The Slow Death Of Something GREAT…

The Slow Death Of Something GREAT... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States What is it with humanity? No, matter what it is. The cycle of life is always the same. No matter the cause, purpose or other. Things come together for a common good and end up ruined, destroyed and or dead. I say this with great liberty due to the fact that if anything history lessons are our indicators for our future. The Mayan, the Inca, Roman Empire, Vikings and so on... Yet, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again. These mistakes come to fruition due to greed, ignorance and in many cases as Freud would assume a hyper extension of ego. The ego is the conscious, organized part of the psyche that mediates between unrealistic, impulsive desires (the id) and the moral constraints of reality (the superego). The superego is the ethical, moralizing component of personality in Freud's structural model, acting as an internal conscience that strives for perfection, guilt-free behavior, and societal conformity. With the understanding of these concept one can begin to appredicate failure in just about every system ever created by man. We as human have a flaw in our psychic. It is as if we set up ourselves to fail. Look at the history of the Internet for example. An electronic invention that revolutionized humanity. I remember in it’s early stages. NO, one had computers and even less internet. The technology was reserved for higher education and government institutions. I remember bringing the internet to Durham. I could not give it away. I approached all municipal government. They did not want it due to cost of updating their outdated computers. During the early days, there were no browsers and no social media. ICQ was one of the first communication platforms. People could actually chat in live time. The internet during those days was self governed. People acted with respect and with civility. There was no commercialism. All operated on dial up modems with limited bandwidth. Then came the introduction of very primitive browser. This opened the door to commercialism.  People would sell books, booklets and self help books. One of the first to appear online as a business was small companies like PayPal. Companies that offered the ability to make transactions over the internet. This flooded the internet with porn site for pay. Online casinos running illegally. With the sudden surge in commercial interest online. The Google, Yahoo and many other browsers began investing millions in the development of their browsers. Offering a platform for start up, home, and small businesses to sell their wares. Then the Amazon, Craig List and the like. This realization of being able to make millions if not billions was the begging to the end of the internet. Today, the internet is nothing short of a commercial public toilet. Flooded with all kind of tracking devices that produce millions of pop up windows offering you all kinds of merchandize. The once internet that self governed and a marble for human communications has become a social public toilet. Superegos - expressing all kinds of misinformation that set patterns of information controlled by governments through further misinformation. The old belief use to be. The most successful governments are those that can keep their population ignorant of the facts and fighting among themselves. The internet is such arena. Now compounded by a false labeled Artificial Intelligence. We are doomed, as there is nothing intelligent about an artificial system set by our ignorance. AI is nothing but a new browser. A browser that can compose information faster than any human. This is not intelligence. This is just a show of our ignorance. The internet is slowly coming to it’s end. Misinformation, over saturation of commercialism and the human need for interaction will soon deem the net absolete. AI should be best labeled Artificial Ignorance of the facts.

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote. Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize. Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented. Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them. Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest. What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility. A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity. One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed. Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.

Don’t let them scare you

Don’t let them scare you A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak. There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side. If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to. So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family. The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose. Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.

By The Numbers

By The Numbers By Wayne and Tamara I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year. The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better. Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things. To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me? Daphne Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule. A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number. But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them. That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with. Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer. Wayne & Tamara Benched For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive. But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count. She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on? Greg Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman. Wayne & Tamara

