canada has always welcomed newcomers. That has not changed. Most Canadians still believe in immigration done properly. What people object to is scale without planning, promises without infrastructure, and rules that no longer apply equally. Mass immigration without enough housing drives prices up. Without enough doctors, it overwhelms health care. Without honest expectations, it creates tension. Saying this is not hatred. It is reality. Yet if you raise these concerns, the response is not discussion. It is an accusation. Parents face the same problem. Many feel they have lost their voice. They are told not to question schools. They are told concern is harm. They are told to trust systems that refuse transparency. When parents push back, they are treated as dangerous. This creates fear, not progress. Across Europe, citizens are expressing the same frustration. They are not marching for hate. They are voting for change. They are asking for borders that work, laws that apply equally, and leaders who listen. When they do, media voices warn the public to fear them. That reaction reveals more about power than about people. What is really happening is not a rise of extremism. It is a collapse of patience. People are tired of being blamed for problems they did not create. They are tired of being told silence is kindness. They are tired of being managed by narratives instead of served by policy. This is no longer about left versus right. That argument is outdated. This is about citizens versus systems that forgot who they exist for. The people being called far right do not share one ideology. They share a sense that something fundamental is being lost. Fairness. Balance. Common sense. The ability to speak without fear. They stand against real antisemitism and real racism. They stand with Jewish Canadians who feel unsafe. They stand with Muslim Canadians who came here for freedom and peace. They stand for freedom of worship and equal law. They do not want chaos. They want stability. Calling people names will not fix housing. It will not fix health care. It will not protect children. It will not reduce crime. It only deepens resentment and destroys trust. The real danger is not culture being influenced. The real danger is citizens no longer believing those who claim to inform them. When people stop trusting media and government, society weakens. People withdraw. Conversation dies. People know when headlines do not match their lived experience. They know when fear is being sold as concern. They know when power is protecting itself. That awareness is not frightening. It is necessary. Canadians are not far right. They are not far left. They are tired of being bullied by language and ignored by policy. They are simply asking to be treated like adults again. That is not extremism. That is a country quietly but firmly asking to be heard.

2026 AN ELECTION YEAR..

2026 AN ELECTION YEAR.. By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers It has been four years since the last election. How has your life improved? Did you make the right choices back in 2022? Has the quality of life for you and your family improved? The other day in conversation with a very good friend of mine. He asked. “How would Oshawa been different if you had won in 2022?” Well, I can tell you that today. My conscious would have been cleared.  That I would have taken care of all those in need. That our streets would be free of crime and the homeless. I bring to question everyone sitting at City of Oshawa council how they can put their heads to rest every night knowing people are sleeping on our sidewalks. They should all do the honorable and resign.... but then.... What is expected. We elect people with no real life experience. No real business sense. Limited intellectual aptitude. You get what you get. People that become numb to reality and only care about cushioning their pensions and or a weekly pay check that they would not be able to obtain if not elected. Just look at where most of those former politicians end up working? Or look at where they have been working.... Not even close in responsibility and or pay. If you recall. During my candidacy, I had made it public that I would not be taking a penny in renumeration until I rid our core of crime, drugs and the homeless. I had also made it public that I would have cut wasteful expenses and un-necessary projects like the 30 million wasted on the ‘ED Broadbent’ park. There was no need to put a park next to a park. I would have not wasted 70 million of your hard earned tax dollars on investing on the what we know best as the GM Center. I would have not wasted 30 million on the outdoor Rotary pool. I would have surely not wasted another 10 million on the downtown Oshawa ‘Veterans’ Park. These major announced waste of taxpayer money. Sums up to about 140 million. This all money that could have gone to better the quality of life for all taxpayers. No instead what do we have to show for it? Tax increases, year after year. Crime at an all time high. People being shot and stabbed all over Oshawa. Our downtown core looking like some third world country. I know what you are thinking... Ok, Joe. How would you have handled the homeless and crime problem. Simple, With 140 I would have save from not going forth with the project we have. I would have searched for the larges empty warehouse we have. Possibly one of GM former complexes. I would be interested in a 400,000 sq. ft plus. I would have retro, so that it would be able to have four features. 1. It would bring people from the cold. A screening place where people cold sleep, shower and eat. Anyone on our streets or living in tents would be brought there. Once there they would be assessed. If in need of mental health. They get moved in the same building to an area dedicated to mental health. With paid professionals out of the 140 million wasted. Those that needed jobs and a chance at life. We would move them to the third part of the facility. There they be given a job through the city... Or at the facility. We would implement a garbage squad program where they would get paid to clean up our city. We would create work programs for all kinds of disciplines.... Those with families would be moved to the fourth part of the facility. A place where you could raise a family based on a program that would promote building character through special programs that would assist those families in need. Anyone caught using drugs would be arrested and banned from Oshawa. Anyone with a substance abuse would get treatment. We need to give these folks hope. We need to be pro-active. We need to rid our streets of crime due to desperation. Crime is an animal of desperation not so much of choice. Those that actually choose crime. The police will deal with them. Change can come you have to wonder. Remember 2026 is your chance to make real choice and clean your City.

For Love Or Money!!!

For Love Or Money!!! By Wayne and Tamara I’ve been married twice and think I was a good husband. Shortly after my son was born, my first wife started staying out until the wee hours. I cared for our two young children while she prowled for men. She became hostile anytime I objected, and screamed at me in front of our children. At the urging of her family, I divorced her and now have my children most of the time. My second marriage ended when I found my wife having relations with the frozen food deliveryman. The truth is neither of my wives loved me. They liked my earning potential, but they did not love me. In any case, reading websites promoting affair-repairing services, I wondered why infidelity was such a deal-breaker for me. Was I simply a less evolved, less forgiving type? I know in my day-to-day existence I am not a grudge holder. I couldn’t put my finger on why, after finding my wives were cheaters, I had no desire to reconcile. You articulate the reasons very well: the desire to be loved to the exclusion of all others, and an aversion to having to remain ever vigilant in the future. Your view makes so much sense to me. Gil Gil, emotion used to be considered the poor cousin of reason, but contemporary neuroscientists now see our emotions as part of how we reason. Our emotions evolved over eons for a purpose. Just as revulsion at the sight of maggots tells us not to eat the meat, so the soul sickness we feel at discovering infidelity is intended to protect us. Your follow-up letter, below, may reveal the source of your problems. Wayne & Tamara Rest Of The Story After my second divorce and a period where I wanted to be alone and take care of my kids, I went on a date. I really like this woman, and we became close. I was honest about my kids being a big priority, and she seemed fine with that. After four months and hearing she loved me and was so happy, she came to me one night and broke up, citing her trepidation about being in a relationship with a guy with young children. I was saddened but thanked her for her honesty. Two days later I called to return the books she loaned me. She was not home so I left a message I would leave them on the porch, wrapped up. When I got to her house, she was home and invited me in for coffee. She then asked for a hug and tried to kiss me. I excused myself and said goodbye. Two weeks later she began emailing, saying how hard this was and how her heart was breaking. The last email included her photo in a revealing, see-through dress. After one email from her describing how compatible we were, I asked if she wanted to still be a couple, as I had strong feelings for her. She said no, due to my obligations to my kids. Why on earth does she keep emailing me? Gil Gil, this woman is offering you a choice. “You can have what I’m offering in the photo, or you can have your children. But you can’t have both.” Women who exude sexuality may offer excitement, but excitement is not fidelity or love. When a woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants from you, believe she will use it on other men as well. Ask yourself if that is not the story of your two marriages. Sex may be your Achilles’ heel. If you confuse unvarnished sexuality with the sexuality which flows from love, or if you unconsciously use money to generate female interest, that may explain your problem with women. You want to know why this happened to you before, and it appears you are in the midst of doing it again. Wayne & Tamara

