Saturday, January 24, 2026
More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science
More Than an Individual
-Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Every individual is connected through culture, society, and behaviour. We are all a part of a complex social system which influences us in ways we rarely notice. From our diets to our wardrobe to speech patterns, every aspect of our lives are shaped by our environment. Even choices we believe to be solely personal are the result of social expectations, economic conditions, and cultural norms that have surrounded us throughout our entire lives.
These aspects are researched through the social sciences, the academic study of our social environment, including human society, relationships, and individual behavior. These sciences ask the question of why regarding everything surrounding human life, from politics to education to the legal system. Some of the most well-known branches include psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science; however these are just some disciplines among many. Although the importance and academic focus of the social sciences are often debated, at their core they are research-based, systematic, knowledgeable, and ultimately useful, making them sciences as much as biology or chemistry are.
The social sciences are deeply embedded in our decision making, understanding, and systems that structure our lives. Each branch investigates our world through a different lens, providing explanations as to why humans are the way they are. Rather than relying on assumption or intuition, as most personal judgements do, the social sciences collect data, identify patterns, and test theories. This allows us to deepen our understanding of society and those around us.
Beyond academic study, the social sciences also play a crucial role in challenging the judgements we apply around the world. They encourage us to question what we consider “normal” and to recognize the social norms which we are surrounded by. What we see as normal is a social construct, no more important or pure than others. By developing this understanding, we allow ourselves and societies to grow, adapt, and improve. The judgements, biases, and opinions we carry are unavoidable in our lives. These ideas are engraved into who we are, formed by our childhood, culture, societal norms, and past experiences. They are normal and entirely human, however they cloud our world view and limit our understanding. The social sciences provide a unique, open-minded understanding of our society without the interference of personal judgement. They use numbers to explain why. Why are rates of educational success higher in some districts than others? Why has mental health declined in recent years? Why do cultural ceremonies differ so widely across continents? Rather than offering surface-level opinions, these sciences explore underlying causes such as inequality, historical context, and social structures.
There is a term in anthropology, coined by Franz Boas, referred to as cultural relativism. This means to understand cultures on their own terms rather than judging them by external, biased standards. These concepts promote understanding without assigning value or superiority. It’s something which we can all apply to our daily lives, even if we’re not anthropologists. Cultural relativism encourages us to view cultures as sources of meaning and comfort for those within them, even if they differ from our own. Every society is organized to meet the needs of its people, every society is structurally similar and globally understood. Through this lens, we can understand others, and learn from the differences as opposed to criticizing them. When analyzing these systems found within cultures, we realize how influenced we are by the systems themselves. We are never truly alone, as we are always surrounded by our culture, whether that be the music we’re listening to, the technology we’re using, or the tasks we are doing throughout the day. Each individual exists as part of a system, a statistic, a society that connects us to others. It is inescapable, and that’s what makes the social sciences so fascinating. Understanding this connection allows us to recognize our role within society, and what influenced that. It not only helps us understand others, but it is the key to recognizing our own influences and personality. Ultimately, the social sciences shape our entire worldview. They influence how we interpret politics, make judgements and understand personal identity. They teach us empathy, critical thinking, and the importance of evidence within our daily lives. In a world that is connected and forever changing, these skills are essential. Appreciating and applying sociology, anthropology, and psychology to our daily lives are the only way to properly understand our global societies and cultures for what they are; unique, functional, interconnected, and beautiful. 
Lois And Clark
Lois And Clark
By Wayne and Tamara
I am an 18-year-old woman madly infatuated with my boyfriend, 26. We met in an unorthodox way. I’m casually walking around 42nd Street in Manhattan, when he spots me and decides to talk. We clicked instantly, like magic straight out of a fairy story. The rest is history.
We were incredibly shocked at each other’s answer to the question “How old are you?” Twenty-six would have been my last guess! Eventually our age gap began to bother him. He hated going somewhere an ID must be shown, always fearing the bouncer wouldn’t let me in and our night would be ruined.
I can’t say I blame him. I started to feel a little young around his friends, seeing how they all looked at me sideways. But my boyfriend is like…like…my personal Superman, and our fights never turn as ugly or rowdy as the average New York couple. He treats everyone with respect.
The only thing that bothers me is what bothers him, and what bothers him is my lack of years on the planet. Panic surrounds me when I try to find an excuse as to why our ages shouldn’t matter. How do I make my man happy if what causes him stress is something that’s part of me?
Rhiannon
Rhiannon, your Superman may be faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, but he lacks the power to change you from 18 to 21. Your age is his kryptonite, and as fans of the comic book know, the longer Superman is exposed to kryptonite, the weaker he grows.
As he goes to clubs, hangs out with his buds, or meets other women, your age will wear on him. You may find some ways around that, but there are limits to how many times he will want to sit around with you at the movies. In two years he’ll be on the cusp of 30, and you still won’t be able to go into bars with him.
Age, like kryptonite, has properties. For the young, a year or two can be a gulf or a canyon; only when we grow older does the gap begin to close. No one can change that, not even Superman.
Wayne & Tamara
Never Too Old
I am in my mid-30s. I recently went out with a man I met at work who is the superintendent in the next building. He seemed very attracted to me. He told me he wasn’t married, and I thought he was in his mid-50s. I found out he is married and a remarkably fit 71. I was so upset.
The age thing bothers me, but not as much as being married. If I had kept going out with him who knows what could have happened. Maybe his wife would have called me. I would not have liked to deal with that.
I told him what he did was wrong, and I don’t mess around with married people. He suggested we could stay friends, but I told him after what he did I do not want to be his friend. My question is, why do men in their 70s still cheat?
Celeste
Celeste, a man cheats in his 70s for the same reason he cheats at any other age. He lacks character. When we run into people who lack character, we have a dual role. First, to protect ourselves, which you did, and second, to protect others.
There are at least two reasons why he wants to remain friends with you. Staying friends gives him additional time to weaken your defenses, and it makes you less likely to tell others about his deceptions. But if you tell your coworkers, it may protect another woman from being caught in a compromising situation with a 71-year-old married man who wants to see if Viagra works.
