A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones In 1982, PubMed, a research database, indexed 740 papers with “vitamin D” in the title. In 2020, there were 5,566. Clearly interest has increased. Today, vitamin D is studied as a system-wide regulator and an essential component of skeletal, immune, metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, and inflammatory processes. But even a century ago, nutritionists feared the dangers of vitamin D deficiency. Warnings were dismissed as “alternative thinking.” Vitamin D was discovered in the early 20th century, when researchers noticed that children deprived of sunlight developed rickets, a bone-softening disease that left them bow-legged and deformed. In 1903, Niels Ryberg Finsen, a Danish physician with Icelandic roots, received a Nobel prize for pioneering the therapeutic use of concentrated light. Sanatoriums, which emphasized sunlight exposure, and cod liver oil, rich in D, were common treatments for tuberculosis and other infections, but Finsen’s work explained it. For decades afterward, vitamin D was viewed narrowly as a “bone vitamin” in spite of the success of sanatoriums. Once rickets was largely eliminated through supplementation of food, the medical profession lost interest. Blood levels were rarely tested. The assumption was that a normal diet and a bit of sunshine were enough. More recent research has shown D is not just a vitamin, but a hormone, influencing hundreds of genes involved in immune function, inflammation, muscle strength, and brain health. Across the human lifespan, as much as 3-4% of the human genome is influenced by vitamin D. It’s confirmed what early advocates suspected – deficiency is the norm, not the exception. With aging, skin becomes far less efficient at producing D from sunlight. An 80-year-old produces only a fraction that a 20-year-old can make with the same sun exposure. And if you live north of Atlanta, GA, you aren’t making enough D from sunlight in winter, period. Vitamin D is vital for mothers and developing children too. Diet alone often isn’t enough. Very few foods naturally contain meaningful amounts of vitamin D. Unless someone regularly eats fatty fish or takes supplements, intake is usually inadequate. That means blood levels fall well below what researchers now associate with optimal health, 40 – 100 ng/mL. Low vitamin D levels are strongly associated with increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis; loss of muscle strength and balance, leading to falls; impaired immune function and higher susceptibility to infections; chronic inflammation, which underlies heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis; and cognitive decline and mood disorders, including depression. In other words, vitamin D deficiency worsens many of the conditions we attribute to “normal aging.” Perhaps the greatest irony is this: vitamin D deficiency is easy to detect and inexpensive to correct. A simple blood test can reveal deficiency. Sensible supplementation can restore healthy levels. Yet many elderly patients are never tested, and when they are, the “acceptable” levels recommended by some authorities are likely too low to provide full protection. 2000 – 5000 IU or 50 – 125 mcg of D3 per day is a good start, guided by testing blood levels. Magnesium and Vitamin K2 are important companion nutrients to optimize vitamin D metabolism. Medicine is very good at treating disease once it appears, but far less interested in preventing it. Vitamin D deficiency is a textbook example of this failure. No vitamin is a magic bullet, and vitamin D is no exception. But ignoring a widespread deficiency that affects bones, muscles, immunity, and brain health makes no sense. If there is a lesson here, it is one that’s been repeated in this column many times: when common sense, biology, and well-conducted research point in the same direction, it’s time to pay attention, no matter how long it takes conventional thinking to catch up.

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better By Nick Kossovan In terms of hiring, I have this, admittedly somewhat idealistic, holistic view: STEP 1: Candidates apply to a job opening. STEP 2: Candidates who applied according to the employer's application instructions and based on their resume, appear qualified are selected for further assessment. STEP 3: The selected candidate's LinkedIn activity and digital footprint are reviewed to assess their online behaviour. If no controversial behaviour is found, they're scheduled for a telephone screening call. STEP 4: Those who pass the screening call are scheduled for face-to-face interviews (a maximum of three). STEP 5: The candidate most likely to be the best option, often considered the least painful, is hired. "Sometimes all you can do is choose the least painful option." - Michael Kouly, Journalist As a side note, my hiring philosophy is to accept candidates as they present themselves and hire them if they belong. Looking back, most of my hiring mistakes have been in giving candidates the benefit of the doubt. "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time." - Maya Angelou Choosing [whatever] is simply selecting the best available (keyword) option you have at the time. At any stage of an employer's hiring process, especially during telephone screenings and face-to-face interviews, an employer may decide not to pursue an applicant's candidacy because they've identified other applicants whose qualifications, experience, and potential better align with the role's specific requirements and desired outcomes. The candidate's personality is also considered. Those seen as a good match for the company culture and team are preferred. Ultimately, employers aren't eliminating candidates; they're searching for and selecting the candidate they feel is the optimal fit to achieve the position's goals without disrupting their culture or the team. This hiring dynamic offers several perspectives: · Hiring is a relative comparison. Job seekers tend to forget they're being compared to other candidates. In 2026, given the complex economic climate employers face, hiring, as it has been for quite some time, isn't about finding a candidate "who'll do"; it's about finding the best match from the available pool of candidates, which is quite large. Employers can't afford to make bad hires. While you might be a highly qualified candidate, if another applicant presents themselves as a closer match—someone more in sync with the company and industry, easier to manage, and more relevant—the employer is likely to choose them. · Recruiters and hiring managers are increasingly focusing on a position's expected results and the value those results add to the company's profitability. A "position value"—the impact on company goals and revenue, along with the cost of labour versus productivity gain—is the primary factor, more than the skills and experience required, that determines the compensation package offered. · Assessing candidates for cultural and team fit has become paramount. The fit needs to be glove-like. Employers, understandably risk-averse, want to avoid hiring candidates who'll be challenging to manage, underscoring that, as an employee, being a good soldier is often the best strategy for long-term employment. · The degree to which a candidate demonstrates interest in the job and in joining the company (e.g., by including a compelling cover letter, sending a thank-you note after every interview) strongly influences hiring decisions. Employers regard genuine interest and enthusiasm as signs of long-term commitment and motivation. Job seekers keep refusing to acknowledge that they aren't the only game in town, that there's always someone younger, hungrier and more qualified than them. When your interviewer says they'll get back to you, it means they're not concerned about losing you. If you aren't formally notified of being rejected within a week, assume that you've been placed in the "keep them warm" pile, or that you've been ghosted, and the employer is okay with losing you. You may have been solid, but you didn't "blow them away." I've seen this happen time and time again. It's common for employers to leave a position open until the right candidate is found, especially if the role isn't critical to profitability. Speed doesn't beat finding the perfect candidate. A job seeker's best job search strategy today is to demonstrate to an employer that they're an excellent option by showing: · They can follow instructions. · They don't harbour a sense of entitlement. · They're friendly and cooperative, and easy to manage. · They want to contribute to the employer's business profitability. · They're a lifelong learner. Two final candidates. One role. Both interviewed well and are qualified. Who gets hired if not for the candidate's resume, LinkedIn profile and "perfect" answers? The candidate who asked questions that showed they were more interested in what they could do for the employer than what the employer could do for them. The candidate who followed up after every interview. The candidate who showed genuine interest in the employer's products and/or service offerings and challenges. The candidate who appeared more interested in contributing to the company's success than just seeking a job. When job hunting, keep in mind that employers evaluate you based on the signals you send through your resume, application, digital footprint, and interview behaviour. Employers use your signals to determine whether you'll be the least painful option.

