Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2026
When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear
When Employers See Your Value, Job
Market Disconnects Disappear
By Nick Kossovan
When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer.
I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to.
1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job.
2. Intellectualizing their experience.
Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value.
When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility.
An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable.
Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by:
· Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes.
· Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder).
Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?”
· "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel."
· "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative."
· "Results-driven leader with a proven track record."
Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill.
Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)?
· In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community.
· Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%.
· Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease.
· Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo.
· Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations.
Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes.
The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address.
For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume.
Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.” 
Building A Culture Of Control
Building A Culture Of Control
As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region.
No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent.
Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion.
I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch.
Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended.
Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach.
Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway.
The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it.
This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation.
Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch?
Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance.
The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.
63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...
63 Million Insults And Our
Mayor Thanks Them...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS.
That they would make such a statement public in the first place...
But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for
investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa.
Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”,
as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked.
The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids
to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa.
In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they
rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa.
Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa.
This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it.
Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by
putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain.
If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not
to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands.
It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep
the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars.
I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God
that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows.
You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer.
In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys
like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all
they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or
nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead
beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee. I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics.
Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....
Saturday, February 21, 2026
A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
A Voice Before the Vote
A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote.
Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize.
Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented.
Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them.
Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest.
What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility.
A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity.
One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed.
Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.
Friday, February 20, 2026
Don’t let them scare you
Don’t let them scare you
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak.
There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side.
If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to.
So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family.
The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose.
Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Municipal governments in Ontario are widely regarded as financially disciplined. Balanced-budget requirements, strong audit practices and conservative debt management have created a culture of fiscal caution. That discipline has value. But in an era defined by housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and constrained revenue tools, caution alone is no longer sufficient. Most municipalities structure their finance departments around accounting expertise. Treasurers and chief financial officers are typically trained in audit compliance, financial reporting and budget administration. Their mandate is to ensure that spending aligns with revenues, that reserves are properly allocated and that statutory requirements are met. These functions are essential. But they are not economic modelling.
Accounting is, by nature, retrospective. It records and categorizes what has occurred. Economic modelling, by contrast, attempts to forecast behavioural responses to policy decisions. An accountant asks whether the budget balances. An economist asks what will happen if a variable changes. The distinction matters. Municipal councils today are routinely making decisions about development charges, property-tax rates, infrastructure financing and long-term debt issuance. These decisions influence housing supply, business location, migration patterns and assessment growth. They shape the local economy for decades. Yet many municipalities approach these questions primarily through an accounting lens. Consider development charges. When rates are increased to fund capital projects, the financial logic is straightforward: growth should pay for growth. But what is the elasticity effect? At what point do higher charges suppress housing starts? How does that affect long-term assessment growth?
Could a lower rate generate higher total revenue over time? These are economic questions. They
require modelling. The same applies to property-tax policy. What level of increase begins to influence business investment decisions? How sensitive are commercial properties to tax differentials across municipal borders? How do households respond to cumulative cost pressures? Without economic forecasting, councils risk making technically balanced but economically inefficient decisions. The consequences are rarely immediate. A budget can be balanced while housing starts decline. Debt ratios can appear manageable while assessment growth slows. Tax rates can rise incrementally without recognizing the point at which competitiveness erodes. Over time, however, these effects compound. Senior levels of government routinely integrate economic modelling into fiscal policy decisions. Provincial and federal ministries publish forecasts, stress-test assumptions and examine
behavioural impacts before implementing major changes. Municipal governments, which now manage increasingly complex infrastructure and growth mandates, should do the same. This does not mean replacing treasurers with economists. Accounting discipline remains indispensable. But municipalities would benefit from institutionalizing economic expertise alongside traditional finance functions. An in-house municipal economist – or a formalized economic modelling unit – could evaluate development-charge sensitivity, tax elasticity, infrastructure return on investment and long-term debt sustainability under varying growth and interest-rate scenarios. Major fiscal decisions would then be informed not only by compliance requirements, but by forward-looking analysis. Ontario’s municipalities
are being asked to grow faster, build more housing and maintain affordability, often with limited fiscal tools. In that environment, optimizing spreadsheets is not enough. Municipal governance must evolve from budget management to economic strategy. Balancing the books is necessary. Modelling the future is essential.