Wayne & Tamara
An Air Of Excitement
An Air Of Excitement
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
With an election on the horizon, those who follow local politics or are actively involved tend to perk up just a bit. There is an air of excitement, perhaps hope in some cases, that there will be positive change coming.
One thing that stands out though, and stands out is an understatement, one glaring fact surrounding our local elections is voter turnout. For some reason we have a bad case of voter apathy here in Oshawa.
In the 2022 election for example only 18.4% of eligible voters actually voted! So, out of a population of 175,383, with 121,885 of those people eligible to cast a ballot only 22,456 turned out to do so.
That begs the question, what in the world is going on in Oshawa? The 2022 turnout is actually the lowest turnout in Oshawa history. That’s not only sad but a little scary. What can we do to change that number? I would think the first order of business would be to try and ascertain why that number is so low and go from there.
Are people just flat out fed up? Do they think their vote doesn’t matter? Is it a case of convenience? Would online voting or voting by phone increase the number of people willing to cast their vote? These are things that truly need to be looked at because the election of our local municipal government is the closest to each one of us personally, and the one that affects our day to day life far more than any other election. Yet, more people tend to turn out for a federal election than their local ones.
In 2014 The Town of Ajax introduced online voting and in doing so they saw their voting numbers increase from 25.4% to 30.4% that election year. I admit convenience is important. People are very bust today with several working more than one job, many working split shifts and overtime where they can get
it just to stay afloat. I understand that on a tight schedule, getting yourself over to a polling station may not be the easiest thing to fit into a busy day.
In Oshawa, the highest voter turnout ever was 1960 with 51.7 % of voters turning up to the polls to have their say. Yes, it was a different time and a different generation but surely the voters of 1960 would have passed down the importance of marking your ballot and having your say to their children. To not vote is to say you don’t care. We must care, this is our city and however good bad or indifferent it is, comes down to the people that make up our city and our attitudes. We can do better people. Let’s do better together! 
You Cannot Attract What You Resist
You Cannot Attract
What You Resist
By Nick Kossovan
My favourite quote illustrating the futility of resisting reality is by American author Byron Katie: "When you argue with reality, you lose, but only 100% of the time."
A few years ago, I read Rhonda Byrne's The Secret to better understand the Law of Attraction. According to Byrne, one aspect of the Law of Attraction is that "what you resist, persists," because, theoretically, you're giving energy to what you don't want, keeping it alive in your mind.
Resistance is feeling-based.
Resistance involves telling yourself false stories to create excuses for why you're not getting what you want.
Resistance is refusing to read the room, such as AI being more cost-effective than hiring junior employees, lean teams looking great on earnings calls, and "let's wait and see" becoming a corporate strategy.
Resistance is the refusal to accept the reality you find yourself in.
As detrimental as it is to their job search—by now it's common knowledge that employers will check your digital footprint to determine whether you're interview-worthy—I see job seekers ad nauseam take to LinkedIn to voice their "resistance" to hiring practices, which, in turn, explains their lengthy job search. Employers avoid hiring candidates who lack emotional regulation.
Every day, I see the same pattern: job seekers unwilling to adapt to the new paradigm for finding work. Applying with an opinion resume, as if it's 2005. Telling the same unsubstantiated career stories.
When nothing happens, they get angry at recruiters, hiring managers, the enigmatic ATS, and the non-existent "hiring system." (For a "system" to exist, all hiring managers and recruiters would need to assess candidates similarly, which isn't the case.)
Every day, we try to avoid or escape the realities that don't suit us. The two predominant ways we do so are by:
1. Judging our reality (employers)
2. Arguing with our reality (employers)
If your job search isn't progressing as you'd like, public outbursts, which signal to employers that you can't control your emotions, aren't the answer. The answer is to stop resisting what you can't control or change and to adapt; to become okay with what's not okay.
When it comes to job search success, job seekers would be much better off understanding and accepting that employers design their hiring processes to protect their business and reduce hiring risk. Hiring the wrong person can be costly in terms of training, severance, and lost productivity. Successful job seekers don't resist an employer's hiring process; they recognize that employers are risk-averse and therefore hire as they do, and they adapt. They don't entertain the limiting belief that investing in an employer's hiring process may be wasted effort.
For example, as a job seeker, you've likely noticed that many employers ask candidates to complete an assignment to verify their skills. Those who resist think, "Assignments are free labour." They're judging an employer's request without considering that employers are navigating a job market full of bad actors who make exaggerated claims about their skills and experience. This is the reality employers face, and job seekers need to deal with it too. Also, arguing against (read: resisting) doing an assignment won't change the reasons employers ask candidates to do one.
Having resistance to how employers hire isn't doing you any favours. The more you can let go of that resistance—softening it—the smoother your job search will be. Stoic philosopher Epictetus said: "Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not." The way an employer designs their hiring process and evaluates candidates is outside a job seeker's control.
While I understand it may feel counterintuitive, you need to trust that going with the flow regarding how employers hire and believing it'll lead to employment can be the most beneficial mindset shift for your job search. When it comes to job searching, the single best advantage you can give yourself is to learn to navigate the job market's currents, understand and accept why employers are hiring the way they are, why ghosting has become common (liability issues are real), why feedback isn't given (again, liability issues), and why employers are more risk-averse than ever, rather than exhausting yourself by resisting what you have no influence over changing.
Let employers be employers!
A utopian solution to ease the frustration and anger, stemming from their resistance to the realities of today's job market and not wanting to understand why employers are trying everything in their power to reduce hiring risks, would be to tape Alcoholics Anonymous's Serenity Prayer, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference," to every job seeker's laptop, monitor, wall, fridge, and anywhere they'll see it repeatedly.
Stop fighting what you don't know, can't manage, or don't like, or what's not going your way. The universe doesn't give you what you ask for. It gives you what you're being. By resisting employers' hiring processes and candidate assessment methods, you not only waste mental energy you could be using for your job search, you're also prolonging it.