MARK CARNEY IS PLACING CANADA’S HEAD SQUARELY IN THE MOUTH OF A CHINESE TIGER

MARK CARNEY IS PLACING CANADA’S HEAD SQUARELY IN THE MOUTH OF A CHINESE TIGER CANADA’S VERY OWN PRIME MINISTER is playing a very dangerous game of high international politics with one of the world’s most aggressive totalitarian regimes. In recent weeks, Prime Minister Mark Carney has decided to launch a significant and highly controversial shift in Canadian foreign policy by establishing what the Liberals are now trying to package as “a strategic partnership" with the Chinese Communist Party. This is a significant change, which Carney tries to justify as "taking the world as it is" rather than as we wish it to be – a statement that has drawn intense criticism for potentially compromising Canada's national security. This is happening despite concerns over China’s human rights record and nearly a year after he called China "the biggest security threat" facing Canada. Carney went on to tell members of the press that "the world has changed" in recent years, and that these new arrangements will somehow set Canada up well for "the new world order". Our more intimate relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, he added, has become "more predictable" than our relationship with U.S. president Donald Trump. He even went so far as to write, in a social media post, that Canada was "recalibrating" its relationship with China’s totalitarian regime, "strategically, pragmatically, and decisively". Make no mistake, this is really happening, however frightening it may sound to those who do not support Liberal party ideology in this country. As to the economic circumstances that surround all of this, we can – in part - look to the United States. Since taking office for a second time last year, president Trump has imposed tariffs on various sectors, such as metals and automotives, which has led to increased uncertainty for counties like ours that have for so long decided to piggyback on America’s capitalist culture. The North American free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico (USMCA) is now under a mandatory review, with Canada and Mexico having both made clear they want it to remain in place. But the decision to carve out a major new deal with China is a declaration by the Liberals that the future of North American free trade is increasingly irrelevant within the realm of socialist Canadian politics. Our Prime Minister made some very ques­tion­able choices in both Beijing and Davos that may come back to bite him - and all Canadians - by ali­en­at­ing mod­er­ate Amer­ic­ans while unwittingly arm­ing author­it­arian pro­pa­gand­ists. The Liberals have been seen as overly con­cili­at­ory towards their new masters, and Mark Carney’s glowing endorse­ment of Chinese Communist Party pro­pa­ganda is a steep price to pay in a desperate move to cozy up to Xi Jinping. The federal Liberals are making no attempts at hiding their moral bankruptcy, and Mark Carney’s latest performances have revealed his gov­ern­ment's will­ing­ness to appease an author­it­arian power. Over the past two dec­ades, China has per­pet­rated an array of hos­tile acts against Cana­dians by sanc­tioning, threatening and har­assing politi­cians and mem­bers of various com­munit­ies. They have inter­fered in Cana­dian polit­ics, weapon­ized trade for geo­pol­it­ical pur­poses, and per­pet­rated his­toric levels of espi­on­age and theft of intel­lec­tual prop­erty. Canada's secur­ity agen­cies continue to identify China as the most cap­able and per­sist­ent stra­tegic threat we face. With regard to the deal-making on tariffs that came about due to lingering frustration with the United States, our federal government secured a deal where China dropped its own tariffs on Canadian canola seed (from 84% to 15%), lobsters, and crabs. In exchange, we cut our 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) to 6.1% for up to 49,000 vehicles annually. A new memorandum of understanding aims to increase Canadian exports to China, and to explore Chinese investment in Canada’s energy sector (as if that prospect can be seen as somehow helpful to our country). The proposed partnership even includes "pragmatic engagement" on public safety, such as law enforcement cooperation on narcotics trafficking and cybercrime. Don’t hold your breath. The whole thing offers a dan­ger­ous new pre­ced­ent, because eco­nom­ic­ally, Canada mat­ters very little to most Chinese firms. The real prize for the Chinese Communist Party is not access to Cana­dian mar­kets, but the spec­tacle of Amer­ica's neigh­bour kow­tow­ing to Beijing. It sets an embarrassing bench­mark for future negotiations by enhancing totalitarian propaganda that the free world is now entirely vulnerable. Worst of all, the EV component of these deals is positively frightening. The deal will see Canada ease tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles that it imposed in tandem with the U.S. in 2024. As one might expect, the reaction was swift, with some, like Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe hailing it as "very good news". Farmers in his province have been hard hit by China's retaliatory tariffs on Canadian canola oil, and the deal, he said, would bring much needed relief. But here in Ontario – home to Canada’s auto sector - Premier Doug Ford was sharply critical of the deal. He said removing EV tariffs on China "would hurt our economy and lead to job losses". In a post on X, Ford said Carney's government was "inviting a flood of cheap made-in-China electric vehicles without any real guarantees of equal or immediate investment in Canada's economy". He’s right about that, and you can rest assured the electric vehicle provisions in the trade deal will ultimately help China make considerable inroads into our domestic automobile market. With the lower EV tariffs, approximately 10 per cent of Canada's electric vehicle sales are now expected to go to Chinese automakers. The Liberals under Mark Carney have signaled to the rest of the world that they’re now warming up to China, and the fallout has only just begun. All signs point to the end of Canada’s domestic automotive industries, and there’s no denying that reality. To put it simply, if countries like ours continue to treat nego­ti­ations with the Chinese Communist Party as being an intelligent and strategic move – one that buy’s us time to restruc­ture a weakening eco­nom­y - our future sovereignty will be compromised. The Liberals are poorly placed to res­ist being coer­ced by the Chinese, and Mark Car­ney's rhet­oric in Davos will ultimately be seen as a not-so-soph­ist­ic­ated moral compromise for accom­mod­at­ing totalitarianism. At the end of the day, words alone do not con­fer moral author­ity or defend sov­er­eignty. It's up to every concerned Canadian to ensure our Prime Minister doesn’t let Canada’s collective head get bitten off, because – as Winston Churchill used to say – you can’t negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.

White Flags For Sale!!!

