Why Flying Is Safer Than Surgery?

Why Flying Is Safer Than Surgery By Diana Gifford Many of us have the experience of boarding a plane with a prayer that the pilot has had enough sleep. With your surgeon, it’s a similar problem. Few people get to choose who will do their surgery. Even if you’ve gone to the trouble of arranging a referral to the best, how can you know the doctor hasn’t hit a rough patch? Maybe a crumbling marriage? Or a punishing work and travel schedule that simply has your surgeon fatigued? What can you do? As individual patients, not much. In fact, wait lines are often so long there’s a disincentive to jeopardize that precious surgery date. But as for airline pilots, health care systems have safeguards to ensure surgeons are in good working order. But they are a looser and more opaque. Working hours for pilots are strictly regulated by law. Residents in training often work 24-hour shifts despite known fatigue risks. Fully trained surgeons often have no legally mandated work-hour limits. Schedules are set by hospitals and departments. Is there a culture of bravado among doctors, that they tolerate this? When there’s a near miss in an airplane, the pilot faces the same consequences as passengers. When a surgeon makes an error, there no co-surgeon to prevent or correct it, and reporting of incidents is rare for fear of lawsuits. Physicians are trained to diagnose and to treat. They are not trained to admit vulnerability. Yet, the profession is showing serious strain. More than half of Canadian doctors report feeling burned out, with many contemplating early retirement. In the United States, the numbers are similar. Across Europe, countries have begun to notice alarming levels of depression, addiction, and even suicide among doctors. Why then does the public know so little about existing programs that support doctors and their families. Even healers need help when the going gets rough. We should be broadcasting the programs that care for doctors. And they do exist. The Ontario Medical Association offers a confidential Physician Health Program for doctors, residents, and medical students dealing with mental health challenges, addictions, or professional stress. Other provinces in Canada have comparable services. The U.S. has the Federation of State Physician Health Programs. In Europe, the NHS Practitioner Health service in England, the Practitioner Health Matters Programme in Ireland, and programs in the Netherlands, Norway, and France provide support. Spain offers a particularly sobering example. In the 1990s, several high-profile physician suicides shocked the medical community there. The profession realized that denial and silence were killing their own, and that patients, too, were at risk. In response, the medical colleges created the Programa de Atención Integral al Médico Enfermo, or “Comprehensive Care Program for the Sick Doctor.” It has become a model across Europe, combining confidentiality with structured monitoring to ensure doctors get well and return to practice. The model is strikingly consistent across jurisdictions, offering confidential support, separate from licensing bodies, to encourage doctors to step forward. Where risk to patients is clear, reporting obligations to regulators remain. But the central aim is prevention: address problems before they spiral into impairment, mistakes, or withdrawal from practice. Should the public know more about these programs? My answer is yes. Not to fuel distrust, but to build confidence. A doctor who seeks help is not a doctor to be feared; quite the opposite. Still, it is easy to see why some bristle. Shouldn’t the system be stricter, not gentler, with impaired physicians? Isn’t there a danger these programs “protect their own”? Such suspicion misreads the design. These programs are protective, for doctors and patients. Alas, medicine clings to its culture of invincibility, and that’s why flying is safer than surgery. —————————————————————————————————————— This column offers opinions on health and wellness, not personal medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

As a Job Seeker, Are You Really Hungry?

As a Job Seeker, Are You Really Hungry? By Nick Kossovan Wanting "easy" is why most people underestimate the time and effort it takes to achieve success—whether that's shooting a round of golf under 85, running a marathon, starting a six-figure consulting business, making it in Hollywood, or finding a job that aligns with their career goals. As white-collar jobs decline and competition for the remaining positions rises, a job seeker's level of hunger becomes a crucial factor in their job search success. A determined job seeker leaves no stone unturned. They hyperfocus on one goal: securing employment. They don't point fingers or buy into the narrative that "the hiring system is broken." Worth noting: No two hiring managers assess candidates in the same way; therefore, a universal "hiring system" doesn't exist. Hungry job seekers keep their eyes on the prize and do whatever it takes to acquire it. As Henry David Thoreau said, "Success usually comes to those who are too busy to be looking for it." Whether intentionally or not, job seekers are associating the current hyper-competitive job market, paired with Millennials and Gen Zs beginning to take on gatekeeping roles in the workplace, bringing their own perspectives on work ethic professionalism, with a broken hiring system, which, as I mentioned, doesn't exist. Hiring processes aren't broken; employers are responding to the realities of supply and demand. Meanwhile, younger generations are modifying hiring processes to suit their preferred communication styles, and, like previous generations before, tend to lean towards candidates whom, for the most part, they can relate to. When interacting with recruiters and hiring managers, job seekers tend to lead with their skills and experience. While these are important, they're only the initial factors an employer considers. A candidate can possess all the qualifications but still lack the hunger for: · The company and its values · Their profession · The industry · Career progression It's a common misconception that hunger is hard to spot. Most hiring managers will tell you they recognize hunger when they see it; I certainly do. Signs that the candidate is hungry are important, as hunger fuels a person's drive to excel, whether it's for career growth, financial security, or to afford an annual European cruise. A candidate's chances of hearing "You're hired!" significantly increase when their interviewer perceives them as hungry and thus views them as the ideal employee, someone with intrinsic motivation. You're probably asking, "Nick, what are the signs that a candidate is hungry?" Actions speak louder than words. What a candidate does is far more important than what they say. Which candidate is hungrier? CANDIDATE A: Arrives 10 minutes early for the interview. CANDIDATE B: Arrives right on time or five minutes late. CANDIDATE A: Has grammatical errors throughout their resume and LinkedIn profile. CANDIDATE B: Has an error-free resume and LinkedIn profile. CANDIDATE A: Pushes back on doing a 45-minute assignment. CANDIDATE B: Welcomes the assignment to showcase their skills. CANDIDATE A: Doesn't send a thank-you note. CANDIDATE B: Sends a well-crafted thank-you note with additional insights about their impact on previous employers. Your actions, especially those visible to employers, reveal a great deal about your hunger and professionalism. No LinkedIn profile picture or banner? Not hungry. Only wanting a remote job? Not hungry. A hungry job seeker can be identified by: Their networking efforts. Hungry job seekers constantly reach out to everyone and anyone because they understand that job opportunities are all around them. The catch is they're attached to people; therefore, they know building relationships is how they uncover the jobs that are all around them. Including a cover letter. Not including a cover letter is lazy. Hungry job seekers leave nothing to chance; therefore, they include a cover letter that provides compelling reasons for employers to read their resume and visit their LinkedIn profile. Showing evidence of impact. Claiming "I'm a team player" or "I'm good at sales" is just an unsubstantiated opinion about yourself. Expecting employers to hire you based on your self-judgment shows you're unwilling to put in the effort to provide the information—numerical evidence of the impact you had on your previous employers—they need to assess your potential value. They've crafted an elevator speech. Writing and memorizing a 30-second elevator speech, a summary of who you are and what you offer, is an effort most job seekers won't bother with. When I hear a well-prepared elevator speech, I know I'm talking to someone who's hungry. The best elevator speech I received: "I sold Corvettes in Las Vegas." Not having a sense of entitlement. Nothing turns off an employer faster than a sense of entitlement. Hungry job seekers understand they must earn their way through an employer's hiring process. They don't expect special treatment, exceptions, or to be "given a chance." Due to the global economy and ever-changing consumer demands, companies are constantly striving to remain competitive and profitable by operating as lean as possible. The days of employers hand-holding their employees are long gone. Today, companies often have a "swim or sink" culture. Astute hiring managers know that candidates whose actions demonstrate a hunger for job search success are most likely to have the necessary motivation to succeed in a new job on their own. ___________________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

