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

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.”

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

Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada likes to describe itself as a single national economy. In reality, it operates more like a loose confederation of protected markets, each guarded by provincially self-regulated bodies whose original public-interest purpose has quietly morphed into something else: gatekeeping. In an era of slowing productivity, labour shortages, and intensifying global competition, this model has become obsolete. Worse, it has turned into a bureaucratic brake on economic revival. This regulatory paralysis is most visible—and most damaging—in the treatment of foreign-trained professionals, one of Canada’s most underutilized economic assets. Every year, Canada deliberately selects and admits tens of thousands of internationally educated engineers, doctors, nurses, architects, and skilled tradespeople under immigration programs explicitly designed to address labour shortages. Yet upon arrival, many discover that the real barrier was never immigration policy, but provincial regulatory bodies that treat foreign credentials with reflexive suspicion and procedural inertia. The result is a quiet national scandal. Highly qualified professionals drive taxis, work survival jobs, or abandon their fields altogether while Canada continues to claim—often in the same breath—that it faces critical skills shortages. This is not anecdotal. Statistics Canada and multiple provincial auditors have documented persistent underemployment and earnings gaps among internationally trained professionals, even years after arrival. The problem is not a lack of competence; it is a lack of regulatory adaptability. Provincial self-regulatory bodies insist they are protecting public safety. In practice, many operate on a presumption of incompetence unless applicants can reproduce, at great cost and delay, credentials they already hold—sometimes from jurisdictions with standards equal to or higher than Canada’s. Experience gained abroad is discounted. Exams are duplicated. “Canadian experience” requirements still linger despite repeated political promises to abolish them. Appeals processes are opaque, timelines stretch into years, and outcomes vary arbitrarily by province. This dysfunction carries a double economic cost. First, Canada wastes human capital it has already screened, selected, and welcomed. Second, it actively discourages future talent. Global labour markets are competitive and informed. When internationally trained professionals learn that recognition in Canada is slow, unpredictable, and fragmented by province, they choose Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States instead. At a moment when advanced economies are competing aggressively for skilled workers, Canada signals hesitation and distrust. However, the problem does not stop with immigrants. The same regulatory rigidity that blocks an engineer trained in Germany or a nurse trained in the Philippines also obstructs mobility between Ontario and Alberta, or Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Protectionism, once normalized, rarely confines itself to one group. Foreign-trained professionals merely expose a deeper structural flaw in Canada’s regulatory architecture. For decades, Canada tolerated this fragmentation because growth masked inefficiency. That era is over. Productivity has stagnated for more than ten years. Business investment per worker lags well behind peer countries. Major projects—housing, infrastructure, energy—are delayed not by lack of capital or demand, but by regulatory complexity layered across provincial boundaries. At the centre of this dysfunction sits a uniquely Canadian phenomenon: provincially self-regulated professional and occupational regimes. Self-regulation was originally justified on sound principles. Professions such as engineering, medicine, and law require technical expertise and ethical standards best maintained by peers rather than politicians. However, over time, many of these bodies drifted from public protection toward institutional self-preservation. Entry barriers hardened. Credential recognition slowed. Interprovincial mobility became an administrative maze. What was once oversight now functions as an economic toll booth. The economic cost is no longer theoretical. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Canada’s internal trade barriers impose an economic penalty equivalent to a four per cent tariff we levy on ourselves. This is not the work of foreign competitors, but of Canadian governments and delegated regulators constraining other Canadians. No serious country seeking growth would tolerate such a self-inflicted handicap. Labour mobility illustrates the absurdity. Canada faces acute shortages in construction, health care, engineering, and advanced manufacturing. Yet a professional licensed and competent in one province often cannot work seamlessly in another without months of paperwork, duplicative fees, and discretionary approval. Defenders of the status quo argue that standards differ and public safety is at risk. That argument collapses under scrutiny. Canadian provinces educate professionals to broadly similar national benchmarks, and accreditation bodies already operate at national or international levels. If a professional is competent in one province, the presumption should be competence everywhere in Canada—subject only to narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Housing provides a stark example. Canada’s housing shortage is now a national emergency. Governments promise faster construction, yet skilled trades and professionals remain trapped behind provincial certification walls. Red Seal programs exist, but implementation is uneven. Municipal approvals vary wildly. Engineers, planners, and inspectors face province-specific rules layered on top of local ones. The result is predictable: delays, cost overruns, and fewer homes built. Energy and infrastructure face similar constraints. Canada speaks confidently about electrification, clean growth, and industrial renewal, yet struggles to mobilize talent across provinces to deliver projects on time. Regulatory inertia is no longer a technical issue; it is a strategic vulnerability. Other federations have confronted this challenge. Australia moved decisively toward mutual recognition of occupational credentials decades ago. The European Union, despite its complexity, has made professional mobility a core economic principle across sovereign states. Canada, by contrast, still tolerates internal barriers that would be unthinkable at an international negotiating table. The irony is striking. Canadian governments celebrate trade diversification abroad while tolerating protectionism at home. We negotiate for years to reduce tariffs with Europe or Asia, then quietly allow domestic regulators to block Canadian workers and firms at provincial borders. This is not federalism at its best; it is fragmentation disguised as autonomy. The solution is not to abolish standards or politicize professions. It is to modernize governance. Provinces should be required—by federal legislation if necessary—to adopt automatic mutual recognition for licensed professionals and trades. Self-regulatory bodies should retain authority over ethics and discipline, but not over interprovincial or international market access. Economic mobility is a national interest. Ottawa already has constitutional tools it is reluctant to use. The federal government can attach conditions to funding, harmonize national frameworks, and enforce the spirit of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. What it lacks is political resolve. Provinces, for their part, must recognize that regulatory sovereignty without economic growth is an empty victory. Canada does not suffer from a lack of talent, capital, or ambition. It suffers from institutional inertia. Every month a skilled worker waits for recognition, every project stalled by duplicative rules, every firm deterred by regulatory uncertainty compounds our productivity problem. If Canada is serious about economic revival, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: the era of provincially self-regulated silos is over. What once protected the public now too often protects incumbents. Reform will provoke resistance—from regulators, associations, and political actors invested in the status quo. So let us understand that resistance for what it is: not a defence of safety or quality, but a defence of control. Economic renewal requires mobility, speed, and scale. Do you think Canada can afford to keep regulating itself into irrelevance?