When Seniors Are Told to Borrow to Survive, Leadership Has Failed

The Mayor of Pickering—who is already raising property taxes by nearly 3.5 percent—has now supported a motion at Durham Region to raise property taxes by another 4.8 percent on the regional portion. Here’s the brief history: Durham staff originally proposed a 6.04 percent property tax increase. A motion was brought forward to cap that increase at 3 percent, with the remaining portion covered by reserve funds—specifically to help taxpayers during a cost-of-living crisis. That motion failed. Instead, Pickering’s Mayor supported a 4.8 percent increase, which will be voted on later this month. And if that fails, taxes could jump right back to 6.04 percent or even higher. So residents—especially seniors—are being hit twice. This is happening at a time when people are choosing between healthy food and gas in their car; when families are cancelling vacations they once counted on; and when food bank lineups keep getting longer, not shorter. And when concerns were raised at the meeting about seniors struggling to afford their homes, the solution offered by Pickering’s Mayor was a reverse mortgage. After a lifetime of work. After decades of paying property taxes. After trying to leave something to their children or grandchildren. The answer offered was: borrow against your home to survive the taxes being imposed on you. That is not sound financial advice. That is the system telling seniors to liquidate their dignity so government doesn’t have to change course. This pattern is not isolated to Pickering. It is happening across Durham Region. What makes this impossible to ignore is how easily money is found for other priorities: a million-dollar door; layers of consultants; special-interest spending; foreign aid sent without taxpayer consent; and non-urgent projects while basic infrastructure crumbles. In Pickering, Council voted—mid-afternoon—to spend upwards of $300 million on a recreation complex in Seaton, an area not even fully built out yet. That decision puts Pickering into at least $331 million in new debt within a single year. When I asked to delay the vote so residents could be consulted—by simply sending a questionnaire to every household—asking whether they supported this level of spending, the Mayor said doing so would be fiscally irresponsible. So when residents are told there is no flexibility, no room for relief, and no alternative but higher taxes and personal debt, that is not because the money does not exist. It is because of how and where it is being spent. There is money in Pickering. There is money in Durham. In my view, it is being directed toward the wrong priorities. This disconnect becomes even clearer when hardship fails to change leadership behaviour. If seniors lose their homes, if families cannot put food on the table, if residents are forced to rely on food banks—nothing slows down the machine. I know this because of what has been done to me. Under this Mayor’s leadership, 100 percent of the financial sanctions imposed in 2024 and 2025 came from inside City Hall—from the CAO, fellow councillors, and the Mayor himself. Staff were directed to comb through my social media, op-eds, and YouTube videos to find anything that could be used to file Code of Conduct complaints against me. The stated reason, repeatedly, was that I had “not learned my lesson yet.” Those sanctions have left me unpaid for 21 months—not because I did anything unlawful, but because I refused to fall in line, refused to stay silent, and refused to stop speaking the truth. That is not accidental. It sends a clear message to other municipal councillors: speak out, and you will be punished. If elected officials can be financially sanctioned into poverty for dissent, residents should ask themselves how much concern exists for people who do not have a microphone, a platform, or a vote at the table. And while residents are told to “find a way,” this advice comes from leadership that has no issue travelling for conferences and business—often on the taxpayer’s dime. In many cases, this includes staff as well. You do not raise taxes until people are in survival mode and then tell them debt is the solution. You do not protect consultant spending, prestige projects, and special-interest funding while asking seniors to remortgage their homes. You do not push people to the edge of poverty and call it fiscal responsibility. That is not leadership. That is cold, bureaucratic indifference—delivered by people insulated from the consequences of their own decisions. Seniors do not need lectures. They do not need financial gymnastics. Durham residents need relief. Pickering does not need leaders who squeeze residents, ignore hardship, and protect wasteful spending—then suggest borrowing as a way out. Politicians shape the fate of the people they govern. If I were Mayor, and if I held strong-mayor powers, I would use them to change the trajectory for families and seniors—so people could flourish, not merely survive. So no one has to choose between food and gas. So seniors can stay in the homes they worked their entire lives to pay for. So families can afford stability—not extravagance, but dignity. That is what responsible leadership looks like. It does not push people to the edge. It pulls them back from it.

Only Child Dreams - The Transition from Being an Only Child to One of Four Kids

Only Child Dreams - The Transition from Being an Only Child to One of Four Kids By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Growing up as an only child, I spent my days hoping for a sibling. I was always looking for someone to talk to, play with, or go places with. I hoped and prayed for a brother or sister to accompany me through my boring days, and for over fifteen years I was disappointed. As I got older, I stopped hoping, adjusting to independence in place of reliance. However, just as I accepted my life as an only child, I was introduced to three kids who would make every dream come true; my future step siblings. In February of 2025, my mom and I moved in with her boyfriend and his three kids. The move felt very sudden, and confusing. We originally planned for us to move together in late 2026 or early 2027, when I was in grade 12 and could drive myself to school. Now it was early 2025, and my mom decided we were going to move soon. It felt like I blinked, and all of a sudden I was packing everything into big boxes. By late February, our two person basement apartment had been replaced by a chaotic home, inhabited by six people and three pets. The biggest adjustment for me was my new role as a sister, a role which I’d never been exposed to before. Time which was once spent reading alone was replaced by helping with homework, time to bake was now used to pick up after others and do chores that were never mine to begin with. Although I had known the kids for almost three years, always being surrounded by them felt new and unfamiliar. Every boundary I knew had changed and I found myself struggling to adjust to the simplest things. I worried about what to talk about during meals, where I could be in the house without bothering anyone, and when I could go out without causing scheduling issues. At first, the new dynamics felt like a maze. However, over time the change got easier, and now it feels almost normal. I’ve realized my step-sisters are like built in best friends, who make sure there’s never a dull moment in my day. I’ve accustomed to my step-brother, who always has an honest opinion, even when I don’t want to hear it. They’re an aspect of my day that feels so normal, yet so special at the same time. I know it would leave a gap in my life if they left. I think what made the transition, and even my time now, easiest was the time apart. My step-siblings only spend half of their time at my house, and the other half living with their mom. These rotating weeks act as a break a lot of siblings don’t have. They’re my time to see my friends, focus on my own work, or do personal projects. By the time my week alone is almost over, I miss my step-siblings and I’m excited for them to come home. It’s a system that I’m lucky to have in place, as it made it easier to adjust to a new family, and it helps even now. With my step-siblings, I’ve not just adjusted to them, but also feel like I belong among them. Despite the fact I came into their family late, I don’t feel excluded or different from them. The four of us laugh like siblings, fight like siblings, and share like siblings. Even when I’m arguing with them, or getting annoyed at something they said, I appreciate them the same. In the span of 10 months, I have found a family which I always wished for, and it feels right. I will forever be grateful for that. Despite my gratitude, not everything is perfect. There have been many doors slammed and voices raised which have made me wish things were back as they used to be, back as I grew up with. However, that feeling doesn’t last, and we always make up, as family does. The imperfections don’t just come from others; I know I also have room for improvement as a sister. I need to be more patient and understanding. I’m quick to get annoyed when my step-siblings are bothering me while I’m working, even if they just want to spend time together. I get upset when they don’t clean, even if they don’t notice the mess in the first place. Sometimes, I get upset over small jokes they made and make a big deal out of nothing. Over time, I hope to fix these habits so I can be a better sister, a fitting member of the family. For fifteen years, I wished to have a brother or sister to spend time with. Now I have three of them, and it’s so much different than I imagined. Our household is one of chaos and arguments, but also of gamenights and laughter. I try to appreciate every second of it, because I know my younger self would be thrilled to spend time with my new family. Most days, I’m thrilled to spend time with them too.