The True Rise of Evil

The True Rise of Evil By Dale Jodoin There is cancer spreading through the Western world. It doesn’t come with tanks or uniforms. It spreads quietly through words, through fear, and through the silence of people who should know better. At first it looks like anger. Then it grows into protest. But before long, it becomes hate. And hate, once it takes root, is almost impossible to remove. Right now, that cancer shows up as antisemitism. Jewish people in Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, and across Europe are being blamed, harassed, and attacked for a war they didn’t start. Students are bullied in schools. Jewish athletes and artists are targeted online. Shopkeepers and families are threatened in their own communities. These aren’t soldiers or politicians, just people trying to live their lives. We promised “Never Again” after World War II. Those words were meant to stand for something permanent, something sacred. But promises mean nothing if they aren’t defended. What we’re seeing today feels like the early stages of what our grandparents fought to stop. Silence, excuses, and political cowardice are letting that same darkness grow again. In some cities, people march in the streets chanting for the destruction of Israel and even the death of Jewish people. They call it free speech. But there’s nothing free about it. It’s not a debate, it's poison. And the most shocking part is how many governments stand back and do nothing, afraid of being called names by the loudest voices. That poison has started to seep into our schools and institutions, the very places meant to teach fairness and respect. The National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers’ union in the United States, recently made headlines after removing references to Jews from its Holocaust education materials and distancing itself from groups that train teachers to fight antisemitism. Jewish teachers and students spoke out, saying they felt erased and betrayed. When a national education union does something like that, it doesn’t just rewrite history, it opens the door for hate to return to classrooms under a new name. Once hate enters education, it spreads faster. It shapes how young people think. It tells them who is safe to hate next. And that’s what worries me. Today, the target is Jewish people. But you can already see who might be next. Christians are being mocked and excluded more often in the U.S., Britain, and parts of Europe. Italian Catholics are starting to see similar treatment. After them, it could be anyone, any group that refuses to go along with the mob or disagrees with the loudest crowd. That’s how hate works. It doesn’t stay contained. It grows and consumes everything in its path. We need to start calling things by their real names. The Muslim Brotherhood, banned in several Muslim countries for its violent activities, operates freely in Canada and the West. Antifa, a movement that claims to fight oppression, often spreads its own version of it. These groups don’t just protest; they intimidate, threaten, and sometimes call for destruction. When an ideology pushes violence or calls for death, it stops being political. It becomes terrorism. And terrorism should never be tolerated, no matter what mask it wears. Our governments need to wake up. If an arts group, festival, or publicly funded organization denies Jewish people participation because of their faith, it should lose every dollar of public money. Immediately. Public money is a public trust, and when that trust is broken, it must be cut off. Any teacher, professor, or administrator who bullies or excludes students based on religion should be fired and charged. Schools should be safe for learning, not breeding grounds for hate. And the public must do its part too. Every citizen has a responsibility to speak up. Hate doesn’t just happen “somewhere else.” It starts in small ways a joke, a post, a shrug and before long it’s something no one can control. If you think it won’t reach you, you’re wrong. History has shown again and again that once hate begins, everyone becomes a target eventually. We can’t pretend this is just about one conflict overseas. This is about the soul of our countries about whether we still believe in fairness, freedom, and equal protection under the law. When we turn away from one group being attacked, we give permission for others to be next. If our leaders lack the courage to act, then it’s up to regular people to remind them what this country stands for. Canada, and the Western world, were built on freedom and respect. Those values mean nothing if we only defend them for some. Either we protect all people equally, or we become the very thing we claim to fight against. Hate is lazy. It finds a reason to blame someone else instead of fixing what’s broken. It hides behind politics and faith to excuse cruelty. It grows slowly at first, then all at once. That’s why I keep calling it cancer because you can’t wait it out. You have to cut it out before it spreads. So let’s be clear: anyone calling for genocide, anyone denying others the right to live in peace, anyone using public money to divide people they are part of the problem. If we keep funding them, we are part of it too. This isn’t about left or right, Jewish or Muslim, believer or atheist. It’s about right and wrong. Humanity or hate. The choice is still ours, but not for long. If we don’t act now, if we don’t stand shoulder to shoulder against this rising darkness then one day soon, we’ll look back and wonder when it was that we stopped being the good guys. About the Author: Dale Jodoin is a Canadian journalist and columnist who writes about freedom, faith, and social change. His work focuses on the moral challenges facing modern society and the importance of protecting human rights in an age of growing division.

Scrolling Away the Days - How Social Media is Consuming the Life of Every Adolescent