White Flags For Sale!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers

After the red flags, the pink flags, the black flags, orange flags and the pride flags. There is only one choice flag choice left. A big white flag... as we surrender to the U.S. before they have to come and liberate us from the invasion from within due to the insane immigration policies. There is no such thing as Canadian politics. Our own non-elected Prime Minister is pushing for a new world order.... and don’t get me wrong I am no conspiracy theorists.... But as your community Chief of Information. I can tell you things are not looking good for what is supposed to be a democracy in Canadian politics. Just this past week the news wire read: Conservatives vote to keep Pierre Poilievre on as party leader... The leadership vote result came after Poilievre delivered a rousing speech to Conservative members Friday evening at the party’s annual convention in Calgary. Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have overwhelmingly voted to keep Pierre Poilievre on as their leader, the party revealed Friday after a late-night vote at its annual convention in Calgary. More than 87 per cent of voting members cast their ballot for Poilievre to stay on as leader, the Conservative Party said in a statement. He’s now the first Conservative leader since Stephen Harper to be given a second chance by the party faithful as they seek to regroup from a disappointing loss in April’s federal election. He beat the strong result Harper earned in 2005 by three points. The vote result came after Poilievre delivered a speech to Conservative members Friday evening where he struck a hopeful message and laid out his vision for a future Conservative government. “When you start something, you never give up,” he said to a cheering crowd. “I’ll never give up.” Poilievre faced a critical leadership review under the party’s bylaws after leading the Conservatives to a fourth-straight election loss against the Liberals. The party opted instead to forego a vote on whether to hold a review and simply asked delegates whether they support Poilievre remaining as leader. Really... have we not learned our lesson from accepting shinny mirrors? Things that glitter are far from valuable but if anything blinding.... Come on people. Here we have Poillievre, queen of the pretty boys... could not win his riding. If it was not for a party sacrificial lamb. He be serving you at McD. But because he looks good, a charming voice and can spew the fiddler on the roof tune... and has all the political rats in a frenzy... He is not rewarded. Wake up people. Have we not learned anything from electing pretty boys to office that do not have the gusto needed to do the job adequately. The current Liberal leader at the least has business experience and is a prince in the financial world. To bad that he has no clue on the pain and suffering of the average Canadian and is more concerned over giving Billions of our dollars to the Ukraine. I have been a long time supporter of the Conservative party. I must admit I am disgusted by the lack of leadership and the open nepotism. Look at the Oshawa MP. She was handed the MP position by the previous MP. As a thank you for being his personal watch dog. An MP that does not return phone calls and or emails. This is not a leader. Then on the opposite of the political scale. You have the local Oshawa MPP. A hateful NDP’er. In her defense I doubt she knows how to dial a phone as she in her many terms has yet to return a phone call. I don’t have any issue with any other MP or MPP. Sad that in this great nation. We have no leadership and we have to consider waving a white flag in hope of making Canada Great Again.

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Parliament resumes its winter–spring sitting, Canadians will hear a familiar refrain: budget pressures, housing, health care, public safety, global instability. These issues matter. However, the most important test of the coming parliamentary session will not be what is debated. It will be how Parliament conducts itself while doing so. This session arrives at a moment of institutional strain. Trust in public institutions is fragile. Politics feels louder, sharper, and more transactional. Minority Parliaments, once the exception, are now the norm. Against that backdrop, the House of Commons is about to undergo one of its annual stress tests: months of budget votes, committee battles, confidence motions, and relentless political pressure. How Parliament behaves over the next several months will say a great deal about the health of Canadian democracy. A session that matters more than it looks The winter–spring sitting is where Parliament earns—or loses—its relevance. It is when governments must justify how they will spend public money and oppositions must demonstrate that scrutiny is more than obstruction. Budgets and estimates are not symbolic exercises; they are the clearest expression of democratic accountability. In a minority Parliament, these votes are also tests of legitimacy. Every confidence motion asks a basic question: does this government still reflect the will of the House? That question can only be answered credibly if the process itself is taken seriously. If debates feel rushed, opaque, or purely theatrical, public confidence erodes further. If Parliament demonstrates discipline, transparency, and respect for process, trust—slowly—begins to recover. Procedure is democracy’s guardrail There will be predictable calls in the coming weeks to “cut through the process” and “just get things done.” Procedure will be blamed for delay. Committees will be accused of dysfunction. The House will be portrayed as an obstacle. That framing misunderstands Parliament’s role. Procedure exists precisely to slow decision-making when stakes are high. It forces governments to explain themselves, oppositions to justify resistance, and all parties to confront consequences beyond the news cycle. In a time of polarization and misinformation, these guardrails matter more, not less. This session will test whether MPs treat procedure as a shared democratic asset—or merely as a weapon. Committees: the real proving ground For most Canadians, committee rooms are invisible. Yet this is where democratic resilience is most tangibly built or broken. Committees can be places where evidence trumps rhetoric, where public servants are questioned seriously, and where cross-party cooperation still occurs. Or they can devolve into partisan theatre, designed for clips rather than conclusions. This session’s committee work—on spending, public safety, procurement, foreign interference, or health care—will quietly shape whether Parliament is perceived as competent or performative. The public may not follow every hearing, but they feel the outcomes: delayed reports, unanswered questions, or credible recommendations acted upon. Democracy weakens when committees become frivolous. It strengthens when they do their unglamorous work well. The executive temptation Another quiet risk will hover over this session: executive drift. When Parliament is difficult, governments are tempted to govern around it—through regulation, administrative discretion, or time allocation. Sometimes urgency justifies this. Over time, it becomes habit. Each time Parliament is bypassed, a little democratic muscle atrophies. A resilient parliamentary session is one in which government accepts discomfort, opposition exercises restraint, and major decisions are debated openly—even when outcomes are uncertain. Efficiency is not a democratic value on its own. Accountability is. Civility is not nostalgia Calls for civility are often dismissed as naïve or old-fashioned. In reality, civility is functional. It allows disagreement without delegitimization. It keeps opponents within the democratic tent. This matters in the months ahead. Budget debates, public safety legislation, and foreign policy questions will be contentious. If rhetoric consistently suggests that political opponents are not merely wrong but dangerous or illegitimate, public confidence suffers. When Parliament models respect under pressure, it reinforces democratic norms beyond the chamber. Resilience is not consensus. It is the ability to disagree without tearing the system itself apart. What Canadians should watch for The coming session offers clear signals that citizens can watch—even without mastering parliamentary procedure: · Are budget assumptions explained honestly, including trade-offs? · Do committees produce serious work, or just noise? · Are confidence votes treated as constitutional moments, not stunts? · Is Parliament engaged, or is power steadily shifting elsewhere? These questions go to the heart of democratic health. A narrow but real opportunity Canada is not in democratic free fall. That is the good news. But resilience is not permanent. It is cumulative, built through habits, norms, and expectations. This parliamentary session offers an opportunity—quiet, procedural, untelevised in many moments—to rebuild some of what has been lost. It will not happen through grand speeches or new legislation alone. It will happen through discipline: showing up, listening, explaining, and accepting limits. Parliament does not need to be loved. It needs to be trusted. As MPs take their seats this winter, they inherit more than an agenda. They inherit responsibility for whether Canadians still believe that their democracy works when it is under pressure—not just when it is convenient. This session will answer that question. Hope for the best!