A LOOK AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF CANADA’S DECLINE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2025

A LOOK AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF CANADA’S DECLINE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2025 NATIONAL POST COLUMNIST TRISTAN HOPPER released a short work of roughly 164 pages last April entitled ‘Don’t be Canada: How the Great White North did Everything Wrong all at Once.’ In it, he says Canada has mismanaged several critical issues compared to other developed nations, including drug and crime policies, euthanasia, health care, transgender policy, the judiciary, and housing. “We just sort of became wildly complacent and got into a headspace that we were special, we were Canadian, we had a functioning society, and ... we didn’t have to defend it,” Hopper said in an interview with the Epoch Times. His work makes for interesting reading, and it reminded me of an earlier volume penned by author and journalist Kenneth McDonald, a copy of which I bought during my time as a college student in Toronto. McDonald’s work is entitled ‘His Pride Our Fall: Recovering from the Trudeau revolution.’ It’s a critique about Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, and the damage that resulted from 16 years of Trudeaumania when, as prime minister, the elder Trudeau made himself a nuisance by inserting the tentacles of government where they had no place to be – in the private lives of ordinary citizens. Once a thriving nation, Canada has seen a steep erosion in prosperity and security since 2015 as a direct result of self-inflicted policy failures. My column this week will highlight some of the philosophical extremes from the first Trudeau ‘legacy’ which ultimately gave rise to the disastrous sequel, during which time Justin Trudeau aggressively pursued a vision of Canada that has left us with a crippling debt, an ever-expanding government, and a variety of misguided policies on immigration, justice reform, and gender issues – just to name a few. Let’s begin by identifying the state, or what I like to refer to as Big Government, for what it is; a massive regulator of all things – a sort of untamable master exercising full dominion over its people. Those are my words, however Kenneth McDonald offers the following analysis: “The secret of (the state’s) power lies in its very remoteness. “It is one thing to refrain from advising the man next door, whom we know. “It is another thing altogether to compose a set of regulations for people collectively…not in order to create wealth, but to regulate the private citizens who are engaged in wealth creation.” When the growth of the state passes beyond control, as ours has, it becomes a law unto itself. Justin Trudeau enjoyed a powerful opportunity to bring forward a self-satisfying process of dismantling a nation that he described in a 2015 interview with The New York Times as “a country with no core identity, no mainstream…" which he said made it the "first post-national state". As ludicrous as that sounds, it has its origins in Pierre Trudeau’s own policies - most notably official multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – both of which were manifestly created to shift the Canadian identity away from its traditional Eurocentric and Common Law heritage towards a more civic framework based on universal liberal values. In 1971, Trudeau introduced official multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. This policy was revolutionary because it decoupled state and culture, and It asserted that no single cultural entity could (or should) define Canada. It was an attempt to actually delegitimize – in his view - the idea of a "core" national identity. As most of us now realize, encouraging diverse ethnic groups to preserve their own heritage has not resulted in a peaceful Canada enjoying some sort of fictional mosaic. Rather, we have become a series of politically armed cultural camps – each one jostling the other in an attempt to gain power and control. On the matter of our economy, or more to the point, what’s left of it, we can look back to 1971 when the prevailing wisdom among Trudeau’s inner circle suggested that, to one who sees some people as poor while others are rich, it may seem obvious that the rich should share some of their wealth – and if they are at all reluctant, surely a just society would require (force) them to do it. From this rather frightening inclination sprung the idea within the Liberal Party – one that remains central to their manifesto – that state socialism is, in itself, part of the ‘age of miracles’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's premiership (1968–1984) marked a definitive shift toward structural deficit spending in Canada. The federal government had carried debt since Confederation (1867) to finance nation-building and wars, however, Trudeau oversaw a period of nearly continuous and rapidly increasing budget deficits – a tradition carried on by his son and political heir, Justin. Trudeau the elder’s first budget ran a deficit of $667 million, and as a result of his spending habits, Canada's national debt increased from approximately $18 billion to over $200 billion, representing a more than tenfold increase, or roughly 700% in nominal terms. Not to be outdone by his father, Justin Trudeau’s first budget saw a deficit of $19.0 billion after accounting adjustments, and during his ten years in office, the total debt in Canada nearly doubled, reaching approximately $654.2 billion by the end of the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Like father, like son. Of course, one cannot attempt to highlight the more disastrous aspects of the Trudeau-x2 legacy without referencing the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a legal instrument that has caused significant damage to our justice system by having shifted too much power to unelected judges, allowing them to overrule the will of democratically elected legislatures. Charter challenges can be lengthy and complex, contributing to delays in the justice system - but more importantly, certain judicial interpretations of the Charter have made it much more difficult to secure convictions for serious crimes. Now isn’t that just great. Once again, not to be outdone by his father, Trudeau the younger made his own legal mess through a determination to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearms offences, and to codify a ‘principle of restraint’ into law which encouraged granting bail at the earliest opportunity. Fast forward to today and we all know the results of his "soft-on-crime" ideology and the disastrous outcomes that have allowed repeat offenders the freedom to commit more crimes. And yet, in spite of the damage left by these two men, there exists an element within Canadian society who refuse to accept certain realities, preferring instead to hold on to a collective dream where peace and love and good intentions are all that is needed. God help them – and indeed, the rest of us.

Happy New Year!

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Happy New Year! The New Year has started with a bang. With the municipal election just ten months away, we are already seeing declarations of intent across the province. In Durham Region alone, we are facing two open mayoral seats—in Ajax and Oshawa—and we already have two serious contenders announcing their intentions to run: Regional Councillor Marilyn Crawford and Regional Councillor Tito Dante Marimpietri. To be clear, candidates are allowed to announce their intention to run, but they cannot file nomination papers, fundraise, or spend money until the official nomination period opens. Both Crawford and Marimpietri bring significant experience to the table, and what I find refreshing about each of them is that they are not simply rubber stamps for staff reports. That matters. We’ve seen very clearly this year that the ability to make independent political decisions—and to withstand peer pressure, especially at the regional level—is not just a nice quality, but a necessary one for any mayor in Ontario. In Ajax, Councillor Crawford would be well positioned to succeed current Mayor Shaun Collier. Expect homelessness to be a key issue, and look for challenges from extreme left-wing voices, including Councillor Sterling Lee. In Oshawa, the strength of Tito’s potential run lies in fiscal responsibility—particularly his unwavering support for the creation of an Auditor General, both locally and at the regional level. These are only two mayoral contenders so far. Expect more names to come forward and make these races increasingly interesting. As I write this column, it comes as no surprise that polling shows the Premier’s proposed Highway 401 tunnel being viewed by the general public as exactly what it sounds like: ridiculous. Most people know I am a strong supporter of the Premier. That said, not every move deserves blind loyalty. Having spent time around construction and roadwork, I know one of the biggest cost drivers is unknown soil conditions. A tunnel under the 401 is, quite frankly, f***ing ridiculous. The real bombshell Mr. X is dropping this week concerns Bowmanville. The tragic downtown fire was one of the most significant local news stories of the year. The community came together in an incredible way to support the affected businesses and families. What Mr. X has uncovered, however, is deeply troubling. Just months before the fire, the administration of the Municipality of Clarington made a decision to stop proactively conducting fire prevention inspections in the residential units above downtown storefronts—specifically in the area where the fire later occurred. I have spoken with two former staff members and one current staff member who were either included on, or directly aware of, an internal email chain. In those emails, administration instructed both the Building Department and the Fire Department to cease inspections in the downtown core because the issue was deemed “too politically volatile.” Let me be clear: proactive fire prevention could very well have prevented this tragedy. I certainly would not want to be on the receiving end of the class-action lawsuit that may follow, and the Municipality of Clarington has placed itself squarely in that position. I am proud of the former and current employees who had the courage to come forward and expose the immense liability the municipality has created by abandoning fire inspections for political convenience. If any municipality in Durham Region needs change—from the top down—it is the Municipality of Clarington. Stay tuned. More mayoral announcements are coming across Ontario.

Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office

Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada does not lack political talent. What it increasingly lacks is political leaders who have lived meaningful working lives outside politics before asking voters for power. Over the past two decades, Ottawa has quietly normalized a narrow career pipeline: university, partisan internship, political staffer, senior adviser, nomination contest, elected office. Many MPs now arrive in Parliament fluent in messaging, strategy, and procedure—but unfamiliar with payrolls, private-sector risk, frontline public services, or life outside the political bubble. This is not renewal. It is monoculture. If Canadians want better policy and greater public trust, political parties should adopt a clear expectation: no one should run for elected office without substantial work experience outside politics. Not as a symbolic suggestion, but as a serious norm shaping nominations and political culture. A Closed Political Ecosystem Ottawa has become an echo chamber. Political staffers work long hours, but within a narrow universe dominated by polling, communications strategy, stakeholder optics, and partisan warfare. Over time, reality is filtered through briefing notes rather than lived experience. This helps explain why governments increasingly confuse announcements with outcomes. Billions are “invested,” strategies unveiled, targets proclaimed—yet housing remains unaffordable, infrastructure projects run late and over budget, and health-care access deteriorates. Politics becomes performative, while results lag. When people who have never left the bubble write the rules, they often mistake motion for progress. They know how to manage process, but not consequences. Why Outside Work Experience Changes Judgment There is a fundamental difference between studying how the economy works and participating in it. Someone who has run a small business understands regulatory burden in their bones. Someone who has managed people knows that labour shortages are not solved by press releases. A nurse, teacher, engineer or tradesperson understands burnout, staffing gaps, and operational reality in ways no departmental memo can capture. These experiences create judgment. They teach trade-offs, limits, and humility. They discourage ideological rigidity and bureaucratic fantasy. Canada’s political class increasingly lacks this grounding. Too many MPs arrive skilled in social media but inexperienced in balance sheets. Too many cabinet ministers have negotiated caucus politics but never negotiated a commercial contract. Too many critics of “corporate greed” have never tried to keep an enterprise alive through inflation, interest-rate shocks, and supply-chain disruptions. This gap shows up in policy failure after policy failure—across party lines. Policy Made by People Who Don’t Bear Its Costs Consider housing. Ottawa produces endless plans, funding envelopes, and targets, yet affordability worsens. Why? Because policymakers underestimate timelines, misunderstand incentives, and overestimate state capacity. Few have ever tried to build anything—literally or figuratively. Consider infrastructure. Anyone who has managed projects outside government knows that missed deadlines and cost overruns carry consequences. In Ottawa, they generate reviews and task forces. Consider health care. Decisions about staffing models, compensation structures, and reform are routinely made by people who have never worked a night shift, covered for a sick colleague, or faced a waiting room full of frustrated patients. These failures are not abstract. They shape daily life for millions of Canadians. And they are exacerbated by a political class trained in politics before life. A Crisis of Representation There is also a deeper democratic cost. Voters increasingly distrust politicians not only because they disagree with them, but because they do not recognize them. When candidates have spent their entire adult lives in politics, empathy sounds rehearsed. Outrage feels performative. Solutions feel disconnected. Canada once sent farmers, factory workers, engineers, nurses, entrepreneurs, and veterans to Parliament in large numbers. Today, staffers and lawyers dominate. Both groups have value—but neither should dominate to this extent. Politics should not be a profession you enter before you have lived under the rules you intend to write. Answering the Objections Defenders of the status quo argue that political staffers gain deep insight into how government works. That is true—but incomplete. Knowing how to move a file through a department is not the same as knowing whether the file makes sense in the real world. Others worry that valuing outside experience could disadvantage young or marginalized candidates. In reality, the current system already favours those who can afford low-paid internships and precarious Hill jobs in expensive cities. Valuing experience gained in trades, community work, small business, or frontline services could broaden—rather than narrow—the pool. This is not about age. It is about perspective. How Parties Can Act—Now This reform does not require new laws. Political parties control nominations. They could: · Discourage staffers from running without a minimum period in non-political employment; · Explicitly value outside work experience in nomination criteria; · Introduce cooling-off periods between senior staff roles and candidacy; and · Require transparent disclosure of candidates’ work histories so voters can judge for themselves. None of this bans anyone from running. It simply changes incentives—and expectations. A Healthier Politics Political staffers are not the problem. They work hard and are essential to democracy. However, working in politics is not the same as living outside it. Canada would be better governed if fewer politicians learned politics first and life second. Until then, Ottawa will remain trapped by its most dangerous illusion: that understanding government is the same as understanding the country. Before we trust people to run Canada, we should insist they first live in it—beyond the bubble. Hope somebody will listen.

A FEW PEOPLE AND EVENTS THAT APPEARD IN THIS COLUMN IN 2025

A FEW PEOPLE AND EVENTS THAT APPEARD IN THIS COLUMN IN 2025 HOW WE PERCEIVE THE ACTUAL SPEED OF TIME will very likely be influenced by our attention, emotions, and the inevitable series of events - whether good or bad - that conspire to shape our memories year after year. The age-old saying ‘time flies’ has never been more real for me, personally, since I began writing a weekly column for this newspaper. Constant research and the reality of having to meet a deadline every Friday has created a sort of whirlwind of activity that goes far beyond just keeping up with the news. Writing what has amounted to 55 essays on the issues of our time has definitely been a rewarding, if daunting task. For the purposes of what will be my last column for 2025, I decided to look back at some of what has transpired in local and regional politics. I now invite you to tag along with me for a short while as we consider the merits or otherwise of what amounts to a brief ‘Year in Review’. January began with Oshawa’s Mayor Dan Carter literally walking out of a committee meeting in a huff following repeated exchanges with the chair, councillor Derek Giberson. Up to that point, the Mayor had been acting as councillor Giberson’s political benefactor, and to see them at odds was a defining moment that foreshadowed a deteriorating working relationship for the rest of 2025. Meanwhile in Pickering, the new year kicked off with the publication of a YouTube video dedicated to exposing what Mayor Kevin Ashe described as “…a growing infiltration of alt-right individuals, ideologies, and influences” within his municipal arena. The video, aimed at Ward 1 city councillor Lisa Robinson, was created in a style similar to a television docudrama, complete with background music and a narration by staff. 580 days of docked pay so far haven’t been enough to put the brakes on the Ward 1 councillor’s determination, and she and her opponents still seem to be headed for some kind of final showdown. A real nail-biter, to be sure. Also in January, Durham Region councillors were seen to hold their noses and actually vote in favour of investigating the construction of a $1-Billion gondola transit system along Oshawa’s Simcoe Street corridor, extending from Lakeview Park right on up to Durham College. “We understand the public is going to be skeptical and council is going to be skeptical. It’s a new technology,” said Durham Region’s David Dunn, who gave the update on the Transit Study. “A large part of our plan moving forward will be in educating people so they can make informed decisions and they don’t just see this as a novel approach.” Good luck with that Dave, however, I for one can’t wait for the inevitable CBC documentary entitled “Gondola Apocalypse – An Oshawa Nightmare.” Should they in fact turn this story into a television movie, I can envision Dave’s character being played by Mike Myers of Austin Powers fame. Remember the famous line, “I hope I didn't just say that all out loud just now”? Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in his 1842 poem Locksley Hall, gave us the line, "In the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.” Well, in Oshawa, Mayor Carter’s thoughts turned heavily towards flexing his own muscles as he warned Council that, “At this particular time, I have embraced the Strong Mayor Powers, and I just want to remind everyone of that.” Those comments were made as some councillors had the apparent audacity to challenge a few key components of his tax-and-spend agenda during a springtime debate. Undeterred, councillor Nicholson went on to move a motion that “Council recommends a budget increase target of not more than 4% in 2026.” This proposal was ultimately successful, but without the support of the Mayor and certain councillors apparently unwilling to rule out another major tax increase, including Derek Giberson, Jim Lee, and Rick Kerr. Fast forward to Christmas Day and you’d have seen councillor Nicholson on social media still enjoying his success in having given every Oshawa taxpayer a present containing a more moderate increase of 3.89 per cent. As to councillor Jim Lee, he was ultimately joined by his colleague Derek Giberson – both of them donning a Grinch’s hat while steadfastly refusing to abandon their career-ending desire for higher spending on the backs of Oshawa taxpayers. “You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch…” Spring soon turned into summer, and things got quite heated as to proposed changes to a municipal by-law governing the number and location of social services within Oshawa’s city limits. One councillor took his colleagues to task on social media by suggesting, “If tomorrow's Zoning By-law amendment passes…it will prevent any new social services operated by a non-profit or charity from opening anywhere in the City of Oshawa within an 800 metre radius of an existing social service…” Well, the amendment did pass, and a degree of sanity has been added to an issue that still wreaks havoc on the entire downtown. Of course, the By-law as it now stands is being challenged by one or more representatives of the alt-Left who enjoy a bit of theatre, however that’s not likely to sway anyone of good sense. Also occurring in the early days of summer was a memorable ‘epic fail’ over at the Heritage Oshawa committee, as certain members decided it was in everyone’s best interest to remove an architecturally significant home from a list formulated by volunteers in 1998 identifying properties that showed built-heritage value. What was most remarkable was the flippant manner in which committee member Sarah Smale apparently came to her decision. To suggest, as she did, that a mere drive-by glance was either in whole, or in part, a suitable method of deciding the fate of a historically unique structure was tantamount to a betrayal of her role to work at preserving Oshawa’s built heritage. For his part, councillor Jim Lee was nothing less than adversarial towards the committee itself, and I foresee many more unique properties being threatened by the wrecker’s ball as a result. So that brings us to the end of 2025 as we look to the year ahead. Time alone will reveal just how the ongoing saga over at Whitby Town Hall plays out between the Mayor and councillor Yamada – who has filed a human rights complaint in his ongoing attempt to become a political dramatist. What better than to act out your own screenplay? He may want to take notes as to the drama playing out in Clarington where a lawyer - who just happens to be an elected official - was arrested and charged with uttering threats. I used to enjoy making predictions about the people and events likely to make the news, however, as time moves on I have come to expect the unexpected. You know what they say – a week is a long time in politics. Happy New Year!