Canada Was Told We Were Safer Than the United States. We Were Told to Trust That
Canada Was Told
We Were Safer Than the United States. We Were Told to Trust That
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
At what point did Canada give up freedom? Was it one law passed quietly? One emergency measure that never fully ended. Or was it slower than that. More like a long conversation where Canadians were gently reassured, again and again, that everything was under control.
For years, Canadians were told something very specific. We were told we were not like the United States. We were told Americans had to worry about health care, crime, and instability because their government did not protect them. Canada was different. Our government would step in. Our system would take care of us. We did not need to be suspicious. We did not need to push back.
That message worked. It became part of our identity. When concerns came up, the response was always calm and confident. Trust the system. Trust the experts. Trust Ottawa. We are not like them.
People once read 1984 and said it was an American style fear story. They watched V for Vendetta and dismissed it as exaggerated fiction. That could never happen here. We had safeguards. We had institutions. We had a government that would protect us.
So here is the first real question. If our government was protecting us, what exactly was it preparing for? And just as important, what was it choosing not to prepare for?
For more than fifteen years, the federal government knew Canada was going to grow quickly. Millions of people were coming. This was not secret. It was public policy. It was announced and celebrated. We were told it was good for the economy and good for the future. Once again, we were told not to worry. This is not the United States. Our system can handle it.
But growth requires planning. Planning is not speeches. Planning is hospitals, doctors, nurses, police, courts, and jails. Planning is boring, expensive, and unglamorous. Planning is where governments prove whether promises are real.
Canada has been in a health care crisis for years. Emergency rooms overflow. People wait hours to be seen. Some wait days. Family doctors are harder to find each year. Nurses are burned out and leaving the profession. Doctors retire and are not replaced. While the population grew, the system fell behind.
Provinces were not given the funding needed to expand hospitals and train staff. In some cases, funding was reduced. Yet Canadians were told not to panic. This is not the United States. Our system will protect you.
Here is the quiet truth. A system cannot protect people if it is stretched beyond its limits. Good intentions do not replace doctors. Pride does not shorten wait times. Saying we are better than someone else does not fix a broken schedule in an emergency room.
Immigration itself is not the problem. Growth without support is. When systems crack, everyone feels it. Newcomers struggle. Long time Canadians struggle. Front line workers carry the weight. The federal government knew the pressure was coming and chose not to prepare provinces properly. That decision has consequences.
Crime followed the same pattern. Criminals became younger and more organized. Guns flowed in from the United States. That should have been the focus. Borders. Smuggling networks. Organized crime.
Instead, Canadians were told again that we are not like the United States. We do not need tough enforcement. We need compassion. Law abiding gun owners were targeted while repeat offenders were released again and again. Police arrest the same individuals so often it becomes routine. Courts are clogged. Jail space has not grown with the population.
This was sold as fairness and progress. But crime does not respond to slogans. A shop owner closing early does not feel safer because of a press conference. A senior afraid to walk home does not care how a policy is branded.
So here is another honest question. If one police officer arrests the same criminal twenty times, does hiring another officer solve the problem. Or does the system itself need repair. The answer is uncomfortable, but it is not complicated.
Again, Canadians were reassured. We are not like the United States. We do not overreact. We do not lock people up. Our way is better. Yet people feel less safe. Communities feel tense. Victims feel invisible.
Then came division. Real racism exists in Canada. No serious person denies that. But it was presented as if it was everywhere and in everything. Every disagreement became a moral crisis. Every question became suspect. People were told to be careful what they say.
Speech became risky. Religion became something to manage. Asking questions became dangerous. That should concern anyone who believes freedom includes disagreement. A country that cannot talk openly cannot think clearly.
Once again, Canadians were told not to worry. This is not the United States. We are protecting you from harm. We are protecting you from hate. Trust us.
So here is the larger question. If protection requires silence, control, and fear of saying the wrong thing, what exactly is being protected. And who is being protected from whom.
Some say this is poor management. Others believe it is deliberate. Stretch systems until people accept more control just to feel stable again. Other countries like Britain and Australia are facing the same pressures. More rules. Less freedom. Always described as temporary. Somehow permanent.
I do not claim to have all the answers. Journalists should not pretend to. Sometimes the job is to lay out the facts and let people think. But patterns matter. Ignoring them does not make them disappear.
If the population grows, services must grow. If crime grows, systems must respond. If leaders fail to plan, they must be held accountable. That is not extreme thinking. That is basic responsibility.
Canadians were told we were different from the United States because our government would protect us. The hard truth is that protection without planning is just a story. Stories do not keep hospitals open. They do not keep streets safe. They do not preserve freedom.
So here is the final question. How much freedom are Canadians willing to give up for reassurance that no longer matches reality. The quiet answer may be that we trusted that promise for too long.
Freedom does not vanish all at once. It slips away while people are told everything is fine. The danger is not losing it loudly. The danger is realizing too late that it is already gone.
Punishing the Law-Abiding Won’t Make Canada Safer
Punishing the Law-Abiding Won’t Make Canada Safer
Let’s talk about the federal government’s so-called gun “buyback,” because Canadians deserve honesty — and this policy is anything but honest.
This program does not target criminals. It targets the most law-abiding citizens in the country. People who followed the rules. People who took safety courses. People who passed background checks. People who registered their firearms. People who did everything the government asked of them.
And now they’re being punished for it.
Meanwhile, the people actually committing gun crimes are untouched by this policy. They don’t have licenses. They don’t register firearms. They don’t take safety courses. And they certainly aren’t lining up to hand anything over to the government. They are criminals — and this policy does absolutely nothing to stop them. That’s why this so-called gun grab is a complete waste of time, a complete waste of money, and a complete distraction from what actually keeps communities safe. If someone commits a violent crime with a firearm, there should be real consequences — not catch-and-release bail, not revolving-door justice, not political theatre. That is where public safety lives. That is where bail reform matters. That is where government should be focused. And this isn’t just opinion — it’s been stated plainly by police leadership.
