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!

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

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

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.

WANTING TO KNOW!!!

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

‘Taste Like Chicken’

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

A Journalist’s Answer on Gun Policy

A Journalist’s Answer on Gun Policy By Dale Jodoin Columnist People often ask me for my opinion on gun policy. They usually expect a reaction driven by emotion. I do not give them that. I am a journalist. When I answer, I answer the same way I write. I rely on facts, patterns, and outcomes that can be measured. Feelings matter in human stories, but public policy has to stand on evidence or it collapses under its own weight. When someone asks why I oppose repeated gun bans aimed at legal owners, my answer starts with context, not ideology. First, let me be clear about one thing that should never be blurred. The Montreal massacre was a crime of pure evil. Those women were murdered. Nothing excuses it. Nothing justifies it. Acknowledging that truth is not optional and it does not weaken any argument that follows. It strengthens it by keeping facts grounded in reality instead of denial. Now to the data. In Canada, the majority of firearm related violent crime involves handguns. Police statistics, court records, and border seizure reports all point to the same conclusion. These handguns are overwhelmingly illegal. They are smuggled into Canada, primarily from the United States. They are not bought at Canadian gun stores. They are not registered. They are not owned by people who passed background checks or completed safety training. That fact alone should shape policy. Instead, policy continues to move in the opposite direction. The federal government has spent years expanding restrictions on legal firearms owners. Billions of dollars have been allocated to buy back firearms that were never used in crimes. Some hunting rifles have been swept into prohibition lists despite having no link to urban violence. At the same time, smuggling routes remain active, border enforcement remains thin, and repeat violent offenders continue to cycle through the justice system. This is not a matter of opinion. It is observable. If removing legal firearms reduced violent crime, we would expect to see a clear downward trend after each major legislative change. That trend does not exist. In fact, gun crime involving handguns has increased in many cities during the same period that legal ownership has been further restricted. That contradiction is not explained away by slogans. Another question I am asked is why anti gun advocacy groups push so hard for these measures when evidence shows they do not address the main source of crime. The answer is uncomfortable but necessary. Many of these groups receive government funding. Their survival depends on the continuation of the issue. If the problem were solved through border enforcement and serious sentencing, their relevance would diminish. That creates a built in conflict of interest. Again, that is not an accusation. It is a structural reality. When policy discussions are dominated by groups whose funding depends on fear, the conversation drifts away from results and toward symbolism. Banning visible objects creates the appearance of action. It generates headlines. It reassures people who want quick answers. But it does not stop criminals who operate entirely outside the law. Police leaders across multiple provinces have said this publicly. Chiefs of police have stated that confiscating legally owned firearms will not stop gang shootings. Provincial governments of different political stripes have opposed federal overreach in this area. These are not fringe voices. These are professionals tasked with public safety. Yet their input is routinely ignored. There is also the issue of expertise. Some of the strongest voices pushing firearm bans have limited technical knowledge of firearms themselves. That matters because policy based on misunderstanding leads to unintended consequences. When lawmakers cannot distinguish between different types of firearms yet regulate them broadly, precision is lost and fairness disappears. The justice system presents another hard truth. Violence is violence regardless of the tool used. A murder committed with a gun is as wrong as one committed with a knife, a club, or bare hands. Focusing solely on the instrument distracts from the individual committing the act. Public safety improves when violent offenders are removed from the public, not when inanimate objects are blamed. Canada has seen too many cases where individuals with long violent records were released early, breached conditions, or reoffended shortly after parole. Each time this happens, the response is rarely a serious discussion about sentencing or supervision. Instead, attention shifts back to lawful firearm owners. That pattern raises legitimate questions. Why is it politically easier to regulate people who comply than to confront people who do not. Why is enforcement at the border underfunded while buyback programs are generously financed. Why are repeat violent offenders released while licensed citizens are treated as potential threats. These questions deserve answers grounded in evidence, not moral posturing. Legal firearms owners in Canada already live under one of the most regulated systems in the world. Licensing involves background checks, references, daily eligibility screening, mandatory training, and strict storage rules. These individuals are statistically among the least likely to commit violent crime. That is not speculation. That is supported by decades of data. Targeting them further does not make communities safer. It simply diverts resources away from where harm actually originates. If the goal is to reduce violence, the path is clear. Invest in border security. Monitor rail and port traffic. Fund organized crime units. Impose serious consequences for gun trafficking. End the cycle of catch and release for violent offenders. Support police with tools that address real threats, not symbolic ones. As a journalist, my responsibility is not to comfort or inflame. It is to connect policy claims to outcomes. When those outcomes do not align, it is my job to say so plainly. Facts do not take sides. They simply wait to be acknowledged. If we want honest public debate, we have to stop confusing visibility with effectiveness. We have to stop punishing compliance and start addressing criminal behaviour directly. And we have to stop pretending that repeating the same failed approach will somehow produce a different result. That is not ideology. That is observation.

