Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2026
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
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.
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...
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. 
Saturday, January 24, 2026
More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science
More Than an Individual
-Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Every individual is connected through culture, society, and behaviour. We are all a part of a complex social system which influences us in ways we rarely notice. From our diets to our wardrobe to speech patterns, every aspect of our lives are shaped by our environment. Even choices we believe to be solely personal are the result of social expectations, economic conditions, and cultural norms that have surrounded us throughout our entire lives.
These aspects are researched through the social sciences, the academic study of our social environment, including human society, relationships, and individual behavior. These sciences ask the question of why regarding everything surrounding human life, from politics to education to the legal system. Some of the most well-known branches include psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science; however these are just some disciplines among many. Although the importance and academic focus of the social sciences are often debated, at their core they are research-based, systematic, knowledgeable, and ultimately useful, making them sciences as much as biology or chemistry are.
The social sciences are deeply embedded in our decision making, understanding, and systems that structure our lives. Each branch investigates our world through a different lens, providing explanations as to why humans are the way they are. Rather than relying on assumption or intuition, as most personal judgements do, the social sciences collect data, identify patterns, and test theories. This allows us to deepen our understanding of society and those around us.
Beyond academic study, the social sciences also play a crucial role in challenging the judgements we apply around the world. They encourage us to question what we consider “normal” and to recognize the social norms which we are surrounded by. What we see as normal is a social construct, no more important or pure than others. By developing this understanding, we allow ourselves and societies to grow, adapt, and improve. The judgements, biases, and opinions we carry are unavoidable in our lives. These ideas are engraved into who we are, formed by our childhood, culture, societal norms, and past experiences. They are normal and entirely human, however they cloud our world view and limit our understanding. The social sciences provide a unique, open-minded understanding of our society without the interference of personal judgement. They use numbers to explain why. Why are rates of educational success higher in some districts than others? Why has mental health declined in recent years? Why do cultural ceremonies differ so widely across continents? Rather than offering surface-level opinions, these sciences explore underlying causes such as inequality, historical context, and social structures.
There is a term in anthropology, coined by Franz Boas, referred to as cultural relativism. This means to understand cultures on their own terms rather than judging them by external, biased standards. These concepts promote understanding without assigning value or superiority. It’s something which we can all apply to our daily lives, even if we’re not anthropologists. Cultural relativism encourages us to view cultures as sources of meaning and comfort for those within them, even if they differ from our own. Every society is organized to meet the needs of its people, every society is structurally similar and globally understood. Through this lens, we can understand others, and learn from the differences as opposed to criticizing them. When analyzing these systems found within cultures, we realize how influenced we are by the systems themselves. We are never truly alone, as we are always surrounded by our culture, whether that be the music we’re listening to, the technology we’re using, or the tasks we are doing throughout the day. Each individual exists as part of a system, a statistic, a society that connects us to others. It is inescapable, and that’s what makes the social sciences so fascinating. Understanding this connection allows us to recognize our role within society, and what influenced that. It not only helps us understand others, but it is the key to recognizing our own influences and personality. Ultimately, the social sciences shape our entire worldview. They influence how we interpret politics, make judgements and understand personal identity. They teach us empathy, critical thinking, and the importance of evidence within our daily lives. In a world that is connected and forever changing, these skills are essential. Appreciating and applying sociology, anthropology, and psychology to our daily lives are the only way to properly understand our global societies and cultures for what they are; unique, functional, interconnected, and beautiful. 
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.
Cold Enough for You?
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Cold Enough for You?
Maybe not as cold as the shoulder President Trump is currently giving the Prime Minister following the China meetings and the push toward what many are calling a new world economic order.
Protectionism and economic nationalism are nothing new to President Trump. It’s where he cut his teeth politically. Tearing up NAFTA, repatriating auto and manufacturing jobs, and using tariffs as leverage have all been central to his strategy. There’s no question these policies have hurt Canada—and Ontario in particular. Here at home, the Ontario Premier has expressed outrage over the federal government’s decision to remove tariffs on Chinese EVs, even going so far as to encourage a boycott of Chinese electric vehicles. At the same time, he has followed through on his promise to keep Crown Royal off LCBO shelves. When you look closely, Ontario’s actions mirror the very protectionism being criticized south of the border. Keeping Crown Royal off shelves is framed as a protest over the closure of its Ontario plant. Yet the company maintains significant operations—and its head office—in Manitoba and Quebec. You can’t parade as “Captain Canada” while selectively protecting only Ontario jobs. That said, I voted for Doug Ford to look after Ontario. That’s his lane. Protecting Canada as a whole is the Prime Minister’s job.