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust. By Nick Kossovan The crux of all hiring decisions comes down to one word: trust. AI, combined with a growing number of malicious actors in the job market, has eroded trust between employers and job seekers, an issue that is worsening. Today, everyone's resume looks great. Same buzzwords. Same frameworks. Same: "I managed," "I built," "I scaled." Miraculously, every candidate is strategic, results-driven and cross-functional. With AI, it is easy to create a slick veneer of tripe, filled with buzzwords from the job posting, at best, making hollow promises. Most job seekers, especially bad actors, focus on looking smooth. In contrast, savvy job seekers focus on presenting evidence—quantifying their impact on their employer's business (read: profitability)—to build trust. ATSs and, to a large extent, humans struggle to distinguish between effort, outcomes, and mimicking the job posting; therefore, hiring managers and recruiters seek job seekers who do what most don't: quantify, with numbers, the friction they caused in their previous employer's business. What does "Led a team of inside sales reps to achieve sales quota" mean? What value does this sentence offer? Does it build any trust or credibility? The same for: · "Managed and maintained the organization's social media accounts to strengthen Wayne Enterprises' online presence." · "Managed the team calendar." · "Handled customer inquiries." · "Filed reports." · "Supported sales and marketing efforts." · "Improved office efficiency." · "Hard worker with a go-getter attitude." (Isn't every jobseeker?) These sentences list duties and opinions ("Employers don't hire opinions; they hire results") instead of what employers want to see: your accomplishments (read: results). Moreover, they fail to answer the critical "so what?" question. Hiring managers and recruiters aren't asking, "Is this candidate impressive?" They're asking, "Can I trust this person to deliver the results we need?" Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles don't fail screening. They fail trust. A highly effective job search strategy is to concentrate intensely on demonstrating to recruiters and employers that you are results-oriented. Candidates who come across as trustworthy, result-driven, and reliable, and who aren't afraid to own their results, are the ones employers swoon over. A common job search myth, perpetuated by a sense of entitlement, is that one's experience, which is subjective, speaks for itself. It doesn't. Experience only holds value for an employer if the person with the "experience" can be trusted to produce measurable results. Job seekers need to understand that hiring doesn't occur in a reflective environment that gives a job seeker, who's a stranger to the hiring manager, the benefit of the doubt. Hiring occurs under pressure. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles are rapidly scrutinized for evidence of impact at prior employers. When a resume or LinkedIn profile doesn't provide evidence of impact, it becomes, without a second thought, a "No." Hiring isn't mysterious, as many would like you to believe, especially those who benefit—make money—from you believing it is. It's layered. The first layer is answering the question every hiring manager asks themselves when scanning a resume: "What has this person achieved?" If what you've achieved leads the hiring manager to think, "[Name] could be someone we can use here," then the candidate moves on to the second layer, determining whether you can be trusted. AI or not, resumes never tell someone's full story. As I pointed out at the beginning, the job market abounds with bad actors and job seekers who exaggerate or outright lie about their experience and qualifications, or whose behaviour (personality traits) isn't conducive to being an employer's ideal employee. Nowadays, employers understandably seek a comprehensive view of a candidate, so they: · Google the candidate—check their digital footprint (read: behaviour)—and review their social media activity (articles, blogs, comments, posts), especially on LinkedIn, to determine whether they're interview-worthy. Does the candidate's online presence raise any questions? Are they associated with (written, commented on, reposted) any industry- or profession-related articles or blogs? What charitable activities do they engage in? Do any illicit or questionable activities appear? · Look them in the eye, listen, and observe how they communicate during the interview. Speaking for myself, a lack of communication skills—the ability to articulate with confidence—is a non-negotiable requirement when I hire. The way a candidate communicates with me—I'll also ask candidates to write something to gauge their written communication skills and how they think (writing is thinking)—is how they'll communicate with customers, prospects, and their colleagues. "The ability to communicate is critical to building relationships, to leadership, and to learning." Sheryl Sandberg, American technology executive, philanthropist and writer. · Ensure the applicant can walk their talk by asking them to take an assessment test or complete an assignment. I've lost count of how many candidates I've interviewed who talked a good game but didn't pass an assessment or submit a subpar assignment. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles have always contained a great deal of fluff, embellishments, and falsehoods. As employers grow increasingly weary of job seekers' claims, the core issue job seekers face is communicating their value in a few seconds and convincing employers they can be trusted. Job seekers who empathize with employers, have trust issues, and therefore focus on building credibility to gain trust will be far ahead of their competition.

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars. Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable. But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense. That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades. And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again. After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical. We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears. When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”? A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks? Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working. There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend. Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now? Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second. These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous. The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it. So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.” The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting. If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment. The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger. I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents. In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario When someone dies, the first day is about shock, phone calls, and trying to understand what just happened. Very quickly after that, another reality shows up, whether families are ready for it or not. Questions about cost start to appear, sometimes quietly, sometimes all at once. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this is normal, and that feeling uncomfortable talking about money at a time like this is something almost every family experiences. This is not always an easy topic to talk about. Cost and grief do not belong together, but in reality they often meet very quickly. I hear this from families across Durham more often than people might expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that price differences are common, and that they do not automatically mean something is wrong. When families first start asking about cost, this is usually where the conversation begins. In Durham Region, direct cremation is often one of the lower cost options families consider. In many cases, families may see prices starting somewhere in the lower thousands, but that number can change depending on timing, transportation, paperwork, and third party fees. Some providers include more services in their base price, while others separate them into individual line items. That alone can make two quotes look very different even if the final service feels similar. As families begin looking at other types of arrangements, costs usually increase simply because more is involved. Traditional burial or full service funeral arrangements often include visitation, staffing, facility use, vehicles, and coordination with cemeteries or churches. Cemetery costs in particular can vary widely depending on location, availability, and what is selected. That is why families sometimes see a total price that is several thousand dollars higher than what they expected when they first started asking questions. One thing I would want my family to know is that funeral homes do not control every cost. Crematorium fees, cemetery fees, clergy or celebrant fees, and government paperwork costs are often outside the funeral home itself. If one estimate includes those items and another does not, it can create confusion. It can feel like one provider is dramatically more expensive when in reality the quotes are simply structured differently. Timing can also matter more than people expect. After hours transfers, weekend arrangements, or urgent timelines can affect cost. Some providers build flexibility into their base pricing. Others only add charges if those services are needed. Neither approach is automatically better, but families deserve to understand how pricing works before making decisions. Many families I speak with are surprised by how normal it is to ask for written estimates and to take time to review them. There is no rule that says decisions must be made in a single conversation. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel comfortable asking for information in writing and taking a day to talk together before making final choices. If I could leave my family one practical piece of advice about cost, it would be this: ask which costs belong to the funeral home, and which costs are paid to someone else. That one question often makes quotes much easier to understand. I would also want them to remember that lower cost does not automatically mean lower care, and higher cost does not automatically mean better service. What matters most is whether the family feels supported, informed, and comfortable with the decisions they are making. These conversations are not about finding the cheapest option. They are about understanding choices clearly enough to make decisions without pressure or confusion. During grief, clarity matters more than anything else. Next week, I will write about something families often hear about but rarely understand clearly before they need it: how price lists work, what they are supposed to show, and how families can use them to compare options more confidently. ​