Scrolling Away the Days - How Social Media is Consuming the Life of Every Adolescent By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Social media has been incorporated into the routines of billions of people daily. It is used for entertainment, information, and creativity, all beneficial concepts at their core. The current issue isn’t with the idea of social media, but with the modern purposes of its usage and the degree it’s relied on. Not only is social media incorporated into the lives of so many individuals, but it is a time commitment that is much longer than one would believe. Short-form content, such as tiktok or instagram reels are often used as a time filler, something to watch in a spare moment. Every time I get on a bus, walk into a cafeteria, or wait for a class to begin, I witness countless people facing their phones. When adding all these simple moments in a day, a few minutes of screen time can easily turn into hours wasted. This wasted time is something which I cannot avoid in my daily life. I am a busy student who has very little free time, yet I always manage to spend more time online than I ever intended to. Any free time which I have should be rewarded by an activity which makes me feel good. I should spend my time reading, going outside, or baking, not watching others do these activities as if they’re a far off dream. In 2025, it has become easier to watch others enjoy their lives than to live our own, yet our dreams are calling from the other side of the device. My phone usage feels like an unbreakable cycle. The more overwhelmed I feel, the more I want to relax, which leads to doomscrolling on every social media app I have. This wasted time makes me feel much more anxious than I did when I began, and the cycle repeats. What was originally used to reduce my stress only continues to increase it, creating an addiction difficult to fight. When you read about social media, it seems almost silly how the lives of so many people revolve around something they could delete with the click of a button. The solution is right in front of me, yet I never choose to break the habit. I fear what I will miss out on, the jokes I will no longer understand. How will it affect my friendships if I am the only one offline? Will I be the last to hear the news if I remove my sources? How will I relax if I cannot scroll? Disconnection is the rational answer to fight a phone addiction, yet the hardest promise to commit to. The issue with this media doesn’t just come from the time commitment, but from the negative mood associated with it. When I finally disconnect, I feel worse than I did when I began scrolling. When I am online, I am fed a constant stream of comparison, upsetting news, and fake information. This outlet is no longer entertaining, informative, or creative, but a key source of anxiety and regret. One of the main influences of this regret is the comparison which stems from social media. Whether it be beauty, lifestyle, or success, influencers post the highlights of their lives, leaving out any inconvenience which may seem undesirable. Almost every post undergoes edits and tweaks before being seen by the vulnerable viewer, to make their posts, and their overall lives, appear perfect. This content causes feelings of shame and disappointment in my own life, despite the fact I know what I view is unrealistic. Social media is no longer about what is real and fake, it’s about what makes adolescents feel something, even if that's jealousy and dejection. These wasted hours are not solely the fault of the viewer; the addiction can be traced back to the algorithms which are keeping viewers hooked. Every social media platform, whether that be tiktok, instagram, youtube, or facebook are all designed to keep you coming back for more. It collects data from your interaction history, modelling itself to do whatever makes you interested. It is an effective strategy which keeps the media thriving and individuals struggling with an addiction to watching one more video. Every night, I promise myself I will reduce my screen time tomorrow. I understand the consequences of the manipulative system, yet the next day I scroll just as much as before. It is useless, as something created to inspire creativity and enjoyment leaves me more unmotivated than ever before. I could spend hours scrolling through the algorithm, yet not remember a single video which I watched. It’s a cycle which needs to be broken, a jail cell made of screen time which I must break free from. The key is right in front of me, the solution so simple; just delete the social media apps. Yet, it is something I may never be able to do, no matter how bad the consequences may be.

Lest We Forget — And Lest We Surrender What They Fought For

Lest We Forget — And Lest We Surrender What They Fought For By Councillor Lisa Robinson Every November, I make my way to Pickering’s cenotaph — my favourite place in this city. It’s quiet there. Sacred. A place where gratitude replaces politics and pride replaces excuses. We’ve built something special there — the Poppy Walkway, lined with vibrant red, and the Remembrance Sidewalk, guiding every step toward reflection. They’re more than beautification projects — they’re symbols of a Canada that once stood for courage, duty, and sacrifice. I have family who served. Their stories of honour and love of country shaped who I am. And maybe that’s why this day means so much to me — because I’ve spent my own life standing for the same freedom they fought to protect. But lately, I’ve watched those freedoms — of speech, conscience, and expression — being chipped away, piece by piece. Freedom doesn’t vanish overnight. It fades when good people stop defending it. And that’s what I fear most — that too many are afraid to stand anymore. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And right now, too many good men and women are doing nothing. We used to have Canadians who would run toward danger — even lie about their age — to defend their families and their freedom. Today, too many won’t even risk criticism. They’d rather fit in than stand up. Even here in Pickering, I’ve watched the change up close. Councillors proudly wearing lanyards and pins for special interest causes, but nothing of the Canadian flag — unless it’s Canada Day. Not on their jackets. Not in their offices. Not on their hearts. And some of these same councillors have even liked posts on social media that the Canadian flag is a “symbol of colonial violence.” Yet they still work part-time at our local Legion — the very place built to honour the men and women who fought under that flag. I can think of nothing more hypocritical, or more disgusting. And when I tried to bring back something as simple, as sacred, as our National Anthem before Council meetings, not one councillor would second my motion. Not one. For seven long months, I fought for something that should never have needed a fight — a simple act of respect for our country and for the veterans who died so that we could stand in that chamber and debate freely. And what did the Mayor do? Instead of allowing my motion to stand, he used his Strong Mayor powers to bury it inside a package of unrelated measures that stripped away even more of our local freedoms — measures I could never support in good conscience. He forced my hand — deliberately — so that I’d be made to look like I was voting against the very thing I had begged for for seven months. And make no mistake — the only reason that anthem finally returned wasn’t because of patriotism. It was because of political optics. The Mayor folded it into his “Elbows Up” movement — a show of defiance against President Trump, not a show of love for Canada. It had nothing to do with honouring our veterans, our flag, or our freedoms — and everything to do with opportunism. That’s the kind of leadership we’re dealing with. Even this week, when we raised the poppy flag at City Hall, I looked around the crowd and saw it plain as day: the Mayor and other members of Council stood in silence — I couldn’t hear a single voice singing. I couldn’t even see their lips moving. That silence broke my heart. Because silence is how freedom dies — not with violence, but with indifference. We have politicians who will bend our flag-raising policy to appease every special interest group under the sun — but won’t lift a finger to honour the men and women who died under the one flag that unites us all. We have veterans sleeping in tents while photo-op patriots boast about inclusivity. The same people who claim to “care” about justice can’t be bothered to care about those who gave everything for them to speak freely. This is not who we were meant to be. We used to be a proud, unapologetic, united country. Now, too many are afraid to even say the word Canadian. Well, I refuse to be one of them. I will not apologize for standing up for my country. I will not be silent to spare the feelings of those who’ve forgotten who they serve. Because remembrance isn’t a ceremony — it’s a duty. It’s not about wearing a poppy once a year. It’s about living the values that poppy represents: courage, integrity, and the will to stand when everyone else bows. This Remembrance Day, I’ll be at that cenotaph again, beneath the flag they fought for, surrounded by the spirits of heroes who never came home. And I’ll make the same promise I’ve always made: That I will stand for freedom. That I will speak the truth. And that I will never stop fighting for the Canada they believed in. Because I will never forget. And I will never surrender. Lest we forget — and lest we surrender. With gratitude, Councillor Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEED TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE NEED TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER LAST WEEK IN THIS SPACE I said Ontario’s individual school boards are basically out of control and that it’s long-past time to eliminate them altogether. If I needed any reassurance that I was right about that, it came by way of a few social media responses to my column. One person I’ll refer to as Jenn had this to say, “Just like the Ministry of Education and its Minister, you have no idea what goes on in a public school or in the realm of public education. I welcome you to spend a week in my school.” Aside from the unlikely prospect of gaining entry to her classroom, I responded by saying the issues I highlighted are in fact, mere ‘drops in the bucket’ as to what's been going on in the current system of school administration. When I suggested that she offer up at least some form of defense as to the examples I chose – those I still believe to be the most indicative of a radical agenda – she doubled down on rhetoric without specifics, suggesting “The system is broken, and it starts with the Ministry.” I see. So, instead of sharing with me the potential benefits of local school boards focusing more on race and gender politics than on basic education like reading, writing, and arithmetic, her finger points directly to the very Education Ministry that is attempting to make some sense of it all. I get the fact that an educator with over two decades of experience will likely feel caught in a trap. If they try to defend what many see as entirely indefensible, they’ll be seen as radicals. At the same time, should they publicly oppose the mandate set by what I’ll call Marxist educators, their likely chance of promotion within a ‘broken system’ will be almost non-existent. Getting back to the social media responses, a fellow I’ll call Jeffery told me, in his infinite wisdom, that my position on the issue was “moronic”. Well, with that kind of diction, surely Jeffery possesses a unique member ID which he now uses to access all the benefits and resources of the Toastmasters Club. Way to go, little man. One person, who preferred to remain cowardly – that is to say ‘anonymous’ on Facebook, actually had the comical fortitude to suggest I was somehow in a homosexual relationship after having read my column. I hope that wasn’t a subtle invitation, whoever you are. I’m seriously not interested. As to being serious, I can tell my readers with certainty that my references in last week’s column undoubtedly form the basis of a collective attack on our local student population. The reasons for that are the controversial policies established by the Durham District School Board that have focused on so-called human rights issues related to gender identity, race, and the content of school libraries. All of which has ignited a fierce public debate as well as protests from concerned parents, and rightly so. What is happening in the debate over whether the classroom is the proper place for discussions about race and gender identification is that school boards are now tossing around references to the Canadian Human Rights Code as a means to do two things – justify teaching children about very sensitive issues that have noting whatever to do with a well-rounded education, and to basically get away with literally forcing a radical social agenda onto students without parental consent. Here’s just one example. In 2023, then-chair of the Durham District School Board, Donna Edwards, stopped a meeting twice during a question period that had quickly grown heated over concerns about gender identity, the appropriateness of school reading materials, and so-called discrimination issues. Her comments to concerned parents wishing to express their views were less than inspiring. “We do welcome and value diverse community perspectives and questions, we appreciate that these can help support our learning and shape different ways of thinking, however; questions, interactions and discussions within our classrooms, schools, workplace and boardroom must be respectful and free of discrimination. Questions or comments that erase or demean identities protected under the Canadian Human Rights Code or that perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination or assumptions are not acceptable.” Remarks such as those appear manifestly arranged to cast the shadow of a legal noose over the heads of anyone who dares to exercise their own rights of free speech – something too many Boards appear to have little time for, unless it be to support their own social and political agenda. At the same meeting, things again became heated when trustees were questioned on the appropriateness of school reading materials, specifically the graphic novel “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, which includes a sexually explicit illustration. A question that was submitted for the purposes of discussion was ultimately censored by the Board to remove the term “pornographic illustrations.” In answer to the question, a senior administrator advised those concerned that the book had been reviewed by the board following a complaint from a parent during the previous school year – and that a review committee made up of educators, administration, superintendents and students found the novel aligned with the board’s “education policy”. There’s the rub. Is it acceptable School Board policy to potentially institutionalize a form of disrespect toward parental rights? How about the consequences of overstepping legal boundaries by acting in a manner more suited to a court of law when providing self-serving interpretations used to counter any opposition? It is widely observed and frequently reported in local media that there are low levels of public awareness and engagement regarding School Board elections and candidates. This is a recognized challenge, with several factors contributing to the issue. School Board elections are held concurrently with Municipal elections every four years, and historically, they tend to have significantly lower voter turnout compared to other levels of government. That shows a clear and dangerous lack of engagement. Voters often report difficulty finding information about individual candidates, their platforms, and the specific role and responsibilities of a school board trustee. One of the more intelligent social media comments I received came from someone named Jake, who had this to say: “…this proposal by the Ontario government is a bid to centralize power, so how would you feel if the (NDP) were removing trustees and appointing supervisors? Because the provincial Conservatives will not be in power forever, but this Bill will still be law whenever they're gone.” Good point, and my reply must focus on what I see as the need for consistency throughout the province. Regardless of which political party holds the reins of power, it would be a far better thing to have a single entity – not only responsible for setting policies, but to be accountable to the public. The days of individual domains controlled by radical School Boards must be brought to an end. Quickly.