Unwrapping the Values - How the Holidays Have Lost Their Spirit

Unwrapping the Values - How the Holidays Have Lost Their Spirit By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist December is a time filled with holiday joy, love, and comfort. Whether you spend the season on vacation in a tropical country or baking Christmas cookies at home, the holidays are meant to be spent with family and friends, making new memories with every moment. Despite the loving and personal message behind Christmas, it has slowly turned into something much less meaningful. For many individuals, the holiday's message has morphed into one of materialism, comparison, and stress rather than good spirits and connection. It’s easy to see how Christmas has turned into a battle of presents and financial strain. Children anticipate expensive and shiny gifts, while teens use the holiday as an excuse to ask for every little thing they’ve wanted all year. Letters to Santa can cost parents hundreds of dollars, while families struggle to fund the unrealistic expectations. All to get forgotten by the time next December rolls around, bringing an even longer and pricier list. There is nothing wrong with giving and receiving gifts; it’s part of what makes the holiday so special. I know I have made long wishlists in the past, and still look forward to unwrapping presents this December. However, it is clear materialism has overcome the magic of Christmas, replacing the festive and loving spirit with undeniable consumerism. Materialism fully replaces the Christmas spirit when individuals begin to purchase for the sake of having something to give, rather than with any real meaning or thought behind it. The pressure to fill the tree can turn gift-giving into a checklist, where quantity matters more than personal thought. Many of these items are forgotten, tucked away while the moment of excitement fades almost instantly. Celebrating the holidays shouldn’t feel like an obligation or a financial burden, yet modern expectations have created the standard that more is better. Consumers assume more, bigger, and expensive gifts are the key to Christmas happiness, which is often not the case. The most significant gifts are not defined by a price tag, but by memories, emotion, and clear thought. This may come in the form of a book that they’d like, or a makeup product they’ve been eyeing for weeks. It shouldn’t be about filling a compulsory list, but showing you care. For me, this often means making presents myself, whether they be physical photo collages, baked goods or special crafts. It’s about personalization and meaning, which does not always come in the form of a big box or an expensive price. However, this is easy to be forgotten, even as the receiver. In 2025, the season is no longer about personal satisfaction, but is also deeply connected to comparison to others, especially online. Many people appreciate their gifts until they open TikTok and see an influencer with a tree three times fuller than theirs. In seconds, gratitude has turned to disappointment, overshadowed by everything you didn’t receive instead of what you did. It’s time to shift the focus away from materialism and back toward memories, quality time, and meaningful traditions. There are so many other aspects of the celebrations which fill individuals with irreplaceable joy, from big meals to festive movies. For me, that joy comes from childhood traditions, such as opening stockings on my moms bed before I’m fully awake, eating cinnamon buns for breakfast and bacon sandwiches for lunch, or visiting my family friends after church on Christmas Eve. These memories are what made Christmas so memorable when I was younger, and are the reason Christmas is so special now. Even as my traditions change, they spark nostalgia that no gift could ever replace. This year will be a new experience, as I am celebrating the holidays with my step-siblings for the first time. While the traditions may look different, the importance of being together remains the same. There may be a new tree, but I will enjoy decorating it the same way. The food may be different, but within a few years it will have a deeper meaning, similar to the one prior. There may be additional people, but that just provides the opportunity to share more joy. That’s what truly defines the season; the people, the traditions, and the emotions. Regardless of what you celebrate, the holidays are meant to be a time of hope, joy, and quality time with loved ones. Unfortunately, this message is often lost beneath wrapping paper, price tags, and social media comparison. However, those are the things that last long after the decorations come down. Not material and unappreciated presents, but meaningful experiences. That’s the only way to get into the Christmas spirit; with love and appreciation.

Why Big Science Matters

Why Big Science Matters By Diana Gifford We applaud people solving problems who are focused, efficient, and fast. But I was recently reminded that progress doesn’t always follow a straight line. Before investigators can conduct studies that yield breakthroughs, they often need others to finance and build major research infrastructure. It takes time, with various stops and starts, different collaborations often involving many institutions and countries, and not always a clear sense of direction. TRIUMF, Canada’s national particle accelerator centre in Vancouver, a partnership of 21 universities, enables study on the inner workings of atoms. The high-energy cyclotron technology developed there, and the specialists trained to use it, produce lifesaving isotopes used to diagnose cancer and guide treatment. As Dr. Lisa Kalynchuk, Vice-President of Research & Innovation at the University of Victoria, put it to me: “When you invest in scientific infrastructure, you’re investing in possibility. You can’t always predict where breakthroughs will appear – but you can create the conditions for them to flourish.” The Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon is a synchrotron – essentially a machine that bends electrons until they emit intense light. It was built to explore the physics and chemistry of advanced materials, enabling researchers to visualize viruses, investigate chronic lung disease, and understand how drugs interact with the body. Infrastructure constructed for physics and engineering research functions as a lab for understanding human life. The International Space Station is an example of extraterritorial international collaboration at the frontiers of scientific exploration. It is also a health lab. Astronauts lose bone density rapidly in microgravity, so efforts to keep them strong have helped with osteoporosis, frailty, and aging here on Earth. Ocean Networks Canada collects and shares data about all aspects of the ocean. The seas are a source of medicines for cancer treatment, new sustainable materials from kelp, renewable energy that reduces the negative health effects from burning fossil fuels, resources to reduce food insecurity, and adapting ocean life systems to better understand human health. The unusually large nerve fibres of squid, for example, made it easier for scientists to understand the electrical basis of the nervous system, knowledge that is shaping treatments for epilepsy, depression, and Parkinson’s disease. Some of the greatest breakthroughs in human health have arrived not by design, but by accident – provided an inquisitive mind was paying attention. Alexander Fleming wasn’t searching for the world’s first antibiotic when he returned from holiday to find that a wandering mold had killed bacteria on a petri dish. Yet penicillin went on to prevent more deaths than we can count. As Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors only the prepared mind.” Increasingly, big science facilities throw researchers from different domains together, triggering unexpected and important outcomes. These examples remind us why we must invest in large scale research collaboration even when the practical benefits are not obvious. It’s tempting to demand that every dollar be tied to a clear payoff. But history teaches the opposite. Discoveries emerge when we give scientists the freedom to ask bold questions, even ones that seem unrelated to human health. To insist that research must always serve a tidy, immediate purpose is to miss the possibility of much more. Most people will never see a cyclotron or synchrotron at work. Very few will set foot on the Space Station. But many are benefitting. The decisions made years earlier – that few noticed, debated, or celebrated – have delivered health advances that now touch almost all of us. The next time we hear about governments debating billions in scientific infrastructure, we might remember, these aren’t abstract investments. They are the seedbeds of discoveries that one day may save our lives. —————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