Saturday, February 14, 2026
Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?
Dead and Gone…
So What Does It Actually Cost?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
When someone dies, the first day is about shock, phone calls, and trying to understand what just happened. Very quickly after that, another reality shows up, whether families are ready for it or not. Questions about cost start to appear, sometimes quietly, sometimes all at once. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this is normal, and that feeling uncomfortable talking about money at a time like this is something almost every family experiences. This is not always an easy topic to talk about. Cost and grief do not belong together, but in reality they often meet very quickly. I hear this from families across Durham more often than people might expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that price differences are common, and that they do not automatically mean something is wrong. When families first start asking about cost, this is usually where the conversation begins. In Durham Region, direct cremation is often one of the lower cost options families consider. In many cases, families may see prices starting somewhere in the lower thousands, but that number can change depending on timing, transportation, paperwork, and third party fees. Some providers include more services in their base price, while others separate them into individual line items. That alone can make two quotes look very different even if the final service feels similar. As families begin looking at other types of arrangements, costs usually increase simply because more is involved. Traditional burial or full service funeral arrangements often include visitation, staffing, facility use, vehicles, and coordination with cemeteries or churches. Cemetery costs in particular can vary widely depending on location, availability, and what is selected. That is why families sometimes see a total price that is several thousand dollars higher than what they expected when they first started asking questions. One thing I would want my family to know is that funeral homes do not control every cost. Crematorium fees, cemetery fees, clergy or celebrant fees, and government paperwork costs are often outside the funeral home itself. If one estimate includes those items and another does not, it can create confusion. It can feel like one provider is dramatically more expensive when in reality the quotes are simply structured differently. Timing can also matter more than people expect. After hours transfers, weekend arrangements, or urgent timelines can affect cost. Some providers build flexibility into their base pricing. Others only add charges if those services are needed. Neither approach is automatically better, but families deserve to understand how pricing works before making decisions. Many families I speak with are surprised by how normal it is to ask for written estimates and to take time to review them. There is no rule that says decisions must be made in a single conversation. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel comfortable asking for information in writing and taking a day to talk together before making final choices. If I could leave my family one practical piece of advice about cost, it would be this: ask which costs belong to the funeral home, and which costs are paid to someone else. That one question often makes quotes much easier to understand. I would also want them to remember that lower cost does not automatically mean lower care, and higher cost does not automatically mean better service. What matters most is whether the family feels supported, informed, and comfortable with the decisions they are making. These conversations are not about finding the cheapest option. They are about understanding choices clearly enough to make decisions without pressure or confusion. During grief, clarity matters more than anything else. Next week, I will write about something families often hear about but rarely understand clearly before they need it: how price lists work, what they are supposed to show, and how families can use them to compare options more confidently. 
Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst
Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst
Durham Region has launched what it calls a “Community-Based Hate Reporting Program,” and it is being sold to residents as a progressive step toward safety and inclusion. But I’m going to say what too many politicians are too afrai
d to say: this program is Orwellian, dangerous, and an insult to every Canadian who believes in freedom, due process, and democratic accountability. As a Pickering Councillor, I am 100% opposed to it, and I believe Durham residents should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to create a system that encourages anonymous accusations, bureaucratic surveillance, and the quiet erosion of our rights.
Let’s be clear about something. Canada already has laws that deal with hate crimes. We already have a Criminal Code. We already have police services and courts that investigate and prosecute actual criminal conduct. Assault is illegal. Harassment is illegal. Threats are illegal. Vandalism is illegal. The promotion of hatred toward identifiable groups is illegal. If someone commits a crime, police can lay charges, evidence is reviewed, and the justice system determines guilt or innocence. That is how a free society functions. So the obvious question is this: what exactly is Durham Region solving here? Because there is no legal gap. There is no crisis that requires municipal staff to collect anonymous complaints about speech, opinions, “bias,” or interpersonal disagreements. This program doesn’t prevent violence, it doesn’t stop criminals, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. What it does do is create a government-run system for tracking allegations against ordinary residents without evidence, without verification, and without accountability.