STOP NEGOTIATING

STOP NEGOTIATING By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States This week the International headlines read: Trump announces 10 per cent tariff increase on Canadian goods U.S. President Donald Trump says he is raising tariffs on Canadian goods by 10 per cent, after accusing Canada of airing what he called a “fraudulent” advertisement that misrepresented former president Ronald Reagan’s stance on tariffs. In a post published on Truth Social at 4:30 p.m. Saturday, Trump wrote, “I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.” Trump’s post cited his frustration over an advertisement produced by the Ontario government that used clips of Reagan warning about the dangers of protectionism and praising free trade. “Canada was caught, red handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s Speech on Tariffs,” he wrote. People, people, people. Am I the only one that sees this? Our so called leaders are playing right in to Trumps strategy. If I was Prime Minister. I would not negotiate a thing. Let Trump have his Tariff. Let’s regroup Canada and not worry about the American power trip. As it stand our markets look good to Americans due to the currency exchange. The more we seem desperate to negotiate the harder he presses. Ford has no business getting in the middle of an International economic threat. Trump is way smarter than any of our so called leaders. He knows he can do anything he wants.... so he sets people up. Let’s take this scenario. Trump will impost Tariffs on Canada. Do we really benefit from the fight back? Has it been working so far? NO. It’s a fight you can’t win and eventually will put you at a bigger disadvantage. People are quick to blame job loss to tariffs. Bull. The problem with job losses is poor management and greedy corporate bulls in board rooms. COVID.... The Chinese, Russia, Trump. There is always an excuse for corporations to look for ways to shift corporate interest in the name of making billions. Look at GM. I have been calling it for your the past 20 years. No one believed me. Remember not to long ago. The automakers cried wolf that they would be pulling out and the billions they took in aid? As a nation we need to stop being so gullable and so ignorant of the writings on the wall when it comes to our economy. Remember not to far away... when car companies turned to the Canadian government for assistance in the fear of bankruptcy? The Canadian government once again negotiated with the car automakers and the Canadian taxpayer lost big time... as the money that was to go to Canada to keep jobs ended up paying for new plants all over the world. I say to our Prime Minister... Stop being a fool to Trump. Let him do his thing and you do yours. Canadians are suffering... on our streets. Focus on that first.