The deal Mark Carney is attempting to strike with China and other so-called “friendly” EU nations is clearly an effort to counterbalance our reliance on a superpower neighbour that holds most of the cards. Doing business with China—given its ability to manufacture goods at costs Canada simply cannot match—may reduce inflation. But let’s not kid ourselves: it will almost certainly come at the expense of domestic employment. We are living through a period of aggressive attacks on globalization. I’m not convinced that’s entirely a bad thing, but the consequences will be real. Canadians should brace themselves for changes in the cost of goods, inflation, and employment levels.
What we do need, however, is political discipline. The legislative framework is clear: the Prime Minister speaks for Canada; premiers speak for their provinces. Staying in your lane matters.
As for Ontario, stay tuned for this week’s Mr. X Files. I’ll be digging into the Ryan Amato emails. Amato, the former Chief of Staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs during the Greenbelt scandal, has refused to release emails sent through his personal account and is now before the courts.
There are only two reasons not to release those emails: they incriminate him, or they incriminate others—either within government or among developers.
Amato has a decision to make. Honesty has never been a defining trait of his modus operandi, but the very real prospect of jail time—and the reality that he likely wouldn’t fare well on the range—may yet be enough to convince him to release the emails.
Because when they do come out, Canadians will finally see who the real criminals in the Greenbelt scandal were.
CHINESE WET DREAM!!!
CHINESE WET DREAM!!!
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
Not only is our country falling apart, being invaded through our ridiculous immigration policy. But now, it appears that our new Prime Minister is about to give us away to China.
Carney could not negotiate with the long time neighbors to the south. So he thinks he is going to gain any leverage against the U.S. by elbowing it up with the Chinese.
PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON OUR CITY STREETS. FOOD BANKS DEPENDENCY ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. We in Canada have no real politics. The NDP have run aground. The PC can’t even win their wards but expect to be voted Prime Minister. And the Liberals.... well they are finishing us off.
Personally, the best thing that could happen to Canada is to become the 51st. The real threat is that if in the U.S. the democrats come back in power. Then the American empire will fall.
This week the news reports read:
Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies.
Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital.
Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he has found “much alignment” with Chinese President Xi Jinping in their views on Greenland, which some experts say is a signal of a new pragmatism in Canadian foreign policy while facing what Carney called a “new world order.”
This is our leader folks... The Chinese are not only laughing at us... but I am sure that they feel as if they won the ultimate lotery... Imagine, inviting the Chinese to take over Canada.
It has been in the works for years.
“I had discussions with President Xi about the situation in Greenland, about our sovereignty in the Arctic, about the sovereignty of the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark. And I found much alignment of views in that regard,” Carney told reporters after his meeting with Xi.
The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally.
Here’s what that could entail. EU trade, tech disruptions?
Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology.
The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland.
An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures.
The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe.
NATO response? A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said.
In other words. They are not going to do a single thing. As “NO” NATO means that Europe is exposed. It means, China, Russia and anyone with ambitions to go on a war rampage.
I think people need to look at what is going on in the world. Look at what took part in Venezuela.
They went in. They flexed muscle and they got the job done. A historical beacon. The world may or may not be a better place. One thing.
There is clear marker on who rules and those that are so into the financial rat race that has corrupted it’s integrity and committment to the millions of people you reprent. I think the key to our success as a civilization is to rule with the best interest of the people. We have to start here at home. Put an end to those homeless... 
Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel
Saturday, January 17, 2026
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
I just saw a REEL on Facebook of Tito-Dante Marimpeitri outside of City Hall in downtown Oshawa. It is easily the twentieth video I have seen of him since he declared his intention to run for Mayor of Oshawa on January 1st. I have never seen him on Facebook or in REELS prior to making this announcement and it’s obvious he intends to post something everyday to try and stay top of mind with the voters and show the residents that he covers all areas and all topics.
I guess my question is, what happens after the election? Win or lose does he intend to keep this level of engagement up? If not, then what a farce this is. If so, where will he find the time?
I have to say that it’s more than a little annoying that these local politicians get elected, disappear from the public view, collect a paycheck, and won’t take or return a phone call, or email. Then, when we’re in an election year, they seem to pop up everywhere. Like they are literally coming out of the woodwork. Shameful. Oshawa residents deserve better than that.