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Which investment option is best for you! When it comes time to decide which mix of savings is best for you, your options can look quite confusing. There are registered retirement saving plans (RRSP’s) Tax free saving accounts (TFSA’s and First Home Buyers saving accounts (FHSA). Establishing which plan or combination of plans works best for you depends on your own personal, goals and financial situation. RRSP’s, TFSA, s FHSA’s Most Canadians hold RRSP’s where they can claim deduction and then the deferral of tax until they withdraw funds at retirement. RRSP’s have numerous other benefits and as Canadians many do not use these upon reaching retirement. Something you may wish to discuss in your preretirement years. The introduction of TFSA has provided another powerful saving tool that allows investments to grow tax free with the opportunity to withdraw funds when need. This does have some restrictions if funds are withdrawn same year of contributions. The withdrawal of TFSA can create costly penalties if funds are repaid to quick. First Homebuyers saving accounts FHSA is the newest registered plans that gives first time home buyers the opportunity to invest up to $40,000.00 in a lifetime for the purchase of a first homeowner tax free basis. This plan be open if you are over the age of 18. This plan is a great tool for grandparents that wish to help kids and grandkids with saving for a first home. Ask a qualified investment advisor how to arrange suggest a plan. Like RRSP contributions are tax deductible and withdrawals for the purchase of a new home are non taxable like a TFSA All plans have limits and maximum contribution limits, and you should always confirm your contribution limit in you CRA my Account. Before making contributions discuss your options with a qualified investment advisor to ensure you are in vesting in plans that follow your risk tolerance. Simple planning gets you where you need to go never chase the larger returns can bring larger loses.

It Is Not What It Seems!!!

It Is Not What It Seems!!! A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist This may seem like a personal rant but after speaking with several of my neighbours over the last couple of weeks I can guarantee you it is not. What I am referring to is communication, or to be more precise, the lack there of between the public and their elected City Councillors. Why is it that some Councillors are master communicators and others are missing in action? Take Rick Kerr and Brian Nicholson for example, they are both known for responding to their constituents. Actually, because they both communicate so well, a lot of people that are not residents of their wards will ask questions of them on Facebook regarding community matters and they will respond. One Councillor in particular, Derek Giberson, who has been basically invisible for the last three years has now predicably started posting on Facebook that he is doing this or that in the hopes of having people think that he’s been doing this community work since he got elected three years ago, but he has been for the most part unseen and unheard. Now all of a sudden, he has taken to Facebook to post that he is hosting a series of meetings on the housing crisis, like he’s some kind of rock star. Well, the housing crisis is not new. In fact, the only thing that is new in this whole situation is that he is talking to the public. I happened to notice a post that Derek Giberson made on Facebook a few weeks ago and it really irritated me. It irritated me because he is a Councillor that is well known for next to no interaction with his constituents. The people who elected him. His post on Facebook had the commenting turned off. It prompted me to make a post myself asking what kind of Councillor makes a post and turns commenting off? Well, the kind that is not interested in what the public has to say. That’s exactly who does that. Within one hour, Derek Giberson had the commenting turned on. Hmm…looks like someone took notice. Just the other day my post received a message from another constituent. He said that he had hand delivered two letters to this Councillor at City Hall and made a few phone calls. This gentleman got no response to his hand delivered letters nor did he receive a return phone call. Why does any Councillor anywhere think that that type of behaviour is alright? Moreover, why in the world would someone think they stand a chance of being reelected by people that they’ve ignored for their entire term in office? It certainly makes one wonder.