Stronger from the Inside Out

Stronger from the Inside Out Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Why is it the face lines of aging men can make them handsome while a wrinkled female face needs improvement? That double standard should be put to bed. Nevertheless, looking and feeling younger is not a cosmetic matter, for women or men. Studies show that “feeling younger”, or perceiving oneself as younger, correlates with better health outcomes. A study of three large longitudinal U.S. samples found that people who felt older than their real age had a 24% higher risk of mortality compared with those who felt younger. Researchers following over 6,000 people in the U.K., found a rate of death of 14.3% for those who felt 3 or more years younger than their age, compared with 24.6% for those who felt older. Feeling younger is a worthwhile goal! That’s why collagen supplements are big business, promising to make you look younger by helping keep skin firm and hydrated. But the real health story isn’t at the surface. The body is comprised of tens of thousands of different proteins that conduct all kinds of functions. Collagen is the most abundant of them, accounting for nearly a third of all the protein we have. It’s the glue that holds us together, forming the scaffolding for our skin, joints, bones, tendons, blood vessels, and even the lining of our gut. It gives tissues their shape, flexibility, and ability to repair themselves when stressed or injured. But starting in our 40s, our fibroblasts – the cells that produce collagen – slow down. The fibers they create lose structure and strength. Declining collagen means joints feel stiffer, muscles recover more slowly, and tissues take longer to heal. Blood vessels lose some of their elasticity. Even digestion can be affected, as the gut lining depends on collagen. Aging, in other words, begins from within. Collagen supplements have surged in popularity, with sales climbing every year. Many forms require large doses – up to ten grams daily – usually consumed as powders. Capsules are more convenient, but few deliver enough active material to make a measurable difference. An exception is the new generation of marine collagens. When buying it, look for the ingredient Cartidyss, a hydrolyzed Type II collagen derived from the cartilage of sustainably caught skate fish in northern France. The collagen is extracted using only water. No chemicals. And the cartilage itself is upcycled from fish already harvested for food. It’s a clean, environmentally responsible source. What makes this marine collagen distinct is its composition. Cartidyss doesn’t just supply collagen. It naturally contains other compounds that are key building blocks for joint cartilage, skin elasticity, and hydration. And it’s been produced to facilitate absorption by the body, so only two capsules a day yield effective benefits. In a 90-day study involving women aged 45 to 59, those who took 500 milligrams of Cartidyss daily showed a 38% increase in skin dermis density leading to a 26% reduction in crow’s feet wrinkles around the eyes and a 31% reduction in laugh line wrinkles. Those are the measures that are easy to see on the surface, and signal stronger connective tissue everywhere collagen is functioning in the body. We’ll all get wrinkles and that’s not a bad thing. Every line tells a story. But there’s nothing wrong with fighting back if it helps you feel younger. If you’re looking to boost collagen naturally, make sure you are getting enough vitamin C and lysine, the essential building blocks of collagen formation. If you choose a collagen supplement, make it a high-quality one – clean, clinically tested, and built on real science. That’s the smart way to age strong from the inside out.

More than Cookie Sales - Lessons Learned from Girl Guides of Canada

More than Cookie Sales - Lessons Learned from Girl Guides of Canada By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Throughout my life, I have participated in countless extracurricular activities involving sports, the arts, and leadership groups. Each of these experiences came with their own lessons and memories. However, the one which stuck with me the most, and the one which I learned the most from, was Girl Guides of Canada. Girl guides of Canada is an organization for girls ages 5 to 18 which focuses on leadership, community involvement, and empowerment. Founded in 1910, its goals have changed throughout the years, however at its core it has kept the same motivation for empowerment and action, while selling the best cookies. The organization is divided into 5 branches, based on age: Sparks, Embers, Guides, Pathfinders, and Rangers. I have been a Girl Guide since my first year of Sparks when I was five years old, as early as I could register. At that age, meetings were filled with silly crafts, energetic games, and new friends. As the years progressed, the activities changed, replacing silly games with community outings, service projects, and important life skills. I am now a junior leader and second-year ranger, meaning I am in my second-last year of guiding overall. In less than two years, I will have finished an experience which has been a part of my life for so many years. It’s a sad reality, which leaves me reflecting on my experiences, people I have met, and things I have learned due to the organization. One of the most special things about Girl Guides is the variety in every meeting. Each week brings something new, based on a program planned to ensure girls learn the most they can about the largest variety of topics throughout the year. Through my units, I have seen stage productions, visited astronomy observatories, volunteered in retirement homes, learned coding, learned survival skills at camps, managed finances, explored history, and so much more. Girl Guides also gave me a strong sense of belonging, and introduced me to friends I would have never known otherwise. There is always an opportunity to talk to a new friend or work with others, strengthening skills in collaboration and team-work while still having fun. I met one of my closest friends, Amelia, as a Pathfinder in eighth grade, someone who I never would have otherwise been introduced to. The collaboration isn’t just about friendship, but also leadership, as I have learned to work with younger girls as a junior leader. In addition to being a member of my Ranger unit, I volunteer with younger girls ages 9 to 12. As a junior leader, I help plan meetings, run activities, and help the girls when needed, which overall has built my confidence, patience, organization, and communication skills, all qualities which extend beyond weekly meetings. Another major aspect of Girl Guides is service projects and community involvement. In my first year as a Pathfinder, we organized a donation drive for sanitation and hygiene products, and created care packages for a women's shelter Additionally, we have made cards to send to retirement homes, made food placemats for individuals with disabilities, and cleaned up community parks. We are currently planning our Ranger service project, another big initiative my unit will use to help others. Whether it be a large charity goal or an activity during a small meeting, Girl Guides is filled with community service which demonstrates the importance of empathy, responsibility, and action, regardless of how small the action may seem. This extracurricular has been an outlet and support system for me for years. Whether I need to talk about my troubles, brainstorm solutions, or to be distracted, the meetings always have what I need. It’s biggest help during the covid-19 pandemic, as it felt like the entire world was shut down. Although our meetings had new guidelines or restrictions, my unit continued to meet, either social distancing outdoors or online. This helped me fight isolation, boredom, and provided a fun outlet we all desperately needed during the pandemic. Although these stressful times are over, the organization continues to provide hope, support, and joy to my weekly routine. These experiences are not ones which I experience alone, as Girl Guides has become a family tradition. My mother and aunt were both Guides, and my step-sisters currently participate as well. Being part of an organization that is connected to my family and spans generations has made the experience even more meaningful. Of all the extracurricular activities I have done, Girl Guides of Canada is the one which has had, and continues to have the biggest influence on me today. It has taught me leadership, resilience, compassion, confidence, and everyday life skills. To me, it is far more than an extracurricular activity; it is a part of my childhood, a community of friends, and a tradition which I will never forget.