People are watching

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE People are watching As Ontario prepares for the next round of Skills Development Fund (SDF) allocations—this time including capital funding—you would think the government would be eager to clean up its act. So far, there is little evidence that it has. The SDF program has already been engulfed in controversy. Applicants that scored poorly on their submissions were nevertheless greenlit for millions of dollars, while legitimate trade schools, unions, and skilled-training institutions were left watching from the sidelines. When a disproportionate share of public funding flows repeatedly to the same politically connected actors, it stops looking like coincidence and starts looking like collusion. Among the names repeatedly tied to these grants are Kory Teneycke, the Premier’s former campaign manager; Nico Fidani Dyker, a former senior staffer in the Premier’s office; and Michael Diamond, the President of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Oversight ultimately rests with the Ministry of Labour, under Minister David Piccini, whose proximity to lobbyists and grant recipients has raised persistent concerns. There are documented reports of front-row Maple Leafs tickets, luxury travel, and privileged access enjoyed by principals of companies that received SDF funding. At the same time, credible training organizations—those actually preparing electricians, welders, millwrights, and heavy-equipment operators—were passed over. This week, a brief investigation revealed that multiple steel companies have independently retained Nico Fidani Dyker’s lobbying firm ahead of the next SDF intake. This mirrors prior behaviour observed during the Greenbelt scandal, where access appeared to matter more than merit. At the same time, the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into irregularities surrounding Keel Digital Solutions remains unresolved, and the RCMP’s Greenbelt investigation continues. Despite this, the same players appear confident that public money will continue to flow. Within government, many Members of Provincial Parliament are privately unhappy with what is unfolding. Fear of political retaliation, withdrawn support, or stalled funding has kept most silent. Meanwhile, Ontario’s skilled trades continue to struggle. Apprenticeships go unfunded. Training facilities age. Labour shortages worsen. If the next round of Skills Development Funds proceeds without reform, transparency, and accountability, it will confirm what many already believe: the program has become less about skills and more about access. People are watching.

A POLITICAL CONVENTION AND A HOST OF NATIONAL ISSUES

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

Disgraceful At Best...

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

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

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

More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science

More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every individual is connected through culture, society, and behaviour. We are all a part of a complex social system which influences us in ways we rarely notice. From our diets to our wardrobe to speech patterns, every aspect of our lives are shaped by our environment. Even choices we believe to be solely personal are the result of social expectations, economic conditions, and cultural norms that have surrounded us throughout our entire lives. These aspects are researched through the social sciences, the academic study of our social environment, including human society, relationships, and individual behavior. These sciences ask the question of why regarding everything surrounding human life, from politics to education to the legal system. Some of the most well-known branches include psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science; however these are just some disciplines among many. Although the importance and academic focus of the social sciences are often debated, at their core they are research-based, systematic, knowledgeable, and ultimately useful, making them sciences as much as biology or chemistry are. The social sciences are deeply embedded in our decision making, understanding, and systems that structure our lives. Each branch investigates our world through a different lens, providing explanations as to why humans are the way they are. Rather than relying on assumption or intuition, as most personal judgements do, the social sciences collect data, identify patterns, and test theories. This allows us to deepen our understanding of society and those around us. Beyond academic study, the social sciences also play a crucial role in challenging the judgements we apply around the world. They encourage us to question what we consider “normal” and to recognize the social norms which we are surrounded by. What we see as normal is a social construct, no more important or pure than others. By developing this understanding, we allow ourselves and societies to grow, adapt, and improve. The judgements, biases, and opinions we carry are unavoidable in our lives. These ideas are engraved into who we are, formed by our childhood, culture, societal norms, and past experiences. They are normal and entirely human, however they cloud our world view and limit our understanding. The social sciences provide a unique, open-minded understanding of our society without the interference of personal judgement. They use numbers to explain why. Why are rates of educational success higher in some districts than others? Why has mental health declined in recent years? Why do cultural ceremonies differ so widely across continents? Rather than offering surface-level opinions, these sciences explore underlying causes such as inequality, historical context, and social structures. There is a term in anthropology, coined by Franz Boas, referred to as cultural relativism. This means to understand cultures on their own terms rather than judging them by external, biased standards. These concepts promote understanding without assigning value or superiority. It’s something which we can all apply to our daily lives, even if we’re not anthropologists. Cultural relativism encourages us to view cultures as sources of meaning and comfort for those within them, even if they differ from our own. Every society is organized to meet the needs of its people, every society is structurally similar and globally understood. Through this lens, we can understand others, and learn from the differences as opposed to criticizing them. When analyzing these systems found within cultures, we realize how influenced we are by the systems themselves. We are never truly alone, as we are always surrounded by our culture, whether that be the music we’re listening to, the technology we’re using, or the tasks we are doing throughout the day. Each individual exists as part of a system, a statistic, a society that connects us to others. It is inescapable, and that’s what makes the social sciences so fascinating. Understanding this connection allows us to recognize our role within society, and what influenced that. It not only helps us understand others, but it is the key to recognizing our own influences and personality. Ultimately, the social sciences shape our entire worldview. They influence how we interpret politics, make judgements and understand personal identity. They teach us empathy, critical thinking, and the importance of evidence within our daily lives. In a world that is connected and forever changing, these skills are essential. Appreciating and applying sociology, anthropology, and psychology to our daily lives are the only way to properly understand our global societies and cultures for what they are; unique, functional, interconnected, and beautiful.

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.