Case Closed

Case Closed By Wayne and Tamara I met my boyfriend on an online dating service four months ago. About a month ago I went to the dating service website to take my profile off. Out of curiosity I looked his up, and it was still there. When I mentioned it to him, he said he would take his profile off because he wanted to be with me. Now I know I should have trusted him, but something told me to test him. So I created a fake profile with a picture of an attractive woman and e-mailed him as the other woman. When he didn't respond, I e-mailed again. He still didn't respond. I realized then he must have canceled his membership, so I looked him up and inquired if he was the guy on the dating site. I told him I was new to the site, thought he was attractive, and maybe we could meet for a drink sometime. When I asked if he was seeing someone, he said he met someone who could be serious and had a lot of potential. I asked again if he wanted to meet, and eventually he said maybe. That broke my heart. I got my girlfriend to phone him as the other girl. When she got him on the line, he was suspicious but hesitantly agreed to meet her for a drink. At that point I told him I was the girl who didn't exist. He said he thought it was either me or some kind of prank. I am not a jealous person by any means, but I wonder if we can get past this. Eva Eva, the law does not permit entrapment. Entrapment occurs when the idea for a crime is suggested by the police, the police talk a person into committing the crime, and the person was not previously willing to commit the crime. Once you realized your boyfriend canceled his membership you should have stopped. He is innocent of any crime, but you have proven you are by nature a jealous person. Tamara Favorite Son My husband's parents own a dairy farm, and his brother works full-time on the farm and draws a wage. My husband has a very demanding job, yet he is expected to work on the farm each weekend, count cattle in the morning, and does not get paid even for gas. Our family time is nonexistent. The phone rings and my husband runs. The only time we get together is when I book a holiday. I really think my husband is frightened of his parents. They say his brother needs time with his child, but what about me and our children? When we go away, my husband is so burnt out he is ill for the first few days of our break. But when we are away, he is like a different person. I'd do anything to save my marriage, but I'm not sure how much more I can take. Mona Mona, there is a South American bird with two subspecies, one which builds a nest on the ground and one which nests in a tree. Occasionally a male of one subspecies will get together with a female of the other. When this happens the birds live in great confusion. One puts nesting material on the ground, while the other continually moves it to the branch of a tree. The two never succeed in building a proper nest and usually this results in a mating failure. Occasionally, however, they do struggle and successfully raise chicks. Good parents raise their children to be independent and self-sufficient, knowing that love is the bond which will hold their children to them always. Some parents, however, use demands and obligations to tether their children. That is your husband's problem. There is no resolution to this problem unless your husband decides he wants to build his nest with you. Wayne

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst Durham Region has launched what it calls a “Community-Based Hate Reporting Program,” and it is being sold to residents as a progressive step toward safety and inclusion. But I’m going to say what too many politicians are too afrai

d to say: this program is Orwellian, dangerous, and an insult to every Canadian who believes in freedom, due process, and democratic accountability. As a Pickering Councillor, I am 100% opposed to it, and I believe Durham residents should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to create a system that encourages anonymous accusations, bureaucratic surveillance, and the quiet erosion of our rights. Let’s be clear about something. Canada already has laws that deal with hate crimes. We already have a Criminal Code. We already have police services and courts that investigate and prosecute actual criminal conduct. Assault is illegal. Harassment is illegal. Threats are illegal. Vandalism is illegal. The promotion of hatred toward identifiable groups is illegal. If someone commits a crime, police can lay charges, evidence is reviewed, and the justice system determines guilt or innocence. That is how a free society functions. So the obvious question is this: what exactly is Durham Region solving here? Because there is no legal gap. There is no crisis that requires municipal staff to collect anonymous complaints about speech, opinions, “bias,” or interpersonal disagreements. This program doesn’t prevent violence, it doesn’t stop criminals, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. What it does do is create a government-run system for tracking allegations against ordinary residents without evidence, without verification, and without accountability. The most alarming feature is that it encourages anonymous reporting. Think about the implications of that for even a moment. Anyone can report anyone. A neighbour feud. A workplace disagreement. A political argument. A social media comment. A complaint from someone who simply dislikes you. With a few clicks, an accusation can be filed, logged, analyzed, and stored. The accused may never even know it happened, and they will certainly never be given the opportunity to respond, defend themselves, or challenge the claim. That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not Canadian. That is a system designed to normalize suspicion and fear, where the government quietly collects unverified allegations about its own citizens. And who is reviewing these complaints? Bureaucrats. Municipal staff. Victim services administrators. Unelected individuals who are not accountable to the public in any meaningful way. These are not police officers. These are not judges. These are not trained legal authorities. They are government employees being put in the position of deciding what qualifies as “hate,” what qualifies as “bias,” and what qualifies as a reportable “incident.” That is ideological policing by bureaucracy, and it is exactly how free societies begin to rot from within. People begin to self-censor. They stop speaking freely. They stop questioning. They stop criticizing government. They stop debating controversial topics. Not because they are guilty of a crime, but because they are afraid of being reported, labeled, and quietly added to a database. Durham Region is now creating a government-held repository of unverified accusations about residents. We are told this is for “trend analysis,” but that phrase should alarm every thinking person. Governments do not build databases and then keep them small. They expand them. They integrate them. They share them. And they eventually justify their existence by claiming they need more power, more funding, and more authority. Today this program is presented as separate from other municipal services, but anyone who understands modern data systems knows how quickly that can change. Integration is not some far-fetched conspiracy. It is the natural evolution of government bureaucracy. A complaint logged today could become an internal profile tomorrow. A pattern of anonymous reports could become a “risk assessment.” And once a government begins collecting subjective accusations, the line between “public safety” and “citizen monitoring” disappears faster than people realize. Even more disturbing is the complete lack of consequences for false reporting. There are no penalties. No accountability. No safeguards. In a real justice system, making false accusations can carry serious consequences. But in this program, anyone can anonymously accuse someone of being hateful, bigoted, or biased, and there is no legal consequence because it is not a formal criminal process. That means this program is wide open to abuse. It can be weaponized for revenge, harassment, and political targeting. And if you don’t think political targeting is possible in today’s climate, you haven’t been paying attention to what has happened across this country over the last several years, where dissent is increasingly treated as dangerous and disagreement is increasingly treated as hate. This is where history matters. Because we have seen this before. Anyone who has studied Nazi Germany understands that authoritarianism did not begin with camps and uniforms. It began with propaganda, fear, and citizen reporting systems. It began with governments encouraging neighbours to report neighbours. It began with people being labeled as “problematic” or “dangerous” for speech, opinions, or associations. It began with the normalization of surveillance culture, justified in the name of “public good.” It began with bureaucrats collecting information and quietly building files. That is how totalitarian systems grow: not all at once, but step by step, policy by policy, database by database, until citizens no longer speak freely because they fear the consequences of being reported. That is why this program should not be dismissed as harmless. The infrastructure of authoritarianism is always built under the banner of safety and morality. That is exactly what makes it so dangerous. And make no mistake, this program raises serious Charter concerns. Freedom of expression is not protected only when speech is popular. It is protected precisely because people must be allowed to hold and express opinions that others may dislike. Freedom of association matters because citizens must be able to gather, organize, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked. Privacy matters because the state should not be building databases about its residents based on anonymous allegations. Due process matters because no person should be accused, recorded, and categorized without being given a chance to respond. Even if Durham Region claims this is “non-criminal,” the chilling effect is the same. People will stop speaking. They will stop engaging. They will stop questioning. That is how democracy dies—not through force, but through fear and compliance. And all of this is being done with taxpayer money—approximately $89,000 over two years—for a program that does not stop crime and does not prosecute criminals. At a time when families are struggling to afford groceries, housing, and fuel, Durham Region has decided to spend public money creating a bureaucratic pipeline for anonymous complaints. That should outrage every resident, regardless of political affiliation. Government should be focused on real public safety, real crime prevention, and real support for victims—not building reporting portals that act as a mechanism for social control. If Durham Region truly wanted to combat hate and violence, there are real solutions: stronger policing, better mental health supports, outreach programs, education initiatives, and direct support for vulnerable communities. But instead of focusing on criminal conduct and real threats, they have chosen to create a system that encourages grievance reporting and expands government monitoring. This program does not protect the public. It trains the public to spy on each other. It creates distrust. It chills speech. It empowers bureaucracy. And it lays the groundwork for future expansion. Durham residents should be demanding immediate transparency and accountability. Who oversees this database? Who has access? How long is the data stored? What prevents integration with other municipal systems? What safeguards exist against malicious reporting? What rights do accused individuals have? What oversight exists to ensure this program is not weaponized politically? These questions are not optional. They are essential. Because once a government builds the infrastructure to monitor its own citizens, it rarely gives that power back. This is not about safety. This is not about inclusion. This is about control. And as a Pickering Councillor, I will oppose any initiative that moves our communities closer to a culture of surveillance, anonymous reporting, and bureaucratic profiling. History has already shown us where these systems lead, and Canadians should not tolerate them at any level of government. Not federally. Not provincially. And certainly not locally. If we want a safe society, we enforce laws against real crime. We do not build Orwellian programs that encourage residents to report each other in the shadows. That is not progress. That is regression. And if we do not stop it now, we will one day look back and wonder how we let it happen. So I ask the people of Durham: when is enough enough? How many red flags do you need before you recognize the direction we are heading? Because the slow demise of Durham will not happen overnight — it will happen one program, one policy, and one surrendered freedom at a time.