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.

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

Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize

Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada’s debate about industrial revival too often unfolds at a distance; Ottawa strategies, federal tax credits, and abstract conversations about global competitiveness. Yet industrial renewal does not happen in the abstract. It happens in specific places, shaped by infrastructure, skills, and long-term choices. In Ontario, that reality is becoming increasingly stark. The province’s electricity system is approaching a structural inflection point. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has identified a looming electricity capacity gap beginning in the mid-2030s, as demand rises far faster than new, clean generation is coming online. Electrification of transportation, housing, industry, and data centres is accelerating, while existing assets age and fossil fuels face tightening constraints. According to Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan, between now and 2050 the province could require up to 17,500 megawatts of additional nuclear generation alone—the equivalent of adding five new Darlington-scale nuclear stations. At the same time, an economic impact study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association in 2024 found that the nuclear sector already contributes $22 billion annually to GDP and sustains approximately 80,000 high-skilled jobs across engineering, construction, manufacturing, mining, and plant operations. More than half of Ontario’s electricity is produced on just three relatively compact sites: Pickering, Tiverton, and Clarington. In the face of unprecedented electricity demand growth, neither Canada nor Ontario can afford further delay in launching the next generation of large-scale nuclear projects. This is where place matters; and why Durham Region is far more central to Canada’s economic future than most Canadians realize. If nuclear energy is to become the backbone of Canada’s reindustrialization, Durham is not merely a participant. It is a proof point, and potentially the model for what a modern, high-skill, energy-anchored industrial economy can look like. Energy Is Local Before It Is National Every serious discussion about productivity eventually collides with the same constraint: energy. Manufacturing, data centres, electrified transportation, hydrogen production, and advanced materials all depend on electricity that is reliable, affordable, and available at scale. This requirement is not theoretical in Durham Region; it is lived reality. Durham sits at the intersection of critical energy infrastructure, a deeply skilled workforce, major transportation corridors, and proximity to Canada’s largest market. It is home to the Darlington and Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, one of the most important energy assets in the country. Darlington and Pickering do not merely power homes. It underwrites the economic stability of the Greater Toronto Area and beyond. Its baseload reliability enables industrial activity that cannot tolerate interruption. Factories do not shut down when the wind drops. Data centres cannot pause when clouds roll in. Nuclear power’s constant output gives regions like Durham a competitive advantage that many jurisdictions simply do not possess. Durham as an Industrial Anchor For decades, Durham Region has been described as a commuter belt, an extension of Toronto rather than an economic engine in its own right. That perception is no longer accurate. With Darlington and Pickering at its core, Durham hosts one of the most advanced industrial ecosystems in Canada. Nuclear operations demand excellence: engineers, technicians, skilled trades, safety specialists, digital systems experts, and project managers working to standards matched by few other sectors. Crucially, these skills do not disappear when a refurbishment project ends. They remain embedded in the regional workforce. This is precisely how industrial clusters form. Nuclear capability spills over into advanced manufacturing, precision machining, construction, cybersecurity, and clean-technology services. Durham’s proximity to ports, highways, rail lines, and airports only amplifies this advantage. If Canada is serious about rebuilding industrial capacity, Durham is not peripheral. It is a strategic hub. The Reindustrialization Opportunity Canada’s productivity problem is not caused by a lack of talent. It is caused by a lack of scale, certainty, and long-term thinking. Nuclear energy addresses all three; and Durham is where the benefits are most visible. The refurbishment of Darlington and Pickering has sustained thousands of high-quality jobs and generated billions of dollars in economic activity. More importantly, it has demonstrated that Canada can still execute complex, multi-decade infrastructure projects on time and on budget; a claim too rarely made in recent years. That achievement sends a powerful signal to investors: this is a region where large projects can be built, operated, and maintained with confidence. In a world where capital is mobile and competition is intense, that signal matters. Small Modular Reactors and Durham’s Next Chapter Looking ahead, Durham Region is uniquely positioned to play a leading role in Canada’s next nuclear chapter: small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are not a distant concept. They are an industrial opportunity. Designed for flexibility and scalability, they can power hydrogen production, data centres, advanced manufacturing, and industrial facilities across Ontario, while also providing clean energy solutions for remote and northern communities. Durham already has what most regions lack: nuclear expertise, regulatory familiarity, established supply chains, and public understanding of the industry. This gives it a decisive head start as Canada seeks to move SMRs from concept to deployment. Durham could become a centre of SMR engineering, training, and manufacturing; exporting not just electricity, but knowledge, skills, and technology. Jobs That Sustain Communities Nuclear energy is often discussed in terms of megawatts and emissions. In Durham, its value is measured in livelihoods. Nuclear jobs are not precarious. They are long-term, highly skilled, and well compensated. They support apprenticeships, sustain local businesses, and anchor families in the community. Unlike many sectors in today’s economy, nuclear work cannot be easily offshored or automated away. For a region experiencing rapid population growth, housing pressure, and infrastructure demands, this stability is essential. Industrial revival is not just about GDP; it is about sustaining communities that work. Addressing the Critics—Locally and Honestly Durham residents are no strangers to nuclear energy. They live with it, work with it, and understand it better than most Canadians. That lived experience cuts through abstract fear. Canada’s nuclear safety record is among the strongest in the world. Facilities like Darlington and Pickering operate under one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes anywhere. Waste management, often portrayed as an unsolvable problem, is a challenge of governance and political resolve but not of engineering capability to recycle. The greater risk for Durham, and for Canada as a whole, is not nuclear power. It is stagnation. Regions that fail to anchor themselves in the next wave of industrial activity will watch opportunity pass them. A Regional Model for a National Strategy Durham Region offers Canada a template for industrial renewal: reliable nuclear energy, skilled labour, integrated supply chains, and long-term planning. What is missing is not capacity, but political ambition. Canada can choose to treat nuclear energy as a legacy sector to be managed cautiously; or as a strategic asset to be expanded confidently. If it chooses the latter, Durham should be at the centre of that vision. Industrial revival will not be built by slogans or subsidies alone. It will be built by regions that can deliver power, skills, and confidence at scale. Durham already does. The question is: are political leaders at all levels finally prepared to listen and act to develop the remarkable, resource-rich country that Canada truly is?