CHE FAI!!!

CHE FAI!!! By Rosaldo Russo "Que fa" most commonly refers to the Italian phrase "che fai?", meaning "What are you doing?" or "What do you do?" (job). It is a frequently used, informal question to ask about someone's current actions or profession. Now that we educated the massess... CHE FAI, when it comes to our elected officials. One, you never see them unless and election. Two, what are they thinking when it comes to property taxes. I am on a fixed pension of 20k a year. I get city property tax at 18k. How am I to pay for food, gas, insurance and all the other goodies that go along with existing. Now I can understand why so many people are living on the street. I think I am contemplating moving to the corner of Simcoe and Bond. There is a beautiful store front that I would fit nicely in. Close by there is the newly erected 10 million dollar waste of my tax dollars ‘Veterans” park. A monument to wasting tax payers dollars... But wait, let’s increase property taxes in 2026. What a disgrace. Hope you all remember these “CHE FAI’S” this upcoming election. They should all resign.

WANTING TO KNOW!!!

WANTING TO KNOW!!! A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist I read a story recently and it prompted me to want to know how my City Councillor voted on a particular matter. I was a bit surprised to find out that in order for me to know how my Councillor voted I would have to go through several steps, navigate from one screen to another and go back and forth with the Clerk’s office a few times. Yes, if you are trying to find out information that should be readily available to the public you will indeed need to pack your patience. So, that exercise naturally brought to mind the question of recorded votes. Why does Oshawa not have a recorded vote process in place? I cannot imagine a single resident that would be against such transparency. And that by the way is the only actual way to have transparency in Council. Everyone runs for a seat on Council saying that they will be transparent and yet we here we are, having to jump through hoops and waste our time trying to figure out how a Councillor voted. There is only one reason for this, and it is simply that the Councillors don’t want you to know how they voted. Toronto has recorded votes on every matter so that the public can easily see how the Councillor that represents them voted on the matter at hand. This is especially important when the matter is contentious. People want to have their say and be heard. They want the person who they elected, to speak for them. That is in fact why they were elected. Closed door or unrecorded voting smacks of underhanded dealings, and if there is nothing going on that the public needs to be concerned about then the votes need to be recorded, every time. London and Guelph also have a recorded voting system. There is no reason that Oshawa does not have a recorded voting system. What needs to happen is the public needs to push for that. Recently, The Region of Durham held their vote on the budget. When Councillor Brian Nicholson reported how each individual Councillor voted, apparently (according to him), he was questioned by some Councillors as to why he reported to the public how they voted. I can only assume that the Councillors questioning the reporting of the votes were the same Councillors that voted to increase the taxes by 4.8%. I think Council should adopt a recorded voting system and not hide behind closed doors. I know that my Councillor Derek Giberson, who is not a Regional Councillor, so he didn’t get a vote but that didn’t stop him from penning an open letter to Regional Council to ask them to go with the higher tax increase and not try to sell the public on the illusion of savings by adopting the lower of the tax increase options. Nice work Derek, you should be very proud of yourself. I guess we’ll see what the public thinks of your efforts this October.

‘Taste Like Chicken’

‘Taste Like Chicken’ Is Not a Compliment By Nick Kossovan More than ever, the job market is noisy, and competition is, to say the least, fierce. For job seekers, the biggest challenge isn't a lack of skills or experience; it's a lack of visibility. Recruiters and hiring managers are inundated with applications. I receive at least 10 emails or DMs daily from job seekers, most of whom send a bland message like, "Please look at my résumé and let me know if you have a job for me." This lazy outreach tastes like rubbery chicken, making it easy to ignore, delete, and forget. At the risk of stating the obvious, hiring paradigms have shifted dramatically thanks to the Internet and social media. Today, recruiters and hiring managers don't just read résumés. They scour LinkedIn, Google people, and social media to find individuals who are not only qualified but also relevant, who clearly explain what they do (read: the results they've achieved), in which area they are a SME (Subject Matter Expert), and who are moving forward. They're seeking industry leaders and thinkers who can propel their client or company into the future. Whether you're job searching, maintaining your career, or looking to advance it, positioning yourself as a trusted voice in your industry or profession gives you a significant advantage. Reminiscent of a Greek tragedy, many over-50 job seekers and Gen Xers, despite being incredibly qualified, struggle because of limited social media proficiency. They built their careers before social media platforms mattered, leaving them at a disadvantage in today's cutthroat job market. So how do you capture the attention of recruiters and hiring managers? Start with the basics: Optimize your LinkedIn profile: Your LinkedIn profile is your professional landing page, which recruiters and employers will inevitably review to determine whether you're worth speaking with. It's here that you provide employers, recruiters, and your network with a 360-degree view of your career and personality by showcasing your skills, experience, and achievements. By simply doing what I still see many job seekers not do, which is making sure your LinkedIn profile includes a professional headshot, an eye-catching banner, a keyword-rich headline, and an 'About' section that conveys your career story in a way that makes the reader say, "I must meet this person!" you'll be ahead of most job seekers when it comes to making yourself visible. Recommendation: Subscribe to Kristof Schoenaerts Substack newsletter, Job Search Unlocked. Adopt a "proof of results" mindset: Although numbers are the language of business, few job seekers speak that language. Whether on your résumé or LinkedIn profile, listing duties is, from an employer's perspective, inconsequential. Employers are only interested in the results you achieved—your impact—for your previous employers. Therefore, speak the language of business and speak of your results (e.g., "Increased website traffic by 200% within 18 months," "In 2025, the number of accounts in my assigned territory grew from 150 to 225."). Leverage the hidden job market: Nowadays, connections are key to job search success. Recruiters and employers are increasingly relying on referrals and their networks to avoid being inundated with applications and having to weed out mostly irrelevant applications. Get serious about networking with individuals in your industry and profession, as well as at your target companies. One strong conversation with a decision-maker outweighs sending hundreds of generic applications. Two recommendations: 1. Read Dig Your Well Before You're Thirsty, by Harvey Mackay 2. Subscribe to Greg Roche's Substack newsletter, The Introverted Networker. Engage Strategically: As I mentioned, your LinkedIn profile is a 24/7/365 living portfolio of your work and, more importantly, of how you think. Beyond optimising your profile, you must actively engage with your network. Engage daily with 2-3 key posts related to your industry or profession. Focus on thoughtful commenting rather than just liking, aiming for 15-20 influential, relevant connections. Use a 3x3x3 approach daily to enhance your visibility: engage with 3 posts, 3 people, and 3 comments. This'll go a long way toward helping you appear in searches and be top-of-mind with recruiters and employers. By taking the proactive steps outlined above, you'll gain visibility that far surpasses most job seekers'. However, for the most part, you'll still "taste like chicken," making you easy to dismiss in today's job market. It's crucial to offer something more, something all employers crave beyond finding a candidate who'll merely get the job done. Today, employers are especially hungry for fresh ideas and perspectives, which is why I recommend presenting an idea when applying. What better way to showcase your knowledge and passion for their business than by sharing an innovative suggestion to improve their products, services, or processes? This shows you're serious about the opportunity and have taken the time to understand their business. If your suggestion ties to profitability, you'll position yourself as an invaluable candidate. As a job seeker, are you making yourself visible in the current crowded job market? If not, you're prolonging your job search. You need to be more than just another indistinguishable application. Stand out! Engage! Don't be afraid to promote your experience, the results you've achieved and how you think. Ensure you're not just another job seeker who tastes like chicken.