The most alarming feature is that it encourages anonymous reporting. Think about the implications of that for even a moment. Anyone can report anyone. A neighbour feud. A workplace disagreement. A political argument. A social media comment. A complaint from someone who simply dislikes you. With a few clicks, an accusation can be filed, logged, analyzed, and stored. The accused may never even know it happened, and they will certainly never be given the opportunity to respond, defend themselves, or challenge the claim. That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not Canadian. That is a system designed to normalize suspicion and fear, where the government quietly collects unverified allegations about its own citizens. And who is reviewing these complaints? Bureaucrats. Municipal staff. Victim services administrators. Unelected individuals who are not accountable to the public in any meaningful way. These are not police officers. These are not judges. These are not trained legal authorities. They are government employees being put in the position of deciding what qualifies as “hate,” what qualifies as “bias,” and what qualifies as a reportable “incident.” That is ideological policing by bureaucracy, and it is exactly how free societies begin to rot from within. People begin to self-censor. They stop speaking freely. They stop questioning. They stop criticizing government. They stop debating controversial topics. Not because they are guilty of a crime, but because they are afraid of being reported, labeled, and quietly added to a database.
Durham Region is now creating a government-held repository of unverified accusations about residents. We are told this is for “trend analysis,” but that phrase should alarm every thinking person. Governments do not build databases and then keep them small. They expand them. They integrate them. They share them. And they eventually justify their existence by claiming they need more power, more funding, and more authority. Today this program is presented as separate from other municipal services, but anyone who understands modern data systems knows how quickly that can change. Integration is not some far-fetched conspiracy. It is the natural evolution of government bureaucracy. A complaint logged today could become an internal profile tomorrow. A pattern of anonymous reports could become a “risk assessment.” And once a government begins collecting subjective accusations, the line between “public safety” and “citizen monitoring” disappears faster than people realize.
Even more disturbing is the complete lack of consequences for false reporting. There are no penalties. No accountability. No safeguards. In a real justice system, making false accusations can carry serious consequences. But in this program, anyone can anonymously accuse someone of being hateful, bigoted, or biased, and there is no legal consequence because it is not a formal criminal process. That means this program is wide open to abuse. It can be weaponized for revenge, harassment, and political targeting. And if you don’t think political targeting is possible in today’s climate, you haven’t been paying attention to what has happened across this country over the last several years, where dissent is increasingly treated as dangerous and disagreement is increasingly treated as hate.
This is where history matters. Because we have seen this before. Anyone who has studied Nazi Germany understands that authoritarianism did not begin with camps and uniforms. It began with propaganda, fear, and citizen reporting systems. It began with governments encouraging neighbours to report neighbours. It began with people being labeled as “problematic” or “dangerous” for speech, opinions, or associations. It began with the normalization of surveillance culture, justified in the name of “public good.” It began with bureaucrats collecting information and quietly building files. That is how totalitarian systems grow: not all at once, but step by step, policy by policy, database by database, until citizens no longer speak freely because they fear the consequences of being reported. That is why this program should not be dismissed as harmless. The infrastructure of authoritarianism is always built under the banner of safety and morality. That is exactly what makes it so dangerous.
And make no mistake, this program raises serious Charter concerns. Freedom of expression is not protected only when speech is popular. It is protected precisely because people must be allowed to hold and express opinions that others may dislike. Freedom of association matters because citizens must be able to gather, organize, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked. Privacy matters because the state should not be building databases about its residents based on anonymous allegations. Due process matters because no person should be accused, recorded, and categorized without being given a chance to respond. Even if Durham Region claims this is “non-criminal,” the chilling effect is the same. People will stop speaking. They will stop engaging. They will stop questioning. That is how democracy dies—not through force, but through fear and compliance.