Even here in Durham Region, our own police have acknowledged that gun crime entering our community is not being committed by legal gun owners. That fact alone destroys the justification for this policy. So when politicians claim this is about safety, Canadians should understand what they’re really being sold: optics, control, and the targeting of the easiest group — not the most dangerous one.
Several police services across Ontario have already made their position clear. The Toronto Police Service and the Barrie Police Service have publicly stated that they will not participate in the collection of legally owned firearms, citing resource constraints and the need to focus on real crime, not political programs. That reality makes it even more important for residents to know where their own police services stand.
That is why I have formally written to Durham Regional Police Chief Peter Moreira requesting confirmation on whether DRPS will participate in the federal program, whether police resources will be diverted away from real crime, and whether DRPS has communicated any position to Ottawa. I am currently awaiting a response, and I will share that response publicly when it is received — because transparency matters.
Across Canada, Premiers including Doug Ford and others are now pushing back against this policy, recognizing what Canadians already know: this will not stop crime, and it will not make communities safer.
History also tells us what happens when governments disarm the law-abiding while ignoring criminals. Across countries and across generations, the pattern is the same. Governments disarm those who obey the law first. They promise safety. They promise order. They promise the power will never be abused.
And then power is centralized — and when things go wrong, the people have no protection left.
We’ve seen this story before: in 1930s Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia, Venezuela. Different nations. Different leaders. Same outcome.
Canadians should be especially alarmed because we have already seen our own government turn state power on peaceful citizens. During the convoy protests, police were used against ordinary Canadians under the Emergencies Act — and a court later ruled that action unlawful.
So don’t tell Canadians this could never happen here. It already did.
And once a government crosses a line, it becomes easier to cross the next one — and the next — and the next. History doesn’t repeat because people are blind.
It repeats because they’re told, “This time is different.” It never is.
Cold Enough for You?
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Cold Enough for You?
Maybe not as cold as the shoulder President Trump is currently giving the Prime Minister following the China meetings and the push toward what many are calling a new world economic order.
Protectionism and economic nationalism are nothing new to President Trump. It’s where he cut his teeth politically. Tearing up NAFTA, repatriating auto and manufacturing jobs, and using tariffs as leverage have all been central to his strategy. There’s no question these policies have hurt Canada—and Ontario in particular. Here at home, the Ontario Premier has expressed outrage over the federal government’s decision to remove tariffs on Chinese EVs, even going so far as to encourage a boycott of Chinese electric vehicles. At the same time, he has followed through on his promise to keep Crown Royal off LCBO shelves. When you look closely, Ontario’s actions mirror the very protectionism being criticized south of the border. Keeping Crown Royal off shelves is framed as a protest over the closure of its Ontario plant. Yet the company maintains significant operations—and its head office—in Manitoba and Quebec. You can’t parade as “Captain Canada” while selectively protecting only Ontario jobs. That said, I voted for Doug Ford to look after Ontario. That’s his lane. Protecting Canada as a whole is the Prime Minister’s job.
The deal Mark Carney is attempting to strike with China and other so-called “friendly” EU nations is clearly an effort to counterbalance our reliance on a superpower neighbour that holds most of the cards. Doing business with China—given its ability to manufacture goods at costs Canada simply cannot match—may reduce inflation. But let’s not kid ourselves: it will almost certainly come at the expense of domestic employment. We are living through a period of aggressive attacks on globalization. I’m not convinced that’s entirely a bad thing, but the consequences will be real. Canadians should brace themselves for changes in the cost of goods, inflation, and employment levels.
What we do need, however, is political discipline. The legislative framework is clear: the Prime Minister speaks for Canada; premiers speak for their provinces. Staying in your lane matters.
As for Ontario, stay tuned for this week’s Mr. X Files. I’ll be digging into the Ryan Amato emails. Amato, the former Chief of Staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs during the Greenbelt scandal, has refused to release emails sent through his personal account and is now before the courts.
There are only two reasons not to release those emails: they incriminate him, or they incriminate others—either within government or among developers.
Amato has a decision to make. Honesty has never been a defining trait of his modus operandi, but the very real prospect of jail time—and the reality that he likely wouldn’t fare well on the range—may yet be enough to convince him to release the emails.
Because when they do come out, Canadians will finally see who the real criminals in the Greenbelt scandal were.
A 'REALITY CHECK' IN RESPONSE TO THE PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH AT DAVOS
CHINESE WET DREAM!!!
CHINESE WET DREAM!!!
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
Not only is our country falling apart, being invaded through our ridiculous immigration policy. But now, it appears that our new Prime Minister is about to give us away to China.
Carney could not negotiate with the long time neighbors to the south. So he thinks he is going to gain any leverage against the U.S. by elbowing it up with the Chinese.
PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON OUR CITY STREETS. FOOD BANKS DEPENDENCY ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. We in Canada have no real politics. The NDP have run aground. The PC can’t even win their wards but expect to be voted Prime Minister. And the Liberals.... well they are finishing us off.
Personally, the best thing that could happen to Canada is to become the 51st. The real threat is that if in the U.S. the democrats come back in power. Then the American empire will fall.
This week the news reports read:
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.
Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.
Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he has found “much alignment” with Chinese President Xi Jinping in their views on Greenland, which some experts say is a signal of a new pragmatism in Canadian foreign policy while facing what Carney called a “new world order.”
This is our leader folks... The Chinese are not only laughing at us... but I am sure that they feel as if they won the ultimate lotery... Imagine, inviting the Chinese to take over Canada.
It has been in the works for years.
“I had discussions with President Xi about the situation in Greenland, about our sovereignty in the Arctic, about the sovereignty of the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark. And I found much alignment of views in that regard,” Carney told reporters after his meeting with Xi.
The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.
Here’s what that could entail. EU trade, tech disruptions?
Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland.
An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
NATO response? A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.
In other words. They are not going to do a single thing. As “NO” NATO means that Europe is exposed. It means, China, Russia and anyone with ambitions to go on a war rampage.
I think people need to look at what is going on in the world. Look at what took part in Venezuela.