Tariffs and TV Ads Won’t Heal Our Hospitals: Ontario’s Misguided Priorities

Tariffs and TV Ads Won’t Heal Our Hospitals: Ontario’s Misguided Priorities by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Ontario devotes $75 million to a cross-border advertising campaign and faces punishing U.S. tariffs of 35 – 45 percent on Canadian exports, the fallout is being felt not just in factories but also in hospitals. The trade war threatens to drain over $1 billion annually from the province’s health-care system through lost revenues and higher costs for medical supplies. Instead of funding more nurses, beds, and diagnostics, Ontario’s leadership is spending on political optics while patients wait longer for care. Canada’s true deficit is not in trade—it is in health. Ontario’s paradox of priorities Ontario’s health-care budget now exceeds C$80 billion, roughly half of total provincial expenditures. Despite this enormous investment, hospitals remain overcrowded, rural clinics understaffed, and emergency rooms frequently forced to close because of personnel shortages. In 2025, the provincial government launched a C$75 million U.S. advertising campaign—complete with clips from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address against tariffs—to defend Ontario’s manufacturing base and appeal to American public opinion. The gambit backfired. The Trump administration retaliated by imposing a 35 percent tariff on Canadian exports, which rise to 45 percent on certain goods not meeting “America First” domestic-content rules. Ontario, whose prosperity relies on cross-border trade in autos, steel, machinery, and pharmaceuticals, is hit hardest. The economic shock is now rippling into the very heart of public services. The indirect hit to health care Although the tariffs target export industries, their secondary effects—lost revenue, weakened growth, and supply-chain disruption—land squarely on the health-care system. 1. Revenue loss and slower growth: Ontario exports about C$200 billion a year to the United States. Even if only 10 percent of that total (C$20 billion) faces the 35–45 percent penalty, the province stands to lose C$7–9 billion in trade value annually. Lower profits mean smaller corporate and payroll-tax intakes, cutting provincial revenues by an estimated C$500–700 million each year—funds that otherwise would finance hospitals, long-term care, and medical infrastructure. 2. Rising costs for imported health goods: While the tariffs are levied on Canadian exports, the ensuing retaliation and logistical friction drive up import costs as well. Ontario’s hospitals depend heavily on medical technology, diagnostic equipment, and pharmaceuticals that originate in or pass through U.S. supply chains. Border delays, insurance surcharges, and counter-tariffs could inflate procurement costs by 8–10 percent. Given an annual operating budget near C$60 billion, even a modest 1 percent price increase translates to C$600 million in extra spending—money siphoned from patient care to cover higher bills for essential supplies. 3. Cumulative impact: Combining revenue losses and cost inflation yields a C$1.1–1.3 billion annual burden on Ontario’s health system. That sum could otherwise finance 1,200 to 2,400 new hospital or critical-care beds, pay yearly salaries for 7,000 registered nurses, purchase 150 MRI or CT scanners, or fund comprehensive home-care programs for 250,000 Ontarians. Instead, these resources are evaporating through a trade conflict that delivers neither economic stability nor better public health. Meanwhile, patients wait Across Canada, the median wait to see a specialist is 78 days, and one in four patients waits 175 days or longer. Ontario faces some of the worst backlogs for elective surgery among G7 countries. In northern communities, doctor shortages persist; in urban centres, ambulance off-load delays have become routine. It is difficult to justify multimillion-dollar ad buys in U.S. media markets while emergency rooms at home struggle to find enough nurses to stay open overnight. Political messaging has taken precedence over measurable service improvement. Eroding equity and the social contract Universal health care remains Canada’s proudest social covenant: access based on need, not wealth or geography. Yet that covenant is eroding under fiscal and logistical strain. When a government invests C$75 million in political advertising that provokes tariffs costing the treasury more than ten times that amount, while hospital budgets strain to maintain basic services, something fundamental has gone wrong. The result is a quiet inequity—urban hospitals absorbing shocks while smaller communities fall further behind. Every dollar spent on public relations warfare is a dollar not spent on the front lines of care. Why Ontario—and Canada—are falling behind • Fragmentation: Provinces administer health care independently, creating duplication, uneven standards, and limited data sharing. • Capacity constraints: Canada maintains fewer hospital beds and diagnostic units per capita than most OECD peers. • Under-investment in prevention: Only about 5 percent of total health spending goes to primary and community care, compared with 8 percent elsewhere. • Workforce exhaustion: Chronic shortages and overtime have driven thousands of nurses to the private or U.S. sectors. • Policy distraction: Trade wars and industrial headlines dominate the agenda, while systemic reform languishes. A road map for renewal 1. Re-centre priorities. Treat health care as national infrastructure, not a secondary political cost. 2. Set measurable national standards. Enforce maximum wait-time targets, minimum bed ratios, and rural-access guarantees. 3. Invest upstream. Strengthen family-health teams, community clinics, and preventive programs to reduce hospital demand. 4. Ensure transparency. Publish all government communication and trade-response expenditures beside health-care investments. 5. Coordinate federally and provincially. Align transfer payments and performance targets to ensure accountability for every public dollar. The lesson Ontario’s C$75 million advertising campaign and the ensuing U.S. tariff escalation to 45 percent reveal a profound misalignment of priorities. Political optics displaced policy substance—and patients are paying the price. If even a fraction of the money and lost revenue tied up in this trade confrontation were redirected to front-line care, Ontario could shorten surgical waits, expand capacity, and restore public confidence in universal health care. Canada’s hospitals do not need patriotic slogans broadcast across American airwaves. They need stable funding, long-term planning, and leadership focused on the well-being of Canadians. Canada does not need future aggravation by unnecessarily antagonizing an unpredictable president already primed for tariff battle. Ontario’s misguided ad, at great taxpayer expense, will put a serious spike in Canada’s future tariff negotiations and can be perceived as direct political interference in US domestic affairs. What do you think?