Why don’t we have some sort of accountability system for these local politicians? That is something that needs to be seriously considered going forward.
I am seeing every single Councillor for all the wards front and centre with their motions, observances, statements etc…Where have they been for the last three years? And in some cases, seven years.
I don’t find it engaging, I find it contrived, obvious, and insulting. Surely, we can do better than this.
Our current council is made up of several people who are quite literally collecting a paycheck for nothing more than the fact that they got elected! They have no intention to move on, nor do they do this city any good. Career politicians are what they call those types.
They didn’t come in with any real credentials, and they have nothing to go to when they leave so the plan is just to run, election after election and hope they slide by. That may work for a period of time and in certain places, but I have a feeling that the residents of Oshawa are ready for something new. Their charitable spirits have been stretched to the limit, and they are hungry for change.
Not talk of change and the quaint catch phrases that actually mean nothing, but real change, the kind you can’t help but notice when you walk downtown. Yes, I do think change is coming and it might be prudent for some of the current Councillors to polish up their resumes. 
Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize
DESPERATE MOVE…
DESPERATE MOVE...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Whitby Council has called on the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to remove the GST/HST from all newly-built or substantially renovated homes purchased from the builder as primary residences in Ontario.
This in my opinion is a sign of desperation by Whitby. 1st. Who ever came up with this does not understand the bigger picture. The problem with affordability is not the HST. The problem is the prices in comparison to incomes. This move by Whitby shows the lack of desperation and leadership. 2nd, If Whitby is so concerned over affordability. They should have pressured the builders to drop prices... After all. I am sure you can run a type of auction mentality when it comes to who can build where. NO instead the municipality attempts to make the problem political instead of economic and beneficiary to those suffering at the hands of over priced developers and mortgage companies.
Staff was directed to send the resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, Federal Ministers of Finance, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, and to the Premier of Ontario and Ontario Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Whitby MP and MPP, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and to all municipalities in Ontario. In Whitby’s desperation... they forgot to cc. To God himself. These type of move by municipalities showcase the lack of Leadership.
Roy in my opinion has to go.
The current GST/HST rate on new homes in Ontario is 13 per cent, which adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical home.
The existing federal and provincial HST rebates on new homes purchased from the builder are limited by purchase-price thresholds, with most new homes in Ontario priced above the level required to qualify for meaningful relief, thereby limiting their effectiveness in improving overall housing affordability, a town statement pointed out. With this said. You can write all the letter you want to the Feds and they will surely use it for toilet paper as the builders are within the rules of the game set out by the Feds.
Then the real beef should be with the builders that inflate prices in order to stay above the threshold.
The federal and provincial governments have proposed new GST/HST rebates only for first-time homebuyers purchasing from the builder a newly built or substantially renovated home.
In other words. It favor no one. Specially new home buyers.
According to research conducted by the Ontario Homebuilders’ Association, first-time home buyers currently represent approximately 5 per cent of the new home market.
Once again. Whitby’s attempt are nothing but an attempt to politically grandstand during an election year.
Here is my suggestion if I had the priviledge of being elected.
1st. Cap home values in the municipality. You don’t like it go build some other place.
2nd. All builders would have to pay a community surcharge for future affects of their developments. Make them pay for destroying our municipalities. They want to make money. So should we.
3rd. The government is forcing municipalities to build, build, build. They put all kinds of pressure and up to incentives. This is wrong.
In order to lead we must play within the rules...
We can’t win as a single municipality. We must learn to work with the rules stipulated.
In this case. The problem with housing is not so much availability as it is affordability. Who can affor a million dollar income on one salary?
Who can afford the down payment? Who can afford the taxes and all the other things that go along with a mortgage and home ownership? Then if this stand true. What is the real reason of sending a meaningless letter to the Feds to get rid of the HST.
It has no purpose other than a political move during an election year.
This bringing me to my point. We must get rid of all incumbents and start fresh. Most on most councils are either careered politicians, pension fluffers and or sitting on the top of their personal achievement mountain. Look where most of them end up working after politics. We need to elect people from the business community. Front line soldiers that know the value of a dollar. Someone that can be atoned to the harsh economy. I know that if I had won in 2022. I would have kept taxes at zero increase during my administration. I would have cut waste all around. If you can run a business you can run the corporation of any municipality. Let’s stop electing those that have no real life business savvy.