They went in. They flexed muscle and they got the job done. A historical beacon. The world may or may not be a better place. One thing.
There is clear marker on who rules and those that are so into the financial rat race that has corrupted it’s integrity and committment to the millions of people you reprent. I think the key to our success as a civilization is to rule with the best interest of the people. We have to start here at home. Put an end to those homeless... 
Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel
Saturday, January 17, 2026
When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames
When Common Sense
Goes Up in Flames
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars.
Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable.
But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense.
That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades.
And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again.
After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical.
We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears.
When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”?
A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks?
Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working.
There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend.
Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now?
Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second.
These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous.
The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it.
So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.”
The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting.
If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment.
The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger.
I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents.
In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.
Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention
Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention
Today, January 16, 2026, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal confirmed something that will go down in Canadian History: the federal government overstepped its authority when it invoked the Emergencies Act, and it has now lost its appeal.
Two courts have now reached the same conclusion. The legal threshold for declaring a national emergency was not met. Existing laws were already available. And the extraordinary powers used by the federal government were not justified under Canadian law.
This decision is not symbolic, academic, or merely historical. It goes to the heart of how much power a government can claim over the lives of its citizens — their money, their mobility, and their fundamental rights — when it decides dissent has gone too far.
I write this not just as an observer of the courts, but as someone who stood on Parliament Hill during the convoy protests. I watched rows of faceless, nameless, hired force advance — not against criminals or terrorists — but against citizens. Ordinary people. Truck drivers. Families. Protesters. It was terrifying. Not because of chaos in the streets, but because of what it revealed: how quickly a government can turn the very institutions meant to protect the rule of law into instruments of enforcement against its own people.
This was not policing under ordinary law. It was authority emboldened by emergency powers — powers that bypassed normal safeguards, accountability, and restraint. And it was not just force. It was language.
Canadians were openly demeaned by their own government. They were labeled a “small fringe.” They were described as “unacceptable.” The country was asked, publicly, whether we should “tolerate” them. That moment should chill anyone who values a free society.
When a government stops speaking about its people as citizens and starts speaking about them as a problem to be managed, the next steps are rarely gentle. This was not leadership under pressure. It was moral distancing — and it made what followed easier to justify.
What followed was exclusion. Canadians were told where they could and could not go. They were barred from boarding planes and trains. They were turned away from restaurants, workplaces, and public spaces. They were separated from family, from livelihoods, and from normal life — not because they had committed crimes, but because they did not comply.
Mobility, participation, and basic freedoms were transformed into conditional privileges. All of it was framed as temporary. All of it was described as necessary. All of it was enforced with certainty and zero tolerance for dissent.
The Emergencies Act allowed the government to freeze bank accounts without warrants, pressure financial institutions into acting as enforcement arms, and collapse the line between lawful protest and punishable dissent. Canadians were told there was no alternative.
They were also told, repeatedly and unequivocally, to “get the shot to protect others,” that it would “stop with you,” that it was “safe and effective,” with no room for discussion, no acknowledgment of uncertainty, and no tolerance for questioning. These assurances were delivered with moral certainty and enforced with social, professional, and financial consequences.
Over time, many of those claims were softened, revised, or quietly walked back. But the damage had already been done. Trust was broken — not because people asked questions, but because they were punished for asking them.
The courts have now said what many Canadians felt instinctively: the legal justification for this level of state power simply was not there. The situation did not meet the definition of a national emergency, and the government crossed a constitutional line.
This ruling matters to every Canadian, regardless of where they stood on the convoy. Because if governments can declare emergencies when faced with disruption, political pressure, or inconvenience, then none of our rights are as secure as we assume.
Financial security becomes conditional. Protest becomes permission-based. And the rule of law becomes selectively applied.
And this pattern does not stop at the federal level.
We are seeing the same logic take hold in municipalities across the country. When an elected councillor steps out of line, asks uncomfortable questions, or challenges spending and decisions, the response is increasingly punitive rather than democratic.
Dissent is not debated — it is disciplined. Pay is suspended. Sanctions are imposed. Integrity commissioners, meant to safeguard ethical governance, are increasingly weaponized as enforcement tools rather than impartial arbiters.
The message is unmistakable: comply, or be punished. Fall in line, or be silenced — financially, professionally, and reputationally.
This is not accountability. It is control by process. And it mirrors, at a smaller scale, the same impulse that drove the misuse of emergency powers at the federal level.
The federal government appealed this ruling because it wanted the courts to defer — to accept its judgment without meaningful scrutiny. The court refused.
That refusal matters. It reaffirmed a core democratic principle: governments do not get to be the final judge of their own power.
This case is not about liking or disliking a protest. It is about whether Canadians live under laws — or under emergency declarations invoked when authority feels challenged.
I stood on Parliament Hill and saw how quickly that line can blur.
Today, the courts reminded the government that it does not sit above the law.
And that matters more than ever.
Financial Strategy Maximize Your RRSP Return Through Asset Location
One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is
One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
The Ontario high school system is simple; attend school for four years, earn thirty credits, and graduate. However, it’s a system which comes with constant stressors, especially as the years come to an end and students are forced to choose what’s next. The decision between college, university, and the workforce can be stressful, in addition to choosing a specific school, program, and career to focus on. It’s overwhelming, and unavoidable as a teen in modern day. However, there used to be a solution engraved directly into the school system. There used to be a thirteenth grade.
From 1984 to 2003, Ontario high schools offered Ontario Academic Courses, (OLC), an academic year for students attending a University in the upcoming years. It focused on advanced coursework, university-level expectations, and post-secondary requirements. In the early 2000s, it was phased out due to budget cuts, other provincial education systems, and the emerging credit-based graduation model. With the end of grade 13 came the start of our new education system; a system of less time, less preparation, and less options.
Although the one additional year may seem insignificant, it can make or break a student's future. Additional time to prepare can change the schools a study applies to, or the field of study they pursue. An extra year allows space to reflect, explore, and grow before making decisions that can shape an entire life path.