When Democracy Becomes Propaganda

When Democracy Becomes Propaganda By Councillor Lisa Robinson When a sitting provincial premier in Canada produces a 60-second commercial using disembodied clips of Ronald Reagan speaking about tariffs — with the clear intent to influence U.S. political opinion — we cross a line. That’s not diplomacy or persuasion. It’s propaganda. Ontario’s government, led by Doug Ford, has spent millions on a U.S. TV ad blitz that features Reagan’s 1987 radio address, edited to criticize tariffs. The ad warns Americans that protectionism will cause retaliation, job losses, and economic collapse — extracting excerpts of Reagan’s voice to serve a modern political purpose. On the surface, using an iconic conservative figure to broadcast a message to Republicans sounds clever. But if you dig deeper, the ad is not an honest “Reagan speaks” piece — it is cherry-picked, decontextualized, and weaponized. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has already stated that the Ontario ad misrepresents Reagan’s full speech and that the province did not secure permission to edit or repurpose it. By stripping away context, selectively choosing sentences, and presenting Reagan’s voice as an argument tailored to this moment, the ad turns Reagan himself into a tool — not a historical figure. That is propaganda, not persuasion. And it’s fair to ask whether this kind of political theatre should be paid for by Ontario taxpayers at all. What Doug Ford’s government did with Ronald Reagan’s words isn’t an isolated stunt — it’s part of a larger pattern. We’ve seen the same tactics right here in Pickering. Our own mayor used taxpayer dollars to produce a propaganda video — not to inform residents, but to attack and discredit an elected colleague who dared to challenge the status quo. The intent was the same as Ford’s Reagan ad: distort the narrative, confuse the public, and weaponize perception. Both rely on emotional manipulation instead of honesty. Both use the public purse to protect political power. And both demonstrate a dangerous trend: government officials using the machinery of public communication to silence dissent and reward loyalty. It’s no coincidence that Doug Ford and the Mayor of Pickering have become close political allies — buddies with mutual friends in the development world, often benefiting from the same cozy network of insiders who profit most when the public stops asking questions. When propaganda replaces truth, those friends get richer, while the people get poorer — in trust, in transparency, and in representation. In an age of AI, deepfakes, and micro-targeted messaging, citizens can no longer assume all “endorsements” are authentic. When governments use history’s icons — or public platforms — as political props, democracy suffers. Whether it’s a province meddling in U.S. politics or a mayor weaponizing City Hall communications, both cross ethical lines. The public should never have to fund propaganda against itself. Ford’s ad campaign and Pickering’s political videos both show how far officials will go to control the narrative. When governments use public money to attack the truth, the people must push back. Because once manipulation becomes normalized, it spreads. Today it’s Reagan’s voice; tomorrow it’s your tax dollars funding hit pieces on local opponents. The same playbook — just a different stage. History and truth belong to all of us. When leaders manipulate one and erase the other, they’re not governing — they’re performing. Doug Ford’s Reagan ad and Pickering’s propaganda videos are not about communication. They’re about control. And when politicians form alliances built on deception, backed by money and developers, the people lose their voice. The antidote is simple but powerful: call it out. Every time. Everywhere. Because once the truth is gone, democracy doesn’t stand a chance. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

NOW IS THE TIME TO ELIMINATE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL BOARDS ALTOGETHER

SCHOOL BOARDS IN ONTARIO ARE OUT OF CONTROL and it is long-past time to eliminate them altogether. In their latest round of orchestrated sanctimony, education workers are grandstanding in an effort to force the Ontario government to withdraw Bill 33, Ontario’s Supporting Children and Students Act. The bill would give the government the authority to remove School Board trustees and replace them with provincially-appointed supervisors if it is deemed to be in the public interest. This has been brought about due to wild spending sprees and other occurrences that have formed the basis – at least for some boards – of extreme radicalization of what should otherwise be the proper administration of our children’s education. David Mastin, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, was found to cry crocodile tears during a news conference at Queen’s Park recently when he had the audacity to suggest, “This is dangerously close to authoritarian control… We are seeing a dismantling of democracy in real time.” In spite of the big union boss and his useless rhetoric, many parents in Ontario would surely feel a sense of relief just knowing their children won’t be under the control of trustees who repeatedly engage in public displays of extremely bad judgment. Of course, it doesn’t end there. Educators are also stomping their feet and waving their hands over the potential placement of police resource officers within Ontario’s schools. This is nothing new, and is seen by many as a positive step toward improvements in safety. Joining her colleague on the soapbox of righteous indignation was NDP education critic Chandra Pasma, who called Bill 33 “a direct attack on the rights of students, parents, teachers and education workers to have a say in our local schools.” Citing what she suggests is a lack of resources for teachers, she went on to say, “We are seeing a rising violence problem… and a shortage of workers as good people are (being) driven out of the system every day due to the working conditions,” Perhaps she didn’t get the memo from the Teachers’ Federation who oppose police resource officers in schools. Talk about mixed messages. What wasn’t mixed in terms of the real agenda that exists among so many educators in Ontario was Ms Pasma’s admission that the need for authority among trustees far surpasses any other issue, as she went on to say, “Instead of fixing these problems, the government is focused on a partisan power grab.” Really? Not to be outdone on this theatrical stage, David Mastin chimed in by adding, “This is not just a bureaucratic shift, it’s a direct attack on democracy that will silence marginalized voices, harm students and strip the community of their right to shape public education.” Well, the only entity that would likely be stripped of the ability to “shape public education” are the radical Marxists who show more concern over race and gender politics than basic education like reading, writing, and arithmetic. Bill 33 provides a means of addressing financial mismanagement among school boards, which would include the ability to install provincial supervisors and setting out expense requirements. The bill would also impact post-secondary institutions by regulating fees mandating merit-based admission at post-secondary institutions, as well as children’s aid societies. “Parents deserve confidence that school boards are making decisions in the best interests of their children’s education,” said Education Minister Paul Calandra in a release announcing the bill earlier this spring. The bill is expected to pass this autumn, but as one might expect, Mastin and other critics say they want the bill withdrawn. “Our hope is that the bill will be withdrawn immediately,” Mastin explained. “There is no part of the bill we as teachers are comfortable with.” That’s a shame, Dave. Good luck with that narrative. There are so many examples of controversies among school boards in Ontario that it would take another three columns for me to discuss them all, but we’ll look at just a few. The most controversial policies established by the Durham District School Board (DDSB) in recent years have centered on human rights, equity, and inclusion, particularly related to gender identity, race, and the content of school libraries, igniting public debate and prompting protests from parents. DDSB policies regarding gender identity have consistently fueled controversy as well, notably concerning transgender students and gender-affirming practices. This includes concerns from some parents and community groups, such as the DDSB Concerned Parents, about gender education and practices like a student's ability to change their pronouns without explicit parental consent. The DDSB's broader human rights and equity policies have drawn criticism from some community members who argue they are ideologically driven. The 2022 Human Rights Policy proved contentious, with critics arguing that its definitions and framing were influenced by ‘critical race theory’ which fosters an ‘anti-white’ bias. The policy's description of so-called ‘white supremacy’ as a societal structure rather than being limited to extremist groups was particularly debated. A 2025 Juno News report highlighted concerns raised by the DDSB Concerned Parents regarding the board's equity spending. Critics questioned the effectiveness of equity programs, and the board refused to commission an independent audit to review the spending. Other controversial DDSB policies include the renaming of schools. Following a push from the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, the DDSB developed a policy for renaming schools that bear the names of historical figures with so-called "problematic" pasts. This included the decision to review schools named after figures like Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. This was brought about by extremists in their attempt to bring the societal norms of the 19th Century into modern times - for judgement by those who appear to harbor a profound resentment of the very founding of Canada. Finally, a quick look at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) shows an equal resentment based on race. In 2024, the TDSB temporarily pulled a teaching guide titled Facilitating Critical Conversations after criticism from the Ontario Ministry of Education. The document referred to Canada's education system as a "colonial structure that centres upon whiteness and Eurocentricity" and claimed it "must be actively decolonized". Seriously. Critics argued the guide was divisive, while the board maintained it was committed to what they now call “equity”. As I stated at the outset, school boards in Ontario are out of control, and it’s time to eliminate them altogether.