And all of this is being done with taxpayer money—approximately $89,000 over two years—for a program that does not stop crime and does not prosecute criminals. At a time when families are struggling to afford groceries, housing, and fuel, Durham Region has decided to spend public money creating a bureaucratic pipeline for anonymous complaints. That should outrage every resident, regardless of political affiliation. Government should be focused on real public safety, real crime prevention, and real support for victims—not building reporting portals that act as a mechanism for social control.
If Durham Region truly wanted to combat hate and violence, there are real solutions: stronger policing, better mental health supports, outreach programs, education initiatives, and direct support for vulnerable communities. But instead of focusing on criminal conduct and real threats, they have chosen to create a system that encourages grievance reporting and expands government monitoring. This program does not protect the public. It trains the public to spy on each other. It creates distrust. It chills speech. It empowers bureaucracy. And it lays the groundwork for future expansion.
Durham residents should be demanding immediate transparency and accountability. Who oversees this database? Who has access? How long is the data stored? What prevents integration with other municipal systems? What safeguards exist against malicious reporting? What rights do accused individuals have? What oversight exists to ensure this program is not weaponized politically? These questions are not optional. They are essential. Because once a government builds the infrastructure to monitor its own citizens, it rarely gives that power back.
This is not about safety. This is not about inclusion. This is about control. And as a Pickering Councillor, I will oppose any initiative that moves our communities closer to a culture of surveillance, anonymous reporting, and bureaucratic profiling. History has already shown us where these systems lead, and Canadians should not tolerate them at any level of government. Not federally. Not provincially. And certainly not locally. If we want a safe society, we enforce laws against real crime. We do not build Orwellian programs that encourage residents to report each other in the shadows. That is not progress. That is regression. And if we do not stop it now, we will one day look back and wonder how we let it happen.
So I ask the people of Durham: when is enough enough? How many red flags do you need before you recognize the direction we are heading? Because the slow demise of Durham will not happen overnight — it will happen one program, one policy, and one surrendered freedom at a time.
Canada Will Find Its Way Back
Canada Will Find Its Way Back
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Canada is in a rough place right now. You can feel it when you talk to people at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, or waiting for the bus. Folks are tired. Not just tired from work, but tired in their bones. Tired of being talked down to. Tired of being told they are the problem.
The job market keeps shrinking. Tens of thousands of Canadians have stopped looking for work because they see no future in it. Young people are stuck bouncing between short contracts and low pay. Seniors, people who worked their whole lives, are now showing up in shelters. Food banks are busier than ever. These are not rumors. They are happening right now.
At the same time, billions of taxpayer dollars are leaving the country. We are told there is no money for housing, health care, or seniors, but there always seems to be money for something else. That makes people angry, and it should.
Many Canadians feel like they no longer recognize their own country. If you speak up, you are labeled. If you ask questions, you are attacked. Disagree with the government and you are called names instead of being answered. That is not how a healthy country works.
There is also a growing feeling that some groups are allowed to be openly targeted. Christians are mocked. White people are told they are guilty just for existing. Many people are afraid to even say that out loud because they do not want to lose their job or friends. But pretending it is not happening does not fix it.
Canada was built on the idea that you earn your keep. You work hard. You help your neighbors. You raise your kids. You do not expect special treatment, but you expect fairness. That idea is being pushed aside and replaced with something else. Something that says your value depends on which group you belong to.
That way of thinking will not last forever.
History shows this again and again. Movements built on division always burn out. They get loud. They get angry. Then they collapse under their own weight. It may not happen fast. It may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen.
Canada has been through worse times than this. The Great Depression nearly broke families. Two world wars sent young men overseas and left scars that never healed. People suffered. People went hungry. But the country pulled together because families stuck together.
That is what matters now.
Pull your family closer. Talk to your kids. Eat meals together when you can. If one of your children has been deeply influenced by a university or online world that teaches them to hate their own country or family, be patient. That is hard. They may say things that hurt. They may call you names. They may tell you that you are everything wrong with the world.
Stay calm.