A POLITICAL CONVENTION AND A HOST OF NATIONAL ISSUES

A POLITICAL CONVENTION AND A HOST OF NATIONAL ISSUES THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA NATIONAL CONVENTION in Calgary from January 29 to 31 is primarily focused on a leadership review of Pierre Poilievre following the party's 2025 election performance. However, beyond the leadership vote, delegates received over 60 policy and constitutional proposals for debate. This comes at a time in our nation’s history when the sheer number of issues we face appears overwhelming to even the most casual observer. As one might expect in today’s political and economic climate, conversations are taking place on matters of resource development, public safety, bail reform, immigration, and of course, freedom of speech. At the same time, there are a few fundamentals we as Canadians need to face, and this week I will highlight just a few. First, let’s talk about jobs. It’s no secret that Canada’s economy has languished over the past couple of years, with feeble increases in gross domestic product (GDP), outright declines in per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards), sluggish exports, and alarmingly low levels of business investment. Needless to say, this pattern of economic weakness is showing up in the job market. The number of unemployed Canadians averaged 1.5 million in 2025, up from 1.4 million in 2024 and 1.1 million in 2022. The unemployment rate averaged 6.8 per cent in 2025, compared to 6.3 per cent in 2024 and 5.4 per cent the year before. Part of the problem is the continuing post-pandemic trend of ‘outsized’ government-sector job gains versus more muted growth in private-sector employment. Government administration, education, and health care all reported job growth in 2025. Across the entire Canadian public sector, payroll jobs expanded by 1.9 per cent versus a 1.3 per cent increase in the private sector. With Ottawa and many provinces now facing sky-high deficits, it’s doubtful that government-funded employment can keep rising at the brisk pace seen in recent years. If last year was a mediocre one for job creation, 2026 is expected to bring more of the same. Most forecasters see the Canadian economy struggling this year, after a lackluster 2025. This suggests that annual employment growth in 2026 is unlikely to surpass 1 per cent, and that’s anything but positive news. Now let’s turn our attention to one of the most pathetic issues to have surfaced in generations, being that of Ottawa’s mandate for electric vehicle (EV) imports. The new trade deal between Canada and China, which reduces the tariff rate on Chinese EV imports into Canada, recently made headlines. Reality check: Federal EV mandates require more vehicles to plug in, but our electricity grids are not equipped to handle the related surge in electricity demand. Expanding power infrastructure takes decades, and there’s growing doubt among the more astute in this country about the feasibility of meeting EV adoption targets. Since 2023, the federal government has introduced policies to force a shift towards EVs as one element of its “net-zero” emissions by 2050 plan. Looking ahead, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, a federal agency, by 2050 national electricity demand will grow by a projected 135 per cent. This means that in the span of about 25 years, Canada’s electricity demand would more than double to meet EV mandates. Successfully delivering such a massive increase in electricity would require a monumental expansion in our infrastructure for electricity generation, transmission and storage, and points to increased reliance on energy imports from the United States if demand for power grows faster than domestic supply. There’s a self-evident and fundamental challenge - the federal EV mandate strives for rapid acceleration of EV adoption and will lead to a significant increase in electricity, but expanding the supply of electricity has historically proven slow and expensive. Any changes to Ottawa’s EV mandate must confront this disconnect and its consequences for electricity demand. That is something the ‘EV-Cult’ among us simply refuse to acknowledge. The third issue I would like to touch on concerns healthcare wait times here in Ontario – an issue that unquestionably spans the entire country. In a recent news story about the Ford government’s plan to increase the number of private clinics and reduce wait times in Ontario, one Toronto-based doctor told CTV News that Ontario’s health-care system is in “remarkably good shape” however, the data reveal a different story. According to government statistics, nearly one-quarter of children in Ontario wait “too long” for general pediatric care, and all children wait four months on average for “non-urgent” treatment. Keep in mind the fact that this is after they first wait weeks or even months to see a specialist for diagnostics in the first place. The situation isn’t any better for adults, where in many cases between one-fifth and one-quarter of patients in Ontario are not treated within the government’s own target times. The official maximum wait-time target for joint replacement and a broad range of other surgeries is now six months, during which it’s apparently fine for patients to endure pain and potential deterioration. For those in need of non-urgent cataract removal, for example, the government seems to be okay with people stumbling around with limited vision for up to four months. Again, these wait-time targets don’t include the weeks or months of waiting for a specialist appointment or for an MRI or CT scan. In light of these facts, how can anyone say that Ontario’s health-care system is in “remarkably good shape”? The government’s self-ascribed targets are generous while patients languish and deteriorate. Health care in Ontario is only in “good shape” if someone (hopefully, someone else) will wait longer than the government’s idea of how long patients should wait. The Ford government’s plan to increase access through private surgical clinics is a positive step towards solving a very real wait-time problem. Increasing unemployment rates, EV fantasies that border on complete lunacy, and a failing Soviet-style healthcare system are but a few of the issues Canadians need to face up to. There are many more of course, such as weak productivity, high household debt, and massive trade vulnerabilities. If these are left unresolved, you can bet on a continuing decline in our living standards due to preventable economic erosion. Never forget that our economy – that of our ancestors right on up to the present day – will always be heavily reliant on natural resources and trade. Since 2015, the prevailing ideology in Ottawa has been to wage war on the one, while letting the other slip away due to incompetence at the highest level. Things need to change, and perhaps someday soon the average Canadian voter will begin to see the light.

Disgraceful At Best...