Many Canadians Take Extra Risks When Traveling Without Insurance

Many Canadians Take Extra Risks When Traveling Without Insurance By Bruno M. Scanga Purchasing travel insurance is one of the easiest decisions you will ever make. However, the sad reality is that many Canadians do not purchase proper coverage before they travel and, in some cases, medical expenses incurred in foreign countries have forced some families into bankruptcy. In 2009, CBC News reported that Canadians made nearly 40 million day trips or overnight excursions to the US.1 This number does not include the number of travelers going abroad for vacations or business functions. In 2012, the Toronto Sun reported that 6 in 10 people2 do not arrange for travel insurance coverage when leaving the country. Traveling without insurance is a risky venture and Canadians pay tens of millions of dollars each year for unexpected injuries or illnesses that require out-of-country hospital care; even if only for a day trip. Why Buy Travel Insurance? Nearly everyone insures their vehicles, homes, and life in the event of an accident, natural disaster or fire. So why are Canadians reluctant to buy travel insurance for the same reasons? Some think it is unnecessary; especially younger people who are generally in very good physical health. Others simply cannot justify the cost….that is, until they experience a problem when they are traveling. Here are a few reasons that you should invest in travel insurance: Provincial governments cover only minimal expenses for out-of-country healthcare. Claims for those expenses can take months or even years to be settled. Accidents happen. They do not discriminate as to who and where they will strike. Something as simple as a broken leg can cost upwards of $20,000.00 in foreign medical expenses. In some countries, medical facilities will refuse to treat those that do not have medical insurance coverage. Travel Insurance Providers Various institutions can provide travel insurance that is based on the length of travel, age and pre-existing medical conditions. Travel agents, insurance brokers and credit card companies offer insurance but it is important that you understand the terms and conditions and any exclusions that the policy may carry. A few of the many questions to ask are: Does the policy have continuous coverage while you are away and is it renewable if your stay becomes extended? Does the underwriter have a 24 hour, English, or French language emergency contact number? Do you have to pay for all applicable expenses and claim later, or do they pay the institution up-front? According to the Government of Canada’s website, the following incident occurred. ‘Gabrielle had insurance that lapsed three weeks before she was involved in an accident. Her Canadian family had to raise $300,000 over a three-day period to cover the costs of medical treatment and evacuation. Fortunately, she survived, but her family is left with a hefty debt to repay.’ 3 There are various types of travel insurance plans depending on your needs. Single and multi-trip policies as well as annual premiums are available. And if you are flying abroad, most plans also cover trip cancellation, loss or damage of luggage, flight, and travel accidents. Enjoy peace of mind with travel insurance for you and your whole family. Don’t risk the trip without coverage.

Those Who Will Get Hired In 2026 Will…

By Nick Kossovan It's widely predicted that 2026 will be a more challenging year for job seekers than 2025. Although there will be fewer job openings, employers will still be hiring, albeit at a slower, more selective pace. The job seekers who'll be hired will be those who hyper-focus on how they present themselves to employers. Throughout 2026 and beyond, the following factors will shape hiring processes and decisions: 1. The continuing talk of a looming recession. 2. Employers are realizing that artificial intelligence isn't a novelty—it's technology that can transform how work is done, enabling fewer employees to deliver the same level of productivity. (SUMMARY: Employers are banking less on employees and more on AI.) 3. Employers are hiring only essential employees, those who can contribute measurable value to their profitability. 4. The job market is flooded with bad actors. In light of the above, savvy job seekers are keeping in mind that employers are understandably trying to remain competitive (read: run lean) and therefore will: Demonstrate how they can add measurable value to an employer. Employers need to see how you'll be a value-add to their business; therefore, your resume and LinkedIn profile need to clearly articulate how you improved your previous employer's business. Employers are no longer willing to keep employees on payroll who aren't contributing to their bottom line; therefore, they're only hiring for positions that drive profitability. Being able to answer the question, via your resume, LinkedIn profile, cover letter and especially when interviewing—how your skills and experience have made a measurable difference to your previous employer's revenue—will expedite your job search. Have a 1 - 2-page resume. The ongoing debate about the ideal length of a resume is childish, as it overlooks that most resumes are viewed on mobile devices, and the reader's likely age isn't considered. Resumes don't get read; they get skimmed. Therefore, you need to make your resume as concise as possible, enhancing clarity by getting to the point and leaving a lasting impression rather than long, opinionated explanations. Write your resume with the understanding that in the seconds it's glanced at, the reader is looking for: · Job title relevance · Core skills that match the job description · Recent experience · Career progression · Employment stability When interviewing, demonstrate that they'll be manageable. Showing you're easy to get along with goes a long way toward getting hired. Fair or not, being likeable outweighs your skills and experience. Adopting a defensive attitude, or worse, showing a sense of entitlement, is how many job seekers get rejected. Gladly do assessment tests and assignments. Having interviewed thousands of candidates, I can unequivocally say that most talk a good game, but few can deliver. Increasingly, I'm seeing a disconnect between what candidates claim and what they can actually do. Motivated job seekers don't hesitate to prove themselves. They don't see assignments as free work, but as an opportunity to prove themselves. If, for whatever reason, you're opposed to doing assignments and assessments, then you're free—an announcement on LinkedIn isn't necessary—to leave the opportunity to someone who actually wants the job. Regarding the unsubstantiated claim that employers steal job candidates' ideas and assignments, I've yet to see any solid evidence of this having ever happened. Interview like a rock star! If you don't believe in yourself, then why should your interviewer? Get good—really good—at interviewing. "I'm not good at interviewing," or "I'm an introvert," are excuses job seekers tell themselves to stay in their comfort zone. Interviewing well, very well, is essential to landing a job; therefore, let go of the limiting beliefs that keep you from interviewing with confidence. The key to interviewing well is to know your career story, where you want to take your career, and why and what value you have added to your previous employers. Move on quickly. Yes, ghosting is annoying, but you have to get over it. Ghosting is how younger generations, who are now gatekeeping jobs, communicate. As for rejection, it's a given when job searching; therefore, expect it as part of the process. In terms of feedback, given the litigious world we live in, providing it is risky; hence, employers wisely don't give it. Accepting ghosting and rejection without judgment isn't only mentally healthy; it also saves your energy for your job search. Be willing to work on-site. Since the employer is paying for the work their employees do, they have every right to decide where that work is done. For many reasons, employers are introducing return-to-office mandates. Holding out for a remote job is a surefire way to prolong your job search. Not participate in the LinkedIn pity party or bashing employers. It amazes me how many job seekers still don't understand that employers review their LinkedIn activity and digital footprint to determine whether they're interview-worthy, and that venting publicly about job search frustrations or criticizing how employers hire only shows employers you can't control your emotions. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that many job seekers exhibit online behaviour that's hindering their job search. In 2026, job search success will come down to making yourself easier for employers to choose.