Canada Will Find Its Way Back

Canada Will Find Its Way Back By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canada is in a rough place right now. You can feel it when you talk to people at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, or waiting for the bus. Folks are tired. Not just tired from work, but tired in their bones. Tired of being talked down to. Tired of being told they are the problem. The job market keeps shrinking. Tens of thousands of Canadians have stopped looking for work because they see no future in it. Young people are stuck bouncing between short contracts and low pay. Seniors, people who worked their whole lives, are now showing up in shelters. Food banks are busier than ever. These are not rumors. They are happening right now. At the same time, billions of taxpayer dollars are leaving the country. We are told there is no money for housing, health care, or seniors, but there always seems to be money for something else. That makes people angry, and it should. Many Canadians feel like they no longer recognize their own country. If you speak up, you are labeled. If you ask questions, you are attacked. Disagree with the government and you are called names instead of being answered. That is not how a healthy country works. There is also a growing feeling that some groups are allowed to be openly targeted. Christians are mocked. White people are told they are guilty just for existing. Many people are afraid to even say that out loud because they do not want to lose their job or friends. But pretending it is not happening does not fix it. Canada was built on the idea that you earn your keep. You work hard. You help your neighbors. You raise your kids. You do not expect special treatment, but you expect fairness. That idea is being pushed aside and replaced with something else. Something that says your value depends on which group you belong to. That way of thinking will not last forever. History shows this again and again. Movements built on division always burn out. They get loud. They get angry. Then they collapse under their own weight. It may not happen fast. It may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen. Canada has been through worse times than this. The Great Depression nearly broke families. Two world wars sent young men overseas and left scars that never healed. People suffered. People went hungry. But the country pulled together because families stuck together. That is what matters now. Pull your family closer. Talk to your kids. Eat meals together when you can. If one of your children has been deeply influenced by a university or online world that teaches them to hate their own country or family, be patient. That is hard. They may say things that hurt. They may call you names. They may tell you that you are everything wrong with the world. Stay calm. In time, many of them will learn who really cares. It will not be activist groups. It will not be loud online movements. It will be the people who showed up when life got hard. Family always matters in the end. Do not stop loving each other. Love is not weakness. It is what holds people steady when everything else is shaking. You can be strong and still care. You can fight for your country and still be kind. There is a lot of talk about hate these days. But most regular Canadians are not hateful. They are worried. They are stressed. They are trying to protect their kids and hold onto something familiar in a fast changing world. That does not make them bad people. It makes them human. Canada does not need saving by outsiders. Nobody is coming to rescue us. The only thing we have is each other. Neighbors. Families. Communities. That is how this country was built in the first place. We also need to stop being afraid of our friends. The United States is not our enemy. Americans are just people, same as us. They argue. They vote. They make mistakes. Whoever is leading them at any moment does not change that. Fear helps no one. What Canada needs now is honesty. Honest debate. Honest media. Honest leaders who remember who they work for. Not activists. Not donors. Not loud online crowds. Regular people. This period will pass. The anger will burn itself out. New generations will look back and ask how things got so divided. They will also rebuild. My hope is that my grandchildren will live in a Canada that remembers fairness, hard work, and respect again. That future will not be handed to them. It has to be protected, talked about, and fought for. Calmly. Clearly. Without hatred. Stay chill, Canada. Do not turn on each other. Hold your ground without losing your heart. That is how countries survive hard times. We have done it before. We will do it again.