By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers For those that read this column on a regular basis will note that I have been warning of this for the past 15 years. “GM IS LEAVING OSHAWA”. I remember in conversation with Nancy Diamond over this issue. She use to tell me. “Oh don’t worry Joe. They always do that to push the government to give them more funding.” I remember her telling me that even if they were to leave Oshawa. That city council could do nothing to prevent it.... as if council tried to flex muscle. GM through the union would turn it into a huge political issues and that most on council would suffer. So the resolve was to do nothing and allow GM to do as they pleased. As they had done for ever and a day. Meanwhile I use to get calls from GM management workers worried over the job loss. This week an a pathetic attempt to make it look like he cares: Mayor Dan Carter responds to GM Oshawa Assembly Plant transition to two shifts - Jan 29, 2026 With General Motors of Canada’s transition of the Oshawa Assembly Plant back to a two-shift operation as of January 30, Oshawa Mayor Dan Carter has issued the following statement: “On behalf of the City of Oshawa, I want to express our heartfelt compassion and support for the GM employees and their families who are affected by this transition. We understand this is a difficult and challenging time. I have a suggestion for this token Mayor... stop with the empty words and actually show some leadership and stand up to GM on behalf of Oshawa. It is obvious that both of our local MP and MPP have no character and or leadership qualities to do anything about it. He continues... GM’s presence here has brought innovation, investment and thousands of jobs. We’re proud of Oshawa’s automotive legacy that spans more than a century. Oshawa Assembly remains a leader in its award-winning operations, producing both heavy- and light-duty Chevrolet Silverado pickups – GM’s most important market segment in North America. Our talented workforce continues to play a vital role in meeting demand for these vehicles. Oshawa is also home to GM’s advanced research facilities, including the McLaughlin Advanced Technology Track at Oshawa’s Canadian Technical Centre. We will continue to work closely with GM, Unifor and the Provincial and Federal governments to identify new business, partnerships and investments to bring new advanced manufacturing opportunities and pathways to the great City of Oshawa.” What a load of crap.... Words that mean nothing to the person loosing their job. Nothing to the person not affording to pay property tax increases. I can tell you this. That If I had been graced with winning the last election. GM. would have been forced to pay. Pay for the environmental mess they created all across Oshawa. From the North along Grandview dumps to the south of Simcoe at the entrance of Lakeview Park. Not to mention the lands of the old stamping plant just north of the court house. Lands that are so putrid that the court house faced compromises in it’s building. An environmental mess. I would have approached the leadership at GM and made it clear that unless jobs came back to Oshawa that the City would file a class action suit on behalf of all citizens of Oshawa to the tune of 5 Billion dollars. This would also include the fact that GM leaving, has put Oshawa in an economic mess. Look at our downtown.  Look at all those living on the streets. NO EXCUSE. This claim would also include pain and suffering cause to all those 30,000 plus that use to work at GM. Pensions and special packages do not cut it. Tokens for service will not be accepted. We the people have sacrificed a work force that has contributed to the success of GM world wide. We the people have endured and are enduring the affects of GM manufacturing methods. It is time to stop pretending. Stop expecting the Province and Feds to step up. Make them Pay... Then look who is running the show... A token Mayor. 2 Terms that has ruined Oshawa to the core (literately).

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Strategy for the U.S.–Canada Trade War and the Coming CUSMA Test

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Strategy for the U.S.–Canada Trade War and the Coming CUSMA Test by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The renewed trade and tax confrontation between the United States and Canada has stripped away a comfortable illusion: that North American economic integration is permanently insulated from politics. Tariffs, industrial subsidies, and fiscal threats are no longer exceptional tools. They are becoming routine instruments of domestic politics in Washington. For Canada, this is not a passing squall but a new climate. In that context, the vision articulated by Prime Minister Mark Carney offers a sober and increasingly relevant guide—not just for managing the current trade war, but for navigating the high-stakes review and renegotiation of CUSMA now approaching. Carney’s core insight is disarmingly simple: economic stability can no longer be assumed. For much of the post-Cold War era, Canada built prosperity on a rules-based trading system anchored by the United States. That system still exists on paper, but in practice it is being distorted by security claims, domestic political cycles, and a revival of industrial policy. Carney does not romanticize the old order, nor does he propose retreat. Instead, he argues that Canada must adapt to a world where trade friction is structural, not episodic. This matters profoundly for CUSMA. The agreement was designed to provide predictability, yet predictability is precisely what has eroded. Tariffs imposed outside the spirit—if not always the letter—of the agreement, threats of tax retaliation, and the use of national security exemptions have all demonstrated the limits of legal texts when political incentives shift. Carney’s response is not to abandon free trade, but to make it credible again by grounding it in enforcement, resilience, and domestic legitimacy. One pillar of that approach is realism about power. The United States will always have greater leverage in bilateral disputes. Canada’s mistake, historically, has been to oscillate between moral suasion and symbolic retaliation. Carney’s vision rejects both. He insists that Canada’s leverage lies in being indispensable, not indignant. In practice, this means investing at home so that Canadian supply chains, energy systems, and industrial inputs are deeply embedded in North American production. The more disruption hurts the United States as well as Canada, the more restraint returns to policy. This logic should shape Canada’s posture in the coming CUSMA negotiations. Rather than framing talks defensively—as an effort to preserve what already exists—Canada should approach them as a durability exercise. Which parts of the agreement are most vulnerable to political weaponization? Where can clearer standards, stronger compliance mechanisms, and faster dispute resolution reduce the temptation to bypass the rules? Carney’s institutional mindset points toward tightening the agreement where ambiguity invites abuse, even if that requires uncomfortable adjustments at home. A second pillar of Carney’s vision is the integration of economic security into trade policy. Washington has been explicit that trade is now inseparable from security, whether the subject is critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, or energy systems. Canada has often resisted this framing, preferring to defend the purity of free trade. Carney would argue that this is a strategic error. Refusing the language of security does not prevent its use; it simply excludes Canada from shaping how it is applied. In the CUSMA context, this suggests a reframing of Canada’s negotiating stance. Rather than contesting every U.S. security-based measure as illegitimate, Canada should demonstrate where its own capabilities directly advance American security objectives. Reliable electricity grids, trusted mineral supply chains, nuclear expertise, and low-carbon manufacturing capacity are not peripheral assets; they are central to North American resilience. A Canada that can credibly present itself as a security partner is harder to target with blunt trade instruments. Nowhere is Carney’s thinking more distinctive than on environmental and industrial policy. He has long argued that the climate transition is not a cost centre but a competitive strategy. In the context of a U.S.–Canada trade war, this is not an abstract argument. As Washington deploys subsidies and border measures to favour domestic production, Canada faces a choice: treat climate policy as a moral position to be defended, or as an industrial advantage to be leveraged. Carney’s answer is clear. Climate alignment should be woven directly into trade negotiations. Canada should press for North American standards that reward low-carbon production, recognize clean electricity advantages, and integrate energy systems across borders. Done properly, this turns climate policy from a vulnerability into leverage. It also aligns with American industrial priorities, reducing the political appetite for punitive measures against Canadian exports. Another central element of Carney’s vision is credibility. Markets, allies, and even adversaries respond to predictability. Countries that maintain disciplined fiscal policy, independent institutions, and stable regulatory frameworks borrow more cheaply, attract investment more reliably, and negotiate from a position of confidence. In a trade war environment, this matters as much as tariffs or counter-tariffs. For CUSMA, credibility is Canada’s strongest card. A reputation for enforcing rules consistently—whether they favour or constrain domestic interests—strengthens Canada’s hand in disputes. It signals that retaliation, if necessary, will be lawful, proportionate, and sustained. Carney’s approach favours patience over theatre, and law over spectacle. That may be less satisfying politically, but it is more effective strategically. Critically, Carney does not promise an end to trade conflict. His vision assumes volatility will persist. The objective is not to eliminate friction, but to manage it without undermining long-term prosperity. This is a middle-power strategy for a harsher North America: absorb pressure without panic, invest domestically to reduce exposure, and negotiate agreements that are resilient enough to survive political swings. As the CUSMA review approaches, Canada faces a defining choice. It can cling to a nostalgic view of continental trade, hoping that appeals to partnership will override domestic pressures in Washington. Or it can adopt a more disciplined, strategic posture—one that accepts power realities while quietly increasing Canada’s leverage. Mark Carney’s vision points firmly toward the latter. In an age of trade wars and tax threats, a serious, professional approach is itself a form of power. Canada’s task is not to outmuscle the United States, but to make itself too valuable, too reliable, and too embedded to sideline easily. That is not a dramatic strategy. It is, however, the one most likely to endure.