Canada’s Balancing Act: Slow Growth, Soft Inflation, and the Long Road to Confidence

Canada’s Balancing Act: Slow Growth, Soft Inflation, and the Long Road to Confidence by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As 2025 draws toward its close, Canada finds itself walking a fine economic line, not in crisis, but not quite in comfort either. Inflation, the ghost that haunted households through the pandemic years, is largely tamed even thought it has lately shown a tendency to rise again. Growth, however, remains tepid, leaving policymakers at the Bank of Canada facing a familiar dilemma: how to keep the economy moving without reigniting the price pressures they fought so hard to subdue. The latest figures from Statistics Canada show annual inflation rising to 2.4 percent in September 2025, up slightly from 1.9 percent in August. The jump resulted mainly from smaller declines in gasoline prices and persistent increases in rent and food costs. On the surface, the number still sits comfortably within the Bank of Canada’s 1-to-3 percent target band, but the upward movement hints at inflation’s stubborn core. Core measures of inflation, those that strip out volatile items like energy, hover closer to 3 percent, a level that keeps central bankers cautious. “We’re seeing encouraging signs, but underlying price momentum hasn’t fully cooled,” a senior Bank economist noted in a recent policy briefing. “It’s premature to declare victory.” For consumers, the relief is relative. Grocery prices are stabilizing but remain high compared to pre-pandemic norms, and rents continue to outpace wage gains in many metropolitan areas. The psychological fatigue from years of price turbulence is evident: Canadians are spending less freely and saving more defensively, even as inflation moderates. While inflation shows signs of normalization, the broader economy has yet to regain its stride. The Bank of Canada’s January 2025 Monetary Policy Report projected real GDP growth of around 1.8 percent this year, edging up modestly in 2026. Independent forecasters, including the OECD, are less optimistic, predicting growth closer to 1.0 percent. The reasons are structural as much as cyclical. Business investment remains soft, productivity growth is flat, and global demand for Canadian exports is lukewarm. Even the housing market, once the engine of national expansion, has cooled under the weight of past rate hikes and new immigration policies slowing population growth. “Canada’s productivity problem has reached emergency status,” warned a recent Wall Street Journal analysis citing senior central-bank officials. Despite record immigration levels earlier in the decade, per-capita output has stagnated, leaving Canadians poorer in relative terms. Households, still burdened by record levels of debt, have become far more cautious. Mortgage renewals at higher rates continue to strain disposable incomes. Many families are postponing major purchases, from vehicles to renovations. Consumer confidence surveys show a population anxious about the future wary of job security, skeptical of government spending, and uncertain about when relief might arrive. The Bank of Canada’s own business outlook surveys echo that mood. Firms report weaker sales and shrinking profit margins, with hiring intentions moderating across most sectors. Exporters, particularly in manufacturing and energy, face the double challenge of slower U.S. demand and global trade frictions. Yet there are pockets of resilience. The service sector hospitality, tourism, and professional services has recovered faster than expected, buoyed by pent-up demand and a rebound in travel. The labour market, while easing, remains relatively tight, with unemployment hovering just above 6 percent. Wage growth has softened but continues to run near 3 percent, roughly matching inflation and preventing a return to real-income declines. For the Bank of Canada, the task now is calibration rather than correction. After an aggressive tightening cycle between 2022 and 2024, which pushed the policy rate to 5 percent, the central bank has cautiously shifted toward a holding pattern and markets are speculating about when cuts will begin. The September uptick in inflation may have delayed that timeline. “They’ll be in no rush,” says Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC. “The Bank wants to see several months of consistent 2 percent-range inflation before pulling the trigger on rate reductions.” Still, pressure is building. Borrowers, from homeowners to small-business owners, are eager for relief. Federal and provincial governments face rising debt-service costs. A premature cut could risk reigniting inflation; a delay could push the economy closer to stagnation. It is, in Governor Tiff Macklem’s words, “a narrow path to soft landing.” Fiscal policy has little room to maneuver. Ottawa’s deficit remains high, and new spending commitments, from housing initiatives to climate-transition programs, are straining the federal balance sheet. The fall economic statement due in November 2025 is expected to emphasize restraint, though targeted tax incentives for investment and innovation may appear. Provincial governments face their own pressures. Ontario’s infrastructure ambitions and Alberta’s energy transition costs collide with the limits of provincial borrowing. Across the country, municipalities are pleading for more funding to expand affordable housing and transit networks, both crucial to restoring productivity and controlling inflationary housing costs. Meanwhile, the immigration recalibration announced earlier this year — tightening the inflow of temporary foreign workers and international students — is beginning to cool demand but also reduce the labour-supply growth that sustained GDP gains. Economists warn of a demographic “whiplash” if policy swings too sharply. Canada’s challenges are hardly unique. The U.S. economy, while still expanding, is also showing signs of fatigue. Global trade remains subdued, and geopolitical tensions from Europe, the Middle East to the South China Sea threaten to destabilize commodity markets. For a resource-exporting nation like Canada, volatility in oil and metals prices can quickly ripple through the national accounts. Yet Canada’s relative stability remains an asset. The banking system is sound, public institutions are trusted, and the inflation-targeting framework continues to anchor expectations. The Canadian dollar, while weaker against the U.S. greenback, has steadied after last year’s slide, helping exporters regain some competitiveness. Most forecasters expect 2026 to mark a modest turning point; a year of slow but steady recovery, provided global conditions hold. The Bank of Canada projects inflation converging toward 2 percent, with GDP growth inching higher as investment recovers and interest rates gradually decline. Still, the structural questions persist: How can Canada lift productivity? How can it make housing affordable again? And how can it ensure the next generation sees rising living standards, not just stable prices? The answers will not come from the central bank alone. They will require a mix of education reform, technology investment, infrastructure renewal, and immigration strategies that balance economic needs with social capacity. Without these, low inflation may be achieved, but prosperity will remain elusive. Canada has, in many respects, passed the inflation test. What lies ahead is the harder exam: restoring economic vitality. The numbers, 2.4 percent inflation, 1 percent growth, tell a story of stability on paper but stagnation in spirit. Whether policymakers can turn this “soft landing” into a genuine takeoff will define the next chapter of Canada’s economic story. Let’s see what the upcoming Liberal Government budget will produce. Hope for the best for the country.