I am a student who constantly overthinks and attempts to plan for the future, despite my confusion regarding my path. Every time I reflect upon it, I leave with a different plan for myself. A year ago, I wanted to pursue law, and six months ago I wanted to be a journalist. Now, I’m stuck with indefinite ideas revolving around social sciences and government, with no clear direction. In another year, I may want to teach, perform, or even enter the sciences. As I experience new things, my goals shift, leaving final decisions worrisome. I worry about choosing the wrong path, spending time and money on something completely useless.
I know I am not the only teenager who is petrified by the thought of making a definite decision. It seems almost silly to ask students as young as sixteen to decide what
they want to do for the rest of their lives. Many students simply do not have the time, maturity, or exposure to make such permanent choices with confidence.
Most unprepared students choose whichever path appears most convenient, rushed by the urgency of the system. When unsatisfied, individuals may leave programs or attempt to change their plans again, wasting money, time, and certainty in the future.
Within the current education system, it is difficult to fit all required courses for post-secondary pathways, let alone those I wish to take for my own learning. An extra year would provide the opportunity to take additional academic, practical, or exploratory courses. These classes could prepare students for real-world essentials such as finances, parenting, or civics. It’s what is necessary to prepare students for both post-secondary education and post-secondary life, for both academic and personal development.
While it is still possible for students to take an extra year of high school, doing so often comes with unwanted stigma and judgment. Terms such as “super senior” or “victory lap” are looked down upon, viewed as a waste of time and resources. Teens are turned away from this solution, which is why a structured system is so important. It wouldn’t come with stigma, but with understanding and support otherwise inaccessible.
Reintroducing a thirteenth grade, or the Ontario Academic Courses, would address these issues and more. It would reduce judgement, last-minute decisions, and unprepared students leaving high school. It would significantly decrease personal stress for students, and leave families confident they made the right choice. It would lead to less students switching educational programs or drop out of post-secondary education altogether. It would be one more year for students to grow, and that year would make all the difference.
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
I just saw a REEL on Facebook of Tito-Dante Marimpeitri outside of City Hall in downtown Oshawa. It is easily the twentieth video I have seen of him since he declared his intention to run for Mayor of Oshawa on January 1st. I have never seen him on Facebook or in REELS prior to making this announcement and it’s obvious he intends to post something everyday to try and stay top of mind with the voters and show the residents that he covers all areas and all topics.
I guess my question is, what happens after the election? Win or lose does he intend to keep this level of engagement up? If not, then what a farce this is. If so, where will he find the time?
I have to say that it’s more than a little annoying that these local politicians get elected, disappear from the public view, collect a paycheck, and won’t take or return a phone call, or email. Then, when we’re in an election year, they seem to pop up everywhere. Like they are literally coming out of the woodwork. Shameful. Oshawa residents deserve better than that.
Why don’t we have some sort of accountability system for these local politicians? That is something that needs to be seriously considered going forward.
I am seeing every single Councillor for all the wards front and centre with their motions, observances, statements etc…Where have they been for the last three years? And in some cases, seven years.
I don’t find it engaging, I find it contrived, obvious, and insulting. Surely, we can do better than this.
Our current council is made up of several people who are quite literally collecting a paycheck for nothing more than the fact that they got elected! They have no intention to move on, nor do they do this city any good. Career politicians are what they call those types.
They didn’t come in with any real credentials, and they have nothing to go to when they leave so the plan is just to run, election after election and hope they slide by. That may work for a period of time and in certain places, but I have a feeling that the residents of Oshawa are ready for something new. Their charitable spirits have been stretched to the limit, and they are hungry for change.
Not talk of change and the quaint catch phrases that actually mean nothing, but real change, the kind you can’t help but notice when you walk downtown. Yes, I do think change is coming and it might be prudent for some of the current Councillors to polish up their resumes. 
Twice Bitten
Twice Bitten
By Wayne and Tamara
My fiancée cheated on me. We dated in college and broke up because she cheated on me and I found out. That was five years ago. Since then we’ve been together off and on. We are best friends to the core and love spending time together.
We got back together last December and got engaged in April. A quick engagement, but we know everything there is to know about the other and can’t imagine not being in each other’s life. We are both 27 and, I thought, ready for marriage.
Well, three weeks ago she went to an environmental conference in France. We emailed each other every day until last week. Since then I’ve received two emails, both short and missing her normal upbeat tone. I knew something was up.
So I went into her email account yesterday, which was completely wrong of me. I couldn’t help myself. From a heart-wrenching note to her best friend, I learned she cheated on me with a 35-year-old Englishman at the same program. She is not sure she loves him but has serious doubts about marrying me.
I love her, but at the same time I am absolutely furious. The worst part is I must wait another week to see her. Her family loves me and will be so upset with what she has done. Can this be fixed? Can we move past this and stay engaged?
Anthony
Anthony, when you notice a mole changing color and shape, you go to a doctor to see if it is malignant. That’s what you did when you went into your fiancée’s email account. You had reason to be suspicious, and you discovered your suspicions were correct.
Five years ago you were offered a chance to learn a lesson. If you had mastered it, you might be married to the right woman now. But as an old cliché says, when we don’t master a lesson in life, it keeps coming back at us until we do.
Wayne & Tamara
Marshmallow Man
I made a big mistake. I’ve been with my girl for awhile now, but on vacation a week ago I got caught up in the excitement with my buddies. I ended up playing a game of strip poker with two of my guy friends and two girls they know.
Nothing happened other than the game itself. I refused to have physical contact with either of the girls, and over the course of a few days I came clean with my girlfriend. I have so much remorse and would never do anything like this again. Is this repairable? Is what we had lost forever?
Holt
Holt, in a famous experiment 4-year-olds were shown a marshmallow and told if they waited 20 minutes before eating it, they would get a second marshmallow. Then their behavior was recorded.
When the children turned 18, researchers checked to see how they were doing. The children who waited were discovered to be more confident, trustworthy, and reliable, and they had much higher test scores. The lesson? Impulsivity often forecasts a grim future.