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.

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!

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.

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

OUR PRIME MINISTER DELIVERED A SPEECH at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, entitled "Principled and Pragmatic: Canada's Path" which centered upon what he called the “rupture” of our post-Cold War international order. The speech included a declaration that the traditional U.S.-led, rules-based international system is over, and "not coming back" and it urged middle powers like Canada, Australia, and Mexico, to form issues-based coalitions. One of his main tenets was that countries should build “strength at home” and diversify their partnerships to avoid being subordinated by larger powers. While he did not name U.S. President Donald Trump directly, his speech was widely interpreted as a response to aggressive U.S. trade wars and threats to acquire Greenland. He received a rare standing ovation at Davos but sparked a major diplomatic rift. President Trump subsequently revoked his invitation for our Prime Minister to participate on the Board of Peace, an international organization established by the U.S. President to promote global peacekeeping. This was a major blow to the standing of our country on the international stage, and one that rests with the Prime Minister himself. The leader of Canada’s Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, released a statement – a sort of ‘reality check’ in response to the Davos speech – and below are the main points included in that statement. What stood out probably the most was when our Prime Minister pointed out “the gaps between rhetoric and reality.” That is especially true here at home. If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on earth. Unfortunately, after a decade of promises and grand speeches, Liberals have made our economy more costly and dependent than ever before. In the last 12 months, things have only gotten worse in Canada: the deficit has doubled, food inflation is double that in the U.S., housing costs are the worst in the G7, and no pipelines for our natural resources have been approved. The military has massive recruiting and equipment shortfalls, and there is still no free trade between provinces, no crime laws passed, and the Prime Minister’s signature promise of negotiating a “win” with the U.S. is unfulfilled. These unkept promises – which all followed grand speeches and announcements – make us especially vulnerable to the world’s dangers. The last five years have shown we can’t count on others. Our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States, struck us with tariffs and questioned our sovereignty, however, we can’t control what they do. It’s tempting to say our relationship with America is over forever, but here is the reality: We still live next door to the biggest economy and military the world has ever seen. We sell 20 times more to the U.S. than to China. One in 10 Canadian jobs rely directly and indirectly on trade with America. We must remember that our trade and security partnership with the United States is centuries-old and will outlast a single President. All the same, as we hope for the best, it would be naive to assume that things will go back to exactly the way they were, as tariffs may be here to stay for the foreseeable future. None of that is an excuse for letting our guard down and repeating past mistakes by leaving Canada vulnerable to aggressive powers like China, which the Prime Minister himself called our “greatest threat” only months ago. My, how things have changed. It was with irony that the Prime Minister quoted Vaclav Havel, one of the great heroes of the 20th century fight against totalitarian communism, less than a week after launching a ‘strategic partnership for a new world order’ with the Chinese communist regime – a partnership that includes ‘plans to deepen engagement on national security issues at senior levels.’ We cannot throw caution to the wind with a regime that kidnaps our citizens, steals our technology, interferes with our elections, and has a history of using trade as a tool of diplomatic warfare against us. If this is what the Prime Minister meant when he told the Davos crowd that he “is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values,” then we should seriously question his values - and, frankly, his judgment. We must focus on expanding our network of trade deals with more like-minded middle-power countries. In fact, we already have free trade deals with most middle powers, after the previous Conservative government negotiated agreements with a record 46 countries. Given that we have these agreements already in place, what stops us from growing our trade with them now is not the trade barriers they impose on us, but the trade barriers we impose on ourselves. Legislation has made it impossible to approve projects or ship energy off our coasts. It takes 19 years to approve a mine. The Liberals created these laws and obstacles, and almost a year after taking office, the Prime Minister hasn’t removed a single law or bureaucracy, or approved a single pipeline. The Prime Minister told the crowd in Davos that “a country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” So, why can’t we? Just this week, Canada was declared the food inflation capital of the G7. Last year, Canadians who can’t feed themselves made a record 2 million visits to food banks every month – more than double the number from just 7 years ago – in a country with almost endless farming potential. On the issue of Canadian sovereignty, we need a strong national defence. We don’t need anyone’s permission to have a strong, state-of-the-art military and defend ourselves. But can we even defend ourselves right now? The Prime Minister has talked a big game about building up our armed forces, but after nearly a year in office, he hasn’t even begun to deliver. It’s just more promises pushed down the road, and smoke and mirror budgets pushed out into the future. We currently have 300 full-time members of the military stationed in the Arctic, in a territory that is larger than most countries. We have the largest coastline in the world, and yet we have a regular naval force of just 8,400 personnel. A sovereign country must be able to defend its people and its territory. So far, our Prime Minister is lucky to have been judged mostly by his rhetoric and his stated intentions, by the number of his trips and his meetings overseas - because nearly a year into his term, the rhetoric has changed, but reality has not. There is an illusion of purpose, but no results to back it up. We need to do things, not just say them. ‘Canada Strong’ can no longer be a slogan, nor ‘True North Strong and Free’ just a motto. To paraphrase William Ernest Henley, we are the masters of our fate. We are the captains of our souls. It’s time we finally take the wheel – and steer Canada forward with purpose and resolve.”