The New World Order Canada Is Walking Into

The New World Order Canada Is Walking Into By Dale Jodoin Columnist I keep hearing the same thing from people in parking lots, coffee shops, even at the checkout line when the bill comes up and everybody does that little sigh. Canada feels different now. Not in a good way. Not in a loud, dramatic way either. More like the air changed and you cannot quite explain it, but you know you are not imagining it. For a long time, Canadians believed their country was different. Not perfect, but different. You could speak your mind, go to work, go to church if you wanted, or stay home if you did not. You could start a small business with a bit of grit and a few tools. You did not feel like the government was trying to train you like a pet. That belief is fading. What is replacing it is control, wrapped up in nice words. Ottawa will tell you it is all for safety, fairness, and progress. Those words sound good. They always sound good. But the real test is not what the government says. The real test is what it builds, and how much power it gives itself to steer daily life. Start with the politics, because the politics explain the speed of everything else. The Liberals are sitting one seat away from a majority. That is close enough to change the whole mood in the country. It means they do not have to move like a careful minority government. They can move like a government that expects to win. Then a Conservative MP crossed the floor and joined the Liberals. Plenty of Canadians saw that and felt their stomach drop. I am not talking about people who live for party politics. I mean regular voters who picked a Conservative, and woke up to find their MP now wearing Liberal colours. You can call it legal, sure. But people call it a betrayal for a reason. Some people call it a traitor move. Not as a courtroom term, but as the kind of anger that comes from feeling like your vote got tossed in the trash. And even without a full majority on paper, the Liberals still get what they need because the NDP backs them on key votes. That is the part that drives people nuts. It feels like we are being governed by a majority government that did not actually win a majority. So now you have a government that is almost a majority, and a second party that keeps it standing. Then you look at the bills coming down the pipe and you think, of course they are moving fast. Who is going to stop them? This is where the bigger worry kicks in. It is not only about taxes or spending. It is about information. It is about what you are allowed to see, what you are allowed to share, and what you are allowed to say without getting dragged through the mud. Governments that want more control rarely admit it. They pick softer language. Online safety. Fighting hate. Protecting kids. You would have to be heartless to oppose the goals in a headline. But laws are not headlines. Laws are tools. And once the tools exist, they get used. Here is what I mean. Look at the online world. Streaming, social media, news. That is where most people now get information, entertainment, and even a sense of what the country is talking about. If you can shape that, you can shape the country without ever touching a ballot box. Bill C 11 brought the CRTC deeper into the streaming world. Supporters say it is about helping Canadian culture and Canadian creators. Fine. I do not hate Canadian culture. I want our artists to do well too. But here is the question people keep asking me, and it is a fair question. Why is the government getting closer to what I watch? Even if the goal is culture, the method is influential. When a regulator gets power to shape what is pushed and what is not, that is not neutral. And it is not only about music and movies. The same idea can be used later for other things, especially when politics gets heated, and politics always gets heated. Now look at Bill C 18, the Online News Act. The government said it was meant to support journalism. Newsrooms are hurting, so again, the headline sounds good. But what happened after should have Canadians wide awake. One major platform blocked news links in Canada. Another negotiated a payment system. So now news is caught in a tug of war between government rules and corporate decisions. Ask yourself what that does to trust. If the public starts to believe news depends on government designed systems or corporate deals, people stop believing the news is free. Even if reporters are doing honest work, the shadow hangs over everything. Then there is Bill C 63, the Online Harms plan. Again, the headline goal is to reduce harmful content online, protect kids, and hold platforms accountable. I do not know many parents who would argue with protecting kids. But the concern people have is simple. Who defines harm. Who decides what crosses the line. Who gets the power to punish and silence. Once the system exists, the definitions can widen. That is what history shows. It does not always happen in one big jump. It happens by small expansions that sound reasonable at the time. This is where people feel the walls moving in. They see laws that reach further into the online space, and they hear critics being called names instead of being answered. Racist. Extremist. Hateful. Dangerous. It is like the country has forgotten how to argue. Now it just labels and shoves. That is a big deal, because labels are a form of control. When a person fears being smeared, they shut up. When a worker fears losing their job because they shared the wrong opinion, they shut up. When a parent fears their kid will be targeted at school for repeating what they heard at home, they shut up. It is not freedom if you have to whisper. Religion is caught in this too, and Canadians know it even if they avoid the topic. Faith is treated like it is acceptable only if it stays quiet. The moment a religious belief clashes with the fashionable politics of the day, it is treated like a threat. People get told to keep it private, keep it hidden, keep it out of public life. That is not respect. That is tolerance on a short leash. Economic freedom is tightening at the same time, which makes everything feel worse. Small businesses are being buried under rules, fees, and costs. Big corporations can absorb it. Small shops cannot. That means fewer people taking risks, fewer new businesses, fewer local jobs. A country that makes it hard to build something trains people to depend on the system instead. Put all of this together and the picture gets clearer. A government one seat away from a majority. An MP crossing the floor that many voters saw as a betrayal. A second party that props the government up. New laws that push regulators deeper into streaming, deeper into news, deeper into what can be said online. And a culture that punishes disagreement with labels instead of debate. That is what people mean when they say Canada is walking into a new world order. Not secret meetings. Not science fiction. Just a steady shift where the state gets more say, and the citizen gets less room. The scary part is how normal it can start to feel. You get used to watching your words. You get used to saying, I will keep that to myself. You get used to silence. Canada is still free enough to change course. But that does not happen by accident. It happens when people notice the squeeze, talk about it plainly, and refuse to accept that control is the price of living here. Because once the country gets used to control, it rarely gives it back.

Karmageddon

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE I hope everyone enjoyed their Christmas and continues to enjoy the remainder of the holiday season leading up to the New Year. As we look ahead to the New Year and hope for positive change—both globally and here at home—we can also look back on 2025 as a year marked by growing economic turmoil and the continued erosion of public trust in government. Let’s be honest: very few people trust government anymore. This year, The Mr. X Files will further focus on exposing government corruption wherever it exists, regardless of political party. In 2025, we once again witnessed astonishing arrogance from certain politicians, their political staff, and well-connected, crooked lobbyists. In 2025, The Mr. X Files blew the lid off the Greenbelt scandal, revealing what really happened behind the scenes and who knew what—and when. The now-unpopular and embattled Minister David Picinni was directly informed about the Greenbelt issue. Not long after that revelation, The Mr. X Files, alongside other major investigative media outlets, deconstructed the Skills Development Fund and exposed the “usual suspects”: lobbyists deeply entrenched in steering millions of dollars to unqualified applicants, with ministerial sign-off. The next scandal—mark my words—will be Infrastructure Grants. Remember where you heard it first: right here at Mr. X. I believe development interests and the same familiar network of preferential, crooked lobbyists will once again dominate headlines in 2026. I can also tell you now that, as this paper goes to print—coinciding with the release of the next installment of The Mr. X Files—another bombshell revelation will emerge. When have we ever seen a minister under investigation simultaneously by the Integrity Commissioner, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Public office was never intended to be a family business. It is unacceptable for a minister’s spouse to operate as a lobbyist, a mother-in-law to sit on the Ontario Land Tribunal, and a father’s firm to benefit from infrastructure grants. The time has come for this individual to be removed from his ministerial position. This year will also be defined by an upcoming municipal election, the exact shape of which remains uncertain as provincial changes to regional governance are still pending. The election “silly season” began months ago, and this may well become the most transformative municipal election in Ontario’s history. “Strong mayor” powers are now all the rage. Why donate to a councillor’s campaign when mayors hold the real authority? Pick your mayoral horse and place your bet there—because that’s where the power now lies. An unintended consequence of strong-mayor legislation will likely be a sharp decline in donations to councillors. In 2026, we will make a concerted effort to educate readers and viewers on how government processes work—and how they should work. We will continue to grow our audience. We know there will be critics and haters, but we will not back down from telling the truth.