Your girlfriend knows when someone is in a relationship with a person they love, that person walks with them wherever they go and whatever they do. Now she is trying to decide whether an experiment with 4-year-olds forecasts her future with you.
Wayne & Tamara
Job Seekers: Visibility Is Not Vanity; It Is a Strategy
Job Seekers: Visibility Is Not
Vanity; It Is a Strategy
By Nick Kossovan
The question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" was posed by the Anglo-Irish philosopher George Berkeley to reflect on the concept of perception: is a sound only a sound if it’s heard by someone?
Think of Berkeley's question as a job seeker: If employers don't know of your existence, do you exist? When you take the view that billions of people don't know you exist a recruiter or hiring manager, being aware of your existence is, to a degree, intimate knowledge. Being known, now easier than ever thanks to social media and the Internet, attracts opportunity. Visibility isn't about ego. It's not about chasing likes, being flashy, or striving to go viral. It's about proactively and publicly providing ongoing evidence of how you can be a value-add to an employer that'll enhance their profitability.
When you consistently show up—sharing your ideas, perspective, progress, milestone achievements, and especially your wins—whether on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, by giving speeches, publishing blog posts or articles, appearing on podcasts, or volunteering your experience and skills for a cause you believe in—you open doors. Consistent visibility shows ambition and purpose, indicating to employers that you're committed to your career.
Post an insight every day. Share articles with your thoughts. Post constructive comments on posts from people in your industry, profession, or companies you'd like to join. Make it a daily habit to reach out to 1 - 3 people, especially those you've neglected to keep in touch with, offering value such as offering to make an introduction, without asking for anything. Every interaction you initiate with someone, whether online or in person, builds your visibility.
Visibility happens in two ways:
1. 1-to-1 engagement with people who—this is key—are working in the industry or profession you want to be in, and
2. At scale in places where people working in your industry or profession gather, such as conferences, workshops, association meetings, and, of course, social media (e.g., LinkedIn groups).
Today, increasing your visibility starts with optimizing your LinkedIn profile, which many job seekers overlook. Profiles without a profile picture, a banner, or an 'About' summary
that tells a compelling career story or quantifies the impact they had on their employers are common. By optimizing your LinkedIn profile—doing what many don't—you improve your visibility and discoverability—whether you appear in searches by recruiters, hiring managers, and those within your industry and/or profession looking to connect with like-minded people—which gives you a competitive advantage.
To increase the visibility and discoverability of your LinkedIn profile:
· Make sure your headline captures your value. ("Marketing Manager | 2024 Delivered 200% Traffic Growth via SEO & Content | Data-Driven Digital Transformation" or "Sales Director | 2024 Revenue: $6.5M+ | Building Strong Client Relationships")
· Use the keywords and language employers use to describe your ideal role.
· Quantify your impact on your employer's profitability. (This is key! Employers aren't hiring 'nice to have' employees.)
· Join groups, write posts that start conversations, comment on posts, and make connections.
A fully optimized LinkedIn profile serves two purposes by providing:
1. Human decision-makers with assurance, and
2. LinkedIn's algorithm the information it needs to determine whether you're a good match.
A common oversight among job seekers is failing to extend their visibility beyond LinkedIn. LinkedIn isn’t the only place recruiters, employers, and professionals hang out online. Publishing articles on blogging platforms such as Medium or Substack, sharing insights, and engaging in professional discussions on platforms with dedicated groups, such as Reddit, Quora, Slack, or Discord, help build a digital footprint that establishes your credibility and reinforces your expertise. You don't have to become a prolific content creator. Your goal is to curate an online presence that gets you noticed and communicates that you're an authority or subject matter expert (SME) in your industry or profession, which'll lead recruiters and employers to discover you and understand your value.
Even today, as deep as we are in the “digital age,” your visibility needs to be the most potent outside the digital world. I never understood how someone could be a project manager, accountant, marketing director, supply chain analyst, or [whatever] for 15 years without having cultivated a professional network. With the surge in bad actors and AI-generated applications, it’s increasingly common for recruiters and employers to avoid posting job openings and instead rely on referrals from employees, colleagues, mentors, and professional peers, thereby considerably broadening the hidden job market.
As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, job opportunities are all around you; the caveat is that they’re attached to people. If those in your immediate circle—family, friends, neighbours, acquaintances—don’t know you’re looking for a job and the value you can offer an employer, then when they become aware of an opportunity, they won’t think to mention you or pass it along to you. Visibility is a currency that puts you in a category of your own (not in the crowd) and pulls back the curtain to expose the job opportunities all around you. Telling everyone you know and meet that you’re job searching can significantly speed up your search.
Karmageddon 01.17.26
Karmageddon
01.17.26
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
There are moments in politics when you can simply feel that change is coming—and that change needs to come. In many cases, it is healthy for the electorate when mayors or senior politicians serve a couple of terms and then move on, whether to the private sector or to other pursuits. Renewal matters. No position better illustrates public fatigue with elected office than that of mayor. We will never see the likes of Hazel McCallion again—someone who was not only embraced by the electorate but who also never needed “strong mayor” powers. She was a strong leader, plain and simple, and she governed with the clear will of council behind her. Mayors have a best-before date. Councillors don’t. With the incredible powers now granted to strong mayors, it is more important than ever that we see new leadership and new ideas after eight years. I firmly believe term limits—similar to those in the United States—should be implemented in Canadian municipalities. Looking across Durham Region, we can see examples of what to do—and what not to do. Ajax Mayor Shaun Collier will not be seeking re-election after two terms. His time in office was marked by real accomplishments in the Town of Ajax and by consistent leadership, often with strong majority support from council. Oshawa Mayor Dan Carter is also retiring after two terms, having governed one of the most challenging municipalities in the region. Oshawa carries a heavy social-services burden while also serving as Durham’s industrial hub—no easy task for any mayor.