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura”

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura” By Nick Kossovan Nothing kills attraction faster than the smell of effort. When you appear to be trying to impress, you've already lost; people can smell your desperation, which most job seekers show signs of. Rare is the job seeker who controls their emotions and whose actions appear fluid. The Italians call it sprezzatura, the art of making "the difficult" seem effortless. In his 1528 work The Book of the Courtier, Renaissance author Baldassare Castiglione described sprezzatura as "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it". Essentially, sprezzatura is the art of "studied carelessness," making difficult actions look effortless. Worth noting: with consistent practice and patience, any art can be learned and even mastered. Sprezzatura practitioners maintain a relaxed style that seems unintentional, never revealing the effort behind their actions. When you display "struggle," such as complaining about your job search on LinkedIn or criticizing how employers hire for their business, you publicly display that you can't manage your emotions, which diminishes your status. Remaining silent is better than saying or writing something that could negatively reflect on you, particularly with employers. Moreover, a nonchalant attitude—it'll be what it'll be—is much more appealing than desperate action or the display of frustration and anger. Not to undermine Castiglione, the first step in applying the art of sprezzatura to your job search is to adopt a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude, a mindset that's critical to confidence and, in the context of job searching, reduces anxiety and helps you cope with the frustrations of job searching, such as ghosting, long hiring processes, rejection, and months of silence. Those you admire and respect are likely individuals who embody a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude. Caring less about external validation, trivial opinions, critics, haters, and uncontrollable outcomes, such as whether you're ghosted, receive feedback, or get hired, frees up much-needed mental energy for self-trust (read: increase your confidence). Ultimately, not caring about what's out of your control, which is the majority of your job search, allows you to concentrate on what you can control: your actions. A job seeker who exhibits sprezzatura makes a strong first impression. Rather than appearing overly anxious or desperate, their nonchalant demeanour conveys self-assurance—a sense of calm control—a trait valued by employers. They approach networking, undeniably the most effective job search strategy, and interviews with a poised attitude. As I mentioned, any art can be learned and even mastered, including sprezzatura. 1. Stop being emotionally attached. I know this'll come across as a cliché; however, having spent decades navigating the corporate world, experiencing different workplaces more than most, I can confidently say that business is never personal. It took me years to realize that being emotionally attached to my work wasn't benefiting my well-being, and that I needed to detach myself from outcomes. In other words, do my best work, put it out there, and let the chips fall where they may (read: f*ck it). When job hunting, view applications as a numbers game rather than a measure of your self-worth. While submitting quality applications to jobs that align with your skills and experience is important, don't let perfectionism get in the way; ignore the "perfect candidate" narrative. The most effective way to capture an employer's attention is to hyper-focus on your resume and LinkedIn, highlighting how you contributed to your previous employer's profitability. 2. Stop drowning in execution. Avoid spending time tailoring your resume for every application. Instead, craft a single, impactful resume that highlights the value you delivered to previous employers, which is what employers look for when assessing candidates. The same applies to your cover letter, which you should always include. Write one cover letter that can be easily personalized with a few quick edits, that provides the reader with compelling reasons why you're the perfect candidate for the job, hence why they should read your resume. 3. Stop over-preparing for initial screening calls. Treat first-round interviews as conversations to determine whether the opportunity is one you want to pursue. Shifting from a "please pick me" energy to a "is this a fit for me?" approach levels the playing field and helps you spot red flags before you're in too deep. 4. Stop expecting. Expectations are just scripts you've written for others to follow, a recipe for frustration and anger, since many people don't read their lines. Stop "expecting," and you'll start releasing the tension that comes from waiting for others to meet your expectations. Employers don't owe job seekers, who freely participated in their hiring process, anything. Commenting on LinkedIn that employers need to "do better" doesn't change anything. While it would be nice not to be ghosted, social norms have shifted. Ghosting is now common in and outside the workplace. As for feedback, our litigious society has made giving it a liability concern. A not-giving-a-f*ck attitude coupled with "zero-expectations" is the foundation for cultivating sprezzatura, the most powerful, liberating, and empowering mental shift you adopt as a job seeker, which'll keep you moving with little mental friction from one opportunity to the next until you hear "You're hired!"

