Saturday, January 3, 2026
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)