DESPERATE MOVE…

DESPERATE MOVE... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Whitby Council has called on the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to remove the GST/HST from all newly-built or substantially renovated homes purchased from the builder as primary residences in Ontario. This in my opinion is a sign of desperation by Whitby. 1st. Who ever came up with this does not understand the bigger picture. The problem with affordability is not the HST. The problem is the prices in comparison to incomes. This move by Whitby shows the lack of desperation and leadership. 2nd, If Whitby is so concerned over affordability. They should have pressured the builders to drop prices... After all. I am sure you can run a type of auction mentality when it comes to who can build where. NO instead the municipality attempts to make the problem political instead of economic and beneficiary to those suffering at the hands of over priced developers and mortgage companies. Staff was directed to send the resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, Federal Ministers of Finance, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, and to the Premier of Ontario and Ontario Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Whitby MP and MPP, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and to all municipalities in Ontario. In Whitby’s desperation... they forgot to cc. To God himself. These type of move by municipalities showcase the lack of Leadership. Roy in my opinion has to go. The current GST/HST rate on new homes in Ontario is 13 per cent, which adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical home. The existing federal and provincial HST rebates on new homes purchased from the builder are limited by purchase-price thresholds, with most new homes in Ontario priced above the level required to qualify for meaningful relief, thereby limiting their effectiveness in improving overall housing affordability, a town statement pointed out. With this said. You can write all the letter you want to the Feds and they will surely use it for toilet paper as the builders are within the rules of the game set out by the Feds. Then the real beef should be with the builders that inflate prices in order to stay above the threshold. The federal and provincial governments have proposed new GST/HST rebates only for first-time homebuyers purchasing from the builder a newly built or substantially renovated home. In other words. It favor no one. Specially new home buyers. According to research conducted by the Ontario Homebuilders’ Association, first-time home buyers currently represent approximately 5 per cent of the new home market. Once again. Whitby’s attempt are nothing but an attempt to politically grandstand during an election year. Here is my suggestion if I had the priviledge of being elected. 1st. Cap home values in the municipality. You don’t like it go build some other place. 2nd. All builders would have to pay a community surcharge for future affects of their developments. Make them pay for destroying our municipalities. They want to make money. So should we. 3rd. The government is forcing municipalities to build, build, build. They put all kinds of pressure and up to incentives. This is wrong. In order to lead we must play within the rules... We can’t win as a single municipality. We must learn to work with the rules stipulated. In this case. The problem with housing is not so much availability as it is affordability. Who can affor a million dollar income on one salary? Who can afford the down payment? Who can afford the taxes and all the other things that go along with a mortgage and home ownership? Then if this stand true. What is the real reason of sending a meaningless letter to the Feds to get rid of the HST. It has no purpose other than a political move during an election year. This bringing me to my point. We must get rid of all incumbents and start fresh. Most on most councils are either careered politicians, pension fluffers and or sitting on the top of their personal achievement mountain. Look where most of them end up working after politics. We need to elect people from the business community. Front line soldiers that know the value of a dollar. Someone that can be atoned to the harsh economy. I know that if I had won in 2022. I would have kept taxes at zero increase during my administration. I would have cut waste all around. If you can run a business you can run the corporation of any municipality. Let’s stop electing those that have no real life business savvy.

Group Eco Leadership

Group Eco Leadership by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ Every community has citizens who join a group of like-minded individuals. Whether they are known as a committee, team, society, club, association, council, or network—their first discussion in the new year will probably include the results that they hope to achieve in 2026. For all groups, a positive first meeting after the holidays would be the appointment of environmental advocates to share resource management ideas. To be gentler on the earth’s ecosystem, these ‘Eco Avengers’ volunteering for this post would be mindful of all the ‘Rs’ —Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Revamp, Refill, Recover, Repair, Rethink, and composting — all the alternatives to creating waste. This approach will not only cut costs, but also lighten the load of those in charge of cleaning up. Money would be saved from purchasing bottled water or coffee at meetings, as the environmental crew would encourage that each attendee bring their own beverage in a thermos. This decreases the use of single-use plastic. Also, supply a container to retrieve apple cores, tea bags, et cetera from snacks for composting at home. Another suggestion is for all printed correspondence to be double-sided. For social events, reusing decorations would take top priority over recycling or discarding. Avoid disposable plates and cutlery. An alternative option could be to purchase several sets of dinnerware from a thrift store. The money spent on disposable plates and taxpayer money to landfill, would now be channelled toward a community thrift store. Either find a spot to keep all the plates, or return them as a donation. A discussion regarding carpooling might be possible for some. Although it may be easier to order prizes online, local retailers should take preference. Some items could even be purchased at a thrift store —no excess packaging or transportation involved. Springtime prizes can include potted plants or garden seeds. If a social group is one that meets at a fast food restaurant, each member brings their own mug. For a round of donuts/muffins, also provide a cookie tin. It sends a strong message for customers who line up behind several people all carrying their own reusable containers. When the organization needs items or equipment, the ‘Eco Avengers’ will recommend renting or borrowing. If your group creates crafts, perhaps there is a waste material - such as wood chips or pieces of fabrics. Advertise what you discard might become another person’s treasure! Over the past decades, we have all been cleverly manipulated through social media, advertising, and the movies to be a throw-away society. You may even remember actor Tom Bosley promoting the larger, heftier green garbage bags. This history has shaped us to imagine ourselves not as citizens or residents, but as consumers. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead

Blocking Pain Without Breaking Lives

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

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

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