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism…

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Dear readers. I have been doing this job for well over 30 years. During my time as the city editor I have learned many valuable lessons. I have seen administrations come and go. I have see all kind of activists make their point and slowly become oppressed by political policy and regulation. The protocol is always the same. Some great cause. Followed by protest in various forms, only to be squashed by policy or law. In these modern times. Anyone and everyone crowns themselves a journalist. This compromising the profession of journalism. It brings to shame those that are professionals in the field do to the action of those that have no qualification and or education in the field. To write does not make you a journalist. True journalist have standards. They have integrity and a responsibility to the community they represent. Journalism standards are a set of ethical principles—primarily accuracy, fairness, independence, and accountability—designed to ensure truthful reporting in the public interest. Key practices include verifying information before publication, separating opinion from news, disclosing conflicts of interest, and promptly correcting errors. These standards aim to maintain public trust and provide context to news events. If this stands true as a measure of any media/publication. Then what are we to think of those that are online only news posting sites? Clearly they are not journalist. They are not publications as most post slanted interest items. Look at organizations like ‘Rebel News’, for example. They claim to be a news organization. Yet, they do not adhere to the principles and standards of the profession. As a journalist we can’t take sides on any issue. We are there to report on the events at hand. No matter if we personally support it or not. Our job as a journalist is to report on the facts as they are presented at that point in time. Any other form of reporting is nothing short of and opinion piece and or column with quotes to substantiate a particular point. No matter the political slant. This is not journalism. This is activism. Journalist and publishers pay dearly for confusing the two concept. Take for example the most prominent recent case of a publisher being jailed in China involves Jimmy Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong. On February 9, 2026, a Hong Kong court sentenced Lai to 20 years in prison for convictions related to national security, marking the longest sentence handed down under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law to date. In this particular case. The journalistic standard was not applicable as by it’s name clearly reported from a bias perspective. They printed in news print....But did not qualify them as a ‘NEWSPAPER’. Newspaper are to be true to the community they represent by reporting what is taking place and letting the readers make up their own minds based on the information published in accordance to the journalism standards. In these modern time. Just because you post something online it does not make you a journalist. Just because you have a blog, a social media site and or a youtube account. It does not make you a journalist. At best, from a professional position. You are nothing more then a source. A voice, but far from a journalist. Even some main groups like CNN have lost the sense of the journalistic standards and have chosen to falsely give themselves the creditability that they are journalists. Sad times we live in that we are bombarded with misinformation confusing the world we live in.

Is this really the best the City can do?

Is this really the best the City can do? A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist After trying very hard to go with the flow for well over a year now, I feel I must say something about these seemingly random parking spots appearing out of nowhere in live lanes of traffic all over downtown Oshawa. Is this really the best the City can do? I commute daily and one day I was coming into Oshawa on King St. I was in the curb lane so that I could turn right onto Centre St. I went through the lights at McMillan and came to a stop. There, with no notice, was a parked car. Of course, my first thought was, what in the world are you doing parked in a live lane of traffic? Unbeknownst to me the City had put not one but three or four parking spots right there in the curb lane. They put in the parking spots, but they did not have any signage that would indicate the lane was coming to an end. After about a week there was some signage put up but really, to reduce the lanes right in the heart of the downtown. It just seems to me that there has been little to no planning for parking in our downtown core. The parking is the worst I’ve seen in any of the local municipalities, and something needs to change. They have made Athol Street a nightmare with cement barriers for bicycles along with metal rods that stick out of the ground forcing you to park a certain way but not leaving nearly enough room for cars to pass each other safely in opposite directions because it’s so narrow. Having the Tribute Centre there in the middle of this is just adding to the traffic nightmare the City has created in our downtown. On Bruce Street behind the Tribute Centre is a danger zone on event days with cars parked right up to Drew Street. If you are travelling along Drew heading toward King Street you cannot see if there are cars coming at all because the cars are so overparked, they completely block your view. Another very frustrating parking issue in our downtown area is the fact that people now seem to use the left-hand turn lane on Simcoe approaching Bond as a parking lot. I cannot tell you how many times I have pulled into the left-hand turn lane behind someone just to have them stop, put on their four ways and go into the Money Mart. Why is this being allowed to happen? I have also seen cars just flat out parked with no driver in sight. This is not an occasional thing; it is all the time. Why aren’t there fines being handed out for this type of infraction? It’s almost like the downtown core of Oshawa is an anything goes area. People just stop and park anywhere they want. I am tired of having to wait in one long line of traffic on King to get up to Centre because there is one random car parked in what used to be a live lane of traffic up to Centre Street. This City needs to do better. They are aware of the growth and it’s time they started planning for it properly.