Saturday, January 3, 2026
Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians
Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
I want to write this the way people actually speak when the microphones are off and the cameras are gone. Not as a lecture. Not as a warning. Just as a person who has listened long enough to notice a pattern. Something is shifting, and it has nothing to do with secret symbols, coded music, or hidden messages in culture. It has everything to do with trust being broken.
Lately, large left leaning newspapers keep telling us the same story. They say the far right is quietly creeping into everyday life. They say it hides in jokes, fitness videos, clothes, online influencers, and casual conversation. They say regular people do not even notice it happening. They warn us to be afraid of our own culture.
But that story does not reflect what people are actually living through.
What I hear from Canadians is not fear of one another. It is frustration with a system that no longer feels fair. People feel talked down to. They feel managed instead of represented. And when they try to speak honestly, they are immediately labeled.
That label is always the same. Far right.
The term used to mean something serious. It described real extremism. Today, it is used as a shortcut to shut down debate. If you disagree with government policy, you are far right. If you question new laws, you are far right. If you worry about your children, you are far right. Once that word is applied, discussion ends.
That is not journalism. That is social pressure.
Most of the people being described this way are not radicals. They are parents trying to raise kids in a confusing world. They are workers watching prices rise while services fall apart. They are seniors scared to get sick because health care is overwhelmed. They are immigrants who came legally and feel angry that fairness has been replaced by chaos.
These are not people being pulled into some dark movement. These are people paying attention.
The idea that everyday culture is being infiltrated suggests that citizens are passive and easily fooled. It assumes people cannot think for themselves. It assumes they need to be protected from their own thoughts. That attitude alone explains why trust in the media is collapsing.
Canadians know when something feels off. They know when the rules apply differently depending on who you are. They know when crime is explained away while victims are ignored. They know when speech is policed more harshly than violence.
Young people see this clearly. They are not being radicalized. They are watching adults argue while institutions fail. They see fear used as a tool. They see words redefined. They see silence rewarded and honesty punished. Many of them are stepping back, not because they believe something extreme, but because they do not trust the system to treat them fairly.
That is not dangerous. That is rational.
Immigration is one of the clearest examples of how honest discussion has been poisoned. Canada has always welcomed newcomers. That has not changed. Most Canadians still believe in immigration done properly. What people object to is scale without planning, promises without infrastructure, and rules that no longer apply equally.
Mass immigration without enough housing drives prices up. Without enough doctors, it overwhelms health care. Without honest expectations, it creates tension. Saying this is not hatred. It is reality.
Yet if you raise these concerns, the response is not discussion. It is an accusation.
Parents face the same problem. Many feel they have lost their voice. They are told not to question schools. They are told concern is harm. They are told to trust systems that refuse transparency. When parents push back, they are treated as dangerous.
This creates fear, not progress.
Across Europe, citizens are expressing the same frustration. They are not marching for hate. They are voting for change. They are asking for borders that work, laws that apply equally, and leaders who listen. When they do, media voices warn the public to fear them.
That reaction reveals more about power than about people.
What is really happening is not a rise of extremism. It is a collapse of patience. People are tired of being blamed for problems they did not create. They are tired of being told silence is kindness. They are tired of being managed by narratives instead of served by policy.
This is no longer about left versus right. That argument is outdated. This is about citizens versus systems that forgot who they exist for.
The people being called far right do not share one ideology. They share a sense that something fundamental is being lost. Fairness. Balance. Common sense. The ability to speak without fear.
They stand against real antisemitism and real racism. They stand with Jewish Canadians who feel unsafe. They stand with Muslim Canadians who came here for freedom and peace. They stand for freedom of worship and equal law.
They do not want chaos. They want stability.
Calling people names will not fix housing.
It will not fix health care. It will not protect children. It will not reduce crime.
It only deepens resentment and destroys trust.
The real danger is not culture being influenced. The real danger is citizens no longer believing those who claim to inform them. When people stop trusting media and government, society weakens. People withdraw. Conversation dies.
People know when headlines do not match their lived experience. They know when fear is being sold as concern. They know when power is protecting itself.
That awareness is not frightening. It is necessary.
Canadians are not far right. They are not far left. They are tired of being bullied by language and ignored by policy.
They are simply asking to be treated like adults again.
That is not extremism.
That is a country quietly but firmly asking to be heard.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)