2026 THE YEAR OF HOPE…

By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I do not know about you. But it appears that the “AGE OF AQUARIUS’ is upon us.... Age of Aquarius:  The Age of Aquarius is an astrological concept for a new spiritual/cultural era following the Age of Pisces, symbolizing a shift towards humanitarianism, technology, equality, collective consciousness, and freedom, moving from "me" to "we". Popularized by the musical Hair, it represents a future of greater understanding, innovation, and global harmony, moving away from the Piscean focus on faith/illusion towards Aquarian intellect and universal love. While astrologically the transition is gradual (lasting centuries), it's associated with the 1960s counter-culture and promises radical change. Jesus was the one who announced the Age of Aquarius and said, "A man will meet you carrying an earthen pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he goes in". What is so special about the Age of Aquarius? The Aquarian Age is a time of great complexity as our sense of personal identity and our very foundation shifts. Expect developments in all arenas, including scientific discoveries, technological advancements, and societal shifts. On an individual level, change and learning will be lifelong and constant. Wow, an era going from ‘me’ to ‘we’. A man carrying earthen pitcher of water.... foundations shift... development in all arenas... I believe that 2026 will the bring forth a paramount pinacle of this era. I say this as it is starting to happen in the U.S. With Trump and his very advance force for positive change back to traditional western culture. The developments of this past years have clearly marked a path for future prosperity and advancements in all aspects of society. Here in Durham. We will be face very important choices to make. A municipal election. We as the people need to take our government back. Right across Durham. Municipal government have become entities within themselves. Practically no accountability no transparency and a complete shut down of public input. This is wrong. Compounded with the ever number of wasted funds on projects that at this economical juncture could be going to assisting those in need. For example. Oshawa waste 10 million on a downtown park. Meanwhile people are literally dying on our street. Many from exposure, hunger and illness. Others due to crime. What are our beloved entrusted elected officials doing about it? NOTHING. For example Oshawa. We have elected folk that are so out of touch with the needs of it’s people that spend more time on projects that total waste of your tax dollars. I think this election coming. We need to get rid of Derek Giberson. A two term councillor that is directly responsible for the poor state of the downtown. He in part was responsible for the open drug use. He has done nothing in two terms to control crime and the drug trade. We have Rick Kerr the regional councilor. What has he done for the past two terms? He also needs to go. Let’s start cutting the waste of tax dollars at the top. Look at councillors like Chapman, Tito-Dante Marimpietri, Rosemary McConkey, John Neal. All on the taxpayers clock. What have they done for Oshawa? Chapman an arrogant ghost councillor with dreams of becoming Mayor... sits on all kinds of committees to what achievements? NONE. Tito-Dante another book end that sits on more committees with what achievements to show for? How can either of these councillor go to sleep at night knowing that people are living on our streets. That people are dieing almost every day. People being shot and stabbed. Where is the leadership preventing such things to happen. The problem is not those elected but those that elect members of the community that have no life experience. People that have been careered politicians for so long that have lost the need of those that elected them. In 2026 we need a new start. Not a repeat of last election where we rid of only one councilor to replace her with a bigger waste of tax payer dollar. Councillor Lee. I believed in you. You let me and the people of Oshawa down. Let’s re-take our city back in 2026

Canada at the Crossroads: Reflections on 2025 and the Choices of 2026

Canada at the Crossroads: Reflections on 2025 and the Choices of 2026 by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The year 2025 will not be remembered in Canada for a single dramatic event. There was no financial collapse, no constitutional crisis, no defining national trauma. Instead, it was a year marked by something quieter and, in many ways, more consequential: a broad, uneasy realization that the country’s long-standing assumptions no longer align with reality. Canadians spent 2025 taking stock of their economy, their institutions, their social fabric, and their place in a world that feels less predictable by the month. In that sense, 2025 was a year of reassessment. The question now, as 2026 approaches, is whether reassessment will give way to resolve. A Year of Stabilization Without Momentum Economically, 2025 brought a measure of relief after years of turbulence. Inflation eased, interest rates began to drift downward, and fears of an imminent recession receded. Employment remained relatively strong by historical standards. On paper, the economy appeared stable. Yet stability did not feel like prosperity. Productivity growth remained weak, business investment lagged behind peer countries, and major projects; whether housing developments, energy corridors, or transportation infrastructure continued to move at a glacial pace. Many Canadians sensed that the economy was no longer failing loudly, but it was underperforming quietly. This gap between macroeconomic indicators and lived experience defined much of the national mood. Wages struggled to keep up with costs accumulated over previous years. Young Canadians, in particular, looked at the housing market and saw not a challenge to overcome, but a barrier to adulthood itself. Home ownership drifted from expectation to aspiration to, for many, improbability. Housing as the National Pressure Point No issue dominated Canadian life in 2025 more than housing. It was not merely an economic concern; it became a social and psychological one. Decisions about careers, family formation, and even geographic mobility were shaped by whether people could find a place to live that did not consume the bulk of their income. Federal and provincial governments announced funding, targets, and agreements. Municipalities promised zoning reform. Yet results lagged far behind need. The housing crisis revealed a deeper structural problem: Canada’s difficulty in translating political consensus into timely execution. By 2025, nearly everyone agreed that housing supply must increase dramatically. The frustration lay in how slowly that agreement turned into cranes in the sky. Politics in a More Skeptical Age Politically, 2025 was marked by sharper rhetoric and thinner patience. Canadians appeared less ideologically driven than fatigued. Trust in institutions, Parliament, the media, even parts of the public service remained strained, though not broken. Voters demanded competence more than vision, delivery more than declarations. Ottawa’s focus shifted toward long-term positioning: industrial policy, defence commitments, and strategic infrastructure. The language of resilience entered the mainstream. Canada spoke more openly about supply chains, critical minerals, Arctic sovereignty, and energy security. These were not new topics, but in 2025 they felt less theoretical and more urgent. Still, a sense of drift persisted. Governments managed problems incrementally while avoiding hard trade-offs. Fiscal pressures mounted quietly in the background, as healthcare costs rose and demographics tilted toward an aging population. Canadians sensed that the margin for error was narrowing. Canada in an Unsettled World Internationally, 2025 reminded Canadians of both their limits and their strengths. Canada was not a central actor in global conflicts, but its stability became an asset in itself. In a world of abrupt policy swings and unreliable partners, Canada’s predictability mattered. Defence spending edged upward, particularly in the Arctic, reflecting a sober recognition that geography is destiny. Climate change, great-power competition, and northern development converged in ways that made long-term neglect impossible. Canada did not suddenly become hawkish, but it became more realistic. Diplomatically, Canada leaned into niches where credibility still counts: multilateral forums, humanitarian engagement, and quiet mediation. The ambition was modest, but appropriate to a middle power navigating a fragmented international system. Society: Tired, But Intact Socially, 2025 revealed a country under strain but not fracture. Polarization existed, yet it was less explosive than in many peer democracies. Civic rituals; from Remembrance Day commemorations to local volunteerism continued to bind communities together. Immigration remained central to Canada’s identity and future, but the conversation grew more nuanced. Canadians increasingly distinguished between welcoming newcomers and acknowledging capacity limits. The challenge was no longer whether to immigrate, but how to integrate effectively through housing, credential recognition, language training, and community support. This was not a rejection of openness, but a demand for competence. The Demands of 2026 If 2025 was about recognizing problems, 2026 will be about confronting them. The coming year is likely to test Canada’s willingness to make choices rather than manage tensions indefinitely. Economically, lower interest rates may provide breathing room, but they will not restore productivity or competitiveness on their own. In 2026, pressure will grow to dismantle internal trade barriers, accelerate approvals for major projects, and align immigration more closely with labour market needs. Without such reforms, Canada risks settling into a decade of mediocre growth and declining relative living standards. Politically, the tone is likely to harden. As potential elections at various levels approach, voters will demand specificity: How many homes will be built, where, and by when? How will healthcare be sustained as costs rise? What does fiscal responsibility mean in an era of permanent pressure? The appetite for slogans is waning; the appetite for results is not. Climate adaptation will also move from abstraction to necessity. Extreme weather, aging infrastructure, and energy transitions will force faster decisions. Canadians are less interested in symbolic commitments than in practical answers: who pays, who builds, and who bears the risk. A Choice Between Drift and Direction Canada enters 2026 with remarkable advantages: abundant resources, strong institutions, social cohesion, and international trust. However, advantages unused can become illusions. The defining question is whether Canada can convert stability into momentum. The risk is not sudden collapse. It is gradual erosion; the slow fading of affordability, opportunity, and confidence that has long defined the Canadian promise. The opportunity, however, remains real. With clear priorities and disciplined execution, 2026 could mark the beginning of renewal rather than retrenchment. History suggests that Canada’s greatest moments often come not from crisis, but from clarity. The year ahead will reveal whether the reassessment of 2025 was merely reflective or whether it was the prelude to action. Enjoy the holiday season and Happy New Year for 2026 !