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late Recently, the Town of Whitby did the right thing. After being warned by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that its ban on members of the public recording council meetings raised serious Charter concerns, Whitby’s council voted to reverse that policy and reinstate recording rights for the public. This isn’t just a local policy adjustment — it is a reaffirmation of fundamental democratic norms that should never have been in doubt. In contrast, the City of Pickering has taken a series of steps that, collectively, narrow resident participation in local government and erect barriers to transparency just when openness is most needed. I have formally asked the City Clerk, the Mayor, and members of Council to review and revise Pickering’s policies and procedures so that residents can genuinely engage with their local government. This request is rooted not in partisanship but in principle: open meetings and open government are foundational to a functioning democracy. What Changed in Pickering? Over the past term, Pickering adopted a number of measures that, intentionally or not, restrict community access to council: Public recording of council and committee meetings is prohibited. If the public wants to record what is happening in an open meeting, they cannot unless the policy changes. This goes against the basic idea that a public meeting should be publicly accessible and documentable without restriction. Whitby acknowledged this and corrected their policy. Delegation times were cut from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. This might seem small, but for everyday residents, community advocates, and experts without a megaphone, five minutes is barely time to begin explaining a concern, let alone have their voice heard. Public Question Period before Council meetings was removed. Residents can no longer stand up and ask questions of their Mayor and Council before meetings when they have concerns about what is happening in their city. The removal of this basic question-and-answer opportunity cuts off a direct line of accountability between elected officials and the people they serve, and sends the message that resident concerns are an inconvenience rather than a priority. Only Pickering residents are routinely allowed to speak. Residents from elsewhere in Durham Region are barred from addressing council unless special permission is granted, even though many Durham residents work in Pickering, pay regional taxes that fund services impacting Pickering, and are directly affected by decisions made in our council chambers. Three members of Pickering Council plus the Mayor sit at Durham Region Council, where decisions made regionally impact every municipality. Residents should not lose their voice at the local level simply because they live one municipal boundary away. Residents cannot speak to matters not on the agenda without a two-thirds vote. Previously, Pickering residents could speak to any matter of concern as long as they provided notice in advance of a council meeting. Now, even residents who follow the rules and give notice can be denied the opportunity to speak if two-thirds of Council does not approve the topic. In practical terms, this means if Council does not like what you want to speak about, you may not be allowed to speak at all. This shifts public participation from a right to a permission-based privilege. Media access is limited. The media cannot record meetings without a two-thirds vote of council. On more than one occasion, members of the media were escorted out of meetings, and when the matter came to a vote, council refused to allow media to remain and record. Public meetings should be accessible to journalists without hurdles. This undermines the open government principles protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Communication avenues are unnecessarily restricted. Councillors are not permitted to use their own ward budgets to advertise or inform residents in local newspapers unless those newspapers are approved by the CAO. If a paper is not approved — including community outlets such as The Central — councillors are prohibited from using their budget to communicate with residents through that outlet. The stated concern is that some papers contain opinion pieces, yet the City advertises in major outlets that also carry opinion content. This uneven standard restricts how councillors can reach residents and limits access to local, community-based media. Why This Matters A council meeting isn’t a secret club. It’s a public forum where decisions about taxes, services, infrastructure, and community life are made. When policies limit who can speak, shorten speaking times, block recordings, remove public question periods, restrict media access, and turn resident participation into something that requires Council’s approval, the result is less accountability and less trust. Transparency isn’t optional. It isn’t something that communities should have to fight for legally. It should be the default. Whitby’s recent policy reversal should be a wake-up call for Pickering: restricting public access and scrutiny is both unnecessary and legally vulnerable. Rather than waiting for external legal pressure, our City should proactively correct course. What Needs to Happen Pickering must: Amend policies to clearly allow members of the public to record open meetings — audio and video — with only reasonable, content-neutral restrictions related to safety and non-disruption. Restore meaningful delegation time and reinstate a public question period so residents can directly ask their Mayor and Council questions. Ensure that voices from across Durham Region can be heard when decisions affect them, without unnecessary procedural barriers. Allow the media to record open meetings without requiring a supermajority vote. Permit residents to speak to issues they care about, even if Council has not placed those issues on the agenda. Remove unnecessary restrictions on how councillors can use their ward communication budgets to inform residents through local media outlets. Democracy Doesn’t Work in a Vacuum I did not raise these concerns lightly. When Pickering passed each of these restrictive policies by 6–1 votes, I cautioned that they raised serious concerns about Charter-protected freedoms and democratic access. Whitby’s reversal confirms that those concerns were valid. Local government should be closer to the people, not further from them. It should empower residents, not silence them. I remain hopeful that Pickering’s leadership will choose transparency, openness, and democratic engagement — before legal action becomes necessary. Despite me putting the City of Pickering on notice that this policy violates Charter-protected freedoms, The Mayor is choosing to delay any changes until 2027 — leaving residents’ rights infringed in the meantime. “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

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!