In time, many of them will learn who really cares. It will not be activist groups. It will not be loud online movements. It will be the people who showed up when life got hard. Family always matters in the end.
Do not stop loving each other. Love is not weakness. It is what holds people steady when everything else is shaking. You can be strong and still care. You can fight for your country and still be kind.
There is a lot of talk about hate these days. But most regular Canadians are not hateful. They are worried. They are stressed. They are trying to protect their kids and hold onto something familiar in a fast changing world.
That does not make them bad people.
It makes them human.
Canada does not need saving by outsiders. Nobody is coming to rescue us. The only thing we have is each other. Neighbors. Families. Communities. That is how this country was built in the first place.
We also need to stop being afraid of our friends. The United States is not our enemy. Americans are just people, same as us. They argue. They vote. They make mistakes. Whoever is leading them at any moment does not change that. Fear helps no one.
What Canada needs now is honesty. Honest debate. Honest media. Honest leaders who remember who they work for. Not activists. Not donors. Not loud online crowds. Regular people.
This period will pass. The anger will burn itself out. New generations will look back and ask how things got so divided. They will also rebuild. My hope is that my grandchildren will live in a Canada that remembers fairness, hard work, and respect again.
That future will not be handed to them. It has to be protected, talked about, and fought for. Calmly. Clearly. Without hatred.
Stay chill, Canada. Do not turn on each other. Hold your ground without losing your heart. That is how countries survive hard times.
We have done it before. We will do it again.
When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism…
When You Cross The line
Journalism vs Activism...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Dear readers. I have been doing this job for well over 30 years. During my time as the city editor I have learned many valuable lessons. I have seen administrations come and go. I have see all kind of activists make their point and slowly become oppressed by political policy and regulation. The protocol is always the same. Some great cause. Followed by protest in various forms, only to be squashed by policy or law.
In these modern times. Anyone and everyone crowns themselves a journalist. This compromising the profession of journalism. It brings to shame those that are professionals in the field do to the action of those that have no qualification and or education in the field.
To write does not make you a journalist. True journalist have standards. They have integrity and a responsibility to the community they represent.
Journalism standards are a set of ethical principles—primarily accuracy, fairness, independence, and accountability—designed to ensure truthful reporting in the public interest. Key practices include verifying information before publication, separating opinion from news, disclosing conflicts of interest, and promptly correcting errors. These standards aim to maintain public trust and provide context to news events.
If this stands true as a measure of any media/publication. Then what are we to think of those that are online only news posting sites? Clearly they are not journalist. They are not publications as most post slanted interest items.
Look at organizations like ‘Rebel News’, for example. They claim to be a news organization. Yet, they do not adhere to the principles and standards of the profession.
As a journalist we can’t take sides on any issue. We are there to report on the events at hand. No matter if we personally support it or not. Our job as a journalist is to report on the facts as they are presented at that point in time.
Any other form of reporting is nothing short of and opinion piece and or column with quotes to substantiate a particular point. No matter the political slant.
This is not journalism. This is activism. Journalist and publishers pay dearly for confusing the two concept.
Take for example the most prominent recent case of a publisher being jailed in China involves Jimmy Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong.
On February 9, 2026, a Hong Kong court sentenced Lai to 20 years in prison for convictions related to national security, marking the longest sentence handed down under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law to date.
In this particular case. The journalistic standard was not applicable as by it’s name clearly reported from a bias perspective.
They printed in news print....But did not qualify them as a ‘NEWSPAPER’. Newspaper are to be true to the community they represent by reporting what is taking place and letting the readers make up their own minds based on the information published in accordance to the journalism standards.
In these modern time. Just because you post something online it does not make you a journalist. Just because you have a blog, a social media site and or a youtube account.
It does not make you a journalist.
At best, from a professional position. You are nothing more then a source. A voice, but far from a journalist.
Even some main groups like CNN have lost the sense of the journalistic standards and have chosen to falsely give themselves the creditability that they are journalists.
Sad times we live in that we are bombarded with misinformation confusing the world we live in.
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. 
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)