Elsewhere in Durham, with the exception of Clarington, municipalities have relatively new mayors and are moving forward with fresh agendas and updated strategic plans. That brings us to the curious case of Clarington. Adrian Foster is now seeking a fifth term, making him the longest-serving mayor in Clarington’s history. He announced his intention to run again months ago—during a televised council meeting, no less—which struck many as odd and inappropriate.
It is hard to ignore the areas where Clarington has taken a sharp and troubling turn: extreme taxation, questionable service expansions, and priorities that no longer reflect what residents actually want—particularly around recreation and the continued failure to build arenas.
Recent reporting by the new online publication Clarington Current has highlighted serious breakdowns in communication between the municipality and other levels of government, including unprofessional and disrespectful treatment of the local Member of Parliament’s office.
We have also learned of Clarington staff being reprimanded by judicial bodies for punitive and hostile behaviour toward constituents. That is not an isolated issue—it is a collapse of leadership. When staff culture deteriorates this badly, responsibility rests at the top. This is what happens when people remain in power too long—egos grow unchecked, accountability disappears, and a circle of enablers emerges. We see it in certain staff behaviours and in municipally funded external bodies, including the Clarington Board of Trade, where legitimate concerns are not addressed professionally but instead met with personal attacks or legal threats. I can feel change coming. And when it comes, it will not stop at the mayor’s office. It will ripple through the entire organization and through the satellite bodies funded by taxpayers. This upcoming election—the first under the strong-mayor system—will expose opportunists at a whole new level. Watch closely as loyalties shift, backs are scratched, and distance is quietly created from the current administration. Frankly, I can’t wait.
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING AND IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING
AND IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CANADA ARE ERODING and our governments are about to face a political tsunami they alone are responsible for. At the same time, there appears to be a growing public awareness of the threat to private property in this country – resulting from court decisions and government legislation, particularly in British Columbia where indigenous claims are involved. We are now facing a real and very direct threat to our economy, our living standards, and our peaceful society.
Men like Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations published in 1776, have tried to capture the fundamental reasons why some countries prosper while others fall so far behind, and they include culture, religion, resources, and geographical advantages. But at the end of the day there appears to be one explanation that modern-day economists keep returning to time and again - private property rights.
Almost everyone who has taken the time to study the matter agrees that private property is a necessary condition for long term prosperity. As Adam Smith himself wrote, “Commerce and manufactures can seldom flourish long in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice, in which the people do not feel themselves secure in the possession of their property.”
A private property right necessitates the exclusive authority to own, use and transfer an asset. Each of these characteristics plays an important role in economic growth. When citizens are allowed to use an asset however they wish, they’re incentivized to put it to its most productive use, again adding to a nation’s overall wealth. And most importantly, when they have the ability to transfer it to others on mutually agreeable terms, it tends to be reallocated to those who can create the most value out of it. That’s important.
I have had had legal title to land and buildings in my lifetime, and I enjoyed a degree of confidence in having ownership of those assets. I harbored a willingness to maintain them, invest in them, and to see their value increase. All of that adds to a stock of private capital in this country that allows us to become more productive and therefore wealthier as individuals and as a society.
This doesn’t happen by accident, but rather it is the direct result of a set of laws and institutions structured to ensure that property rights are unambiguous - so that it’s easy to determine who owns what - and widespread, so that rights are enjoyed by everyone and not just a select few. These are not just theoretical considerations. Decades of economic research demonstrate that private property is all-important for a nation to truly flourish in all its aspects.
In his study of more than 1,000 years of economic development, Dutch historian Bas van Bavel documents a recurring pattern. From Northern Italy, to Iraq, to the Dutch Republic, secure property rights led to economic growth and prosperity, and conversely, when property rights were eroded, economies stagnated or even declined.
In extensive fieldwork throughout Latin America, Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto found that when private property rights are well recognized, owners are able to breathe new life into otherwise “dead” capital, turning it into collateral for loans and investment, leading to real increases in living standards.
In their Nobel Prize-winning work, economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson point to the “natural” experiment on the Korean Peninsula. While the two Koreas share similar histories, culture, and natural resources, the South has instituted well-defined, secure and general private property rights while the North has attempted to centrally plan a communist state with almost no protection of individual private property. While their incomes were once comparable, South Koreans now earn about 26 times what their North Korean neighbours earn.
Here in Canada, we must make ourselves aware of the broader implications of weakened private property rights. Recent court decisions and legislative initiatives by governments appear to be promoting a sort of new, collective Aboriginal rights and land-title reality that overrides existing property ownership. If Canada’s longstanding tradition of strong property rights protection continues to be eroded like this, our long-term prospects for peace and prosperity will certainly be put at risk. That is an unescapable reality.
This Canadian-made property upheaval has two distinct sources. The first is Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The second is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). British Columbia is particularly susceptible to both, but the rest of the country is not immune from them either. What is very important for readers of this column to remember is that the Courts control Section 35, but it is our elected representatives that control whether UNDRIP applies in their various jurisdictions throughout Canada.
Section 35 was the basis of the recent Cowichan decision from the B.C. Supreme Court in which Aboriginal title, the court said, is “prior and senior” to fee simple property. Seriously, this actually happened. The B.C. law that eventually enacted UNDRIP now forms a part of the NDP government’s socialist mandate to make agreements granting title and/or management rights to specific Aboriginal groups over specific territories. That is absolutely frightening and a recipe for civil unrest in the years to come.
Over on the east coast, in New Brunswick, Wolastoqey First Nation claimed the western half of the province, including large tracts of land owned by seven private companies. In 2024, those companies brought a motion to be released from the claim. The Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick dismissed the action against them, but not because the claim for their land could not succeed. Striking the claim against the private defendants “does not mean that the Aboriginal group will be denied the possible remedy of repossessing [the defendants’] land,” the judge wrote. Where the Aboriginal claim is made out, the court could instruct the government to expropriate private property from its owners and hand it over to the Aboriginal group.
All of this began in 2021 when the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which legally obligates the Canadian government to ensure its laws are consistent with that Declaration. Now we’re beginning to pay the price for yet more Liberal Party stupidity. 
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)