MEANINGLESS WORDS

MEANINGLESS WORDS By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States They say that words play a heavy role in it’s interpretation. If you can manipulate words you can manipulate the flow of communication. It is an art that is reserved for the true elite. For government in order to control the masses. Just this week the City of Oshawa released this online. Knowing very few people would actual read it. Internet posting is not publishing. Internet posting is the ability of municipalities to become a sub-Quasi media. Controlling what they release. Knowing limited or no readers. This is what the release stated: Oshawa Economic Development has unveiled a refreshed website oshawa@@#!@!$v.ca designed to showcase the City of Oshawa’s competitive advantage and deliver an insight-driven, user-focused experience for investors, entrepreneurs and businesses. (talk about a lot of words that mean nothing. 1st, Oshawa has been criticized in more than one occasion for being prejudice and bias on who they choose to do business with. The City does not even support their own City newspaper. Instead they opted out to be accountable to no one and post online knowing not everyone is online or can afford it. Very discriminatory and divisive). The new site features bold visuals, dynamic video and streamlined navigation that highlights Oshawa’s vibrant economy, skilled talent pool and strategic location. (Dynamic!!!!, Vibrant economy!!!, SKILLED TALENT POOL!!! Just because we have a University it does not make the population skilled as many graduates can’t get work in the disciplined they took part in. Look at the state of Oshawa downtown? Where is the resilience? Where is the video that show the suffering of those living on our streets and those barely keeping their businesses open?) In my opinion nothing short of an insult to those in the City that are actually doing something for the community. When was the last time you seen a politician enter your place of business? Or as a citizen.... when was the last town hall to consult on what matter to you? Never — Thought so. Hypocrites... ‘a new website’, wasting taxpayers money to make it look like they are doing something. I blame this on the poor leadership at City Hall. They do not care about you or me. They only care that you pay for their mistakes by increasing taxes year after year. There is no accountability nor responsible spending. Most after politics could not hold another job of same title and or responsibility. Remember 2026 is around the corner. Make it count...

Ontario’s Fall Legislature: Balancing Growth, Governance, and Public Trust

Ontario’s Fall Legislature: Balancing Growth, Governance, and Public Trust by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Ontario’s Legislature returns for its Fall 2025 sitting, after a long summer vacation, the agenda reveals both the government’s ambition and the province’s unease. Premier Doug Ford’s team is pressing ahead with a series of reforms it says will modernize Ontario’s economy and clear the way for growth. However, an unknown factor generated by the evolution of the tariffs war with the United States is yet to influence the legislative agenda. Yet almost every file now before Queen’s Park—energy, labour, housing, or municipal governance—carries the same underlying question: how much efficiency can a democracy afford before accountability begins to fray? Working for Workers—or for Employers? The centrepiece of the session, Bill 30, Working for Workers Act 2025, bundles amendments to labour and employment statutes. The government presents it as a continuation of its promise to “stand up for the little guy,” streamlining outdated regulations and reducing red tape for businesses. Unions and opposition critics counter that the fine print tells another story: weaker overtime rules, looser enforcement, and fewer tools for vulnerable workers to challenge unfair practices. For employers, it offers flexibility; for labour groups, it marks another step away from workplace protections that took decades to build. Powering the Province—Quietly. Energy reform again takes centre stage through Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. It rewrites parts of the Electricity Act, curtails citizens’ ability to sue over procurement decisions, and accelerates infrastructure approvals. Supporters argue Ontario needs to move faster to keep lights on and attract investment. Environmental advocates call it a rollback of transparency that shields the government from scrutiny just when the province is grappling with climate commitments. The tug-of-war between speed and oversight is not new, but this bill pushes it further than ever, prompting even some business voices to warn against concentrating too much discretion in cabinet hands. Municipal Friction: Bill 9 and the Camera Debate. Relations between Queen’s Park and municipalities remain strained. Bill 9, ostensibly about municipal codes of conduct, has raised alarms for reducing independent oversight of councillor behaviour. Big-city mayors say the province is “downloading” responsibility while limiting autonomy. The same tension underlies the automated speed-camera issue, now resurfacing across Ontario’s cities. Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton have expanded camera programs to curb residential speeding and fund road-safety campaigns. The province controls the legislative framework for camera enforcement and fine distribution, and several municipalities are pressing for clearer authority and a larger share of revenue to reinvest locally. Supporters view cameras as proven deterrents that protect pedestrians; opponents label them “cash grabs” that punish rather than educate. As installation expands into smaller communities, the fall session could determine whether Ontario adopts a province-wide policy or continues the patchwork of municipal bylaws. The Housing and Affordability Crunch. Ontario’s pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2031 looms large. Construction remains well below target, while rents and mortgages climb. The government resists renewed rent controls, insisting that private investment, not regulation, will drive supply. Opposition MPPs advocate province-wide zoning for four-unit homes and stronger tenant protections. Municipalities, meanwhile, warn that they cannot meet housing targets without more infrastructure funding and social-housing support. Behind the rhetoric lies a fiscal impasse: cities bear the costs, while the province sets the rules. Red Tape or Red Flag? Few slogans define the Ford years more than “cutting red tape.” This fall, new measures promise to simplify approvals for industrial projects, housing developments, and mining operations. Business groups applaud; environmentalists and Indigenous leaders caution that “faster” can mean “less fair.” The critical-minerals strategy, particularly in the Ring of Fire, illustrates the dilemma. Ontario aims to halve project-approval timelines, positioning itself as a hub for EV battery materials. Yet northern First Nations say consultation cannot be rushed without violating treaty obligations. The province’s bet on resource speed could either cement its economic future or ignite years of legal conflict. Accountability and the Rule of Law. One striking feature of the current legislative package is the growing number of immunity clauses shielding the Crown and agencies from lawsuits. Proponents argue these provisions prevent costly litigation and provide certainty for investors. Civil-liberties groups respond that they erode a citizen’s right to challenge government decisions in court. The pattern extends beyond energy to land-use planning and environmental approvals; a quiet but significant shift in Ontario’s legal landscape. Everyday Climate and Worker Safety. Amid the large bills, smaller private-member initiatives are emerging: proposals to establish a “Heat-Protection Standard” for outdoor workers and public-awareness weeks on flooding and extreme heat. After two consecutive summers of record temperatures, even modest measures carry symbolic weight. They remind legislators that adaptation, not only growth, will define Ontario’s resilience. The Political Crossroads. Ontario’s Fall 2025 session is less about single pieces of legislation than about competing visions of governance. The Ford government’s supporters see a province finally cutting through bureaucracy to deliver results; housing, jobs, and investment. Its critics see a concentration of power, an erosion of checks and balances, and a steady sidelining of local voices. The debate over speed cameras captures the broader paradox: every initiative aims to make systems faster and more efficient, yet speed itself becomes the problem when accountability cannot keep up. As the Legislature debates these measures through the winter, Ontarians will be watching not only for what laws are passed, but for how they are passed and at what democratic cost. Efficiency may win headlines, but in governance, trust remains the hardest currency to replace. In conclusion, we are facing interesting times to come in Ontario

HOW ELECTED OFFICIALS USE FACEBOOK IN A WORD DOMINATED BY SOCIAL MEDIA

HOW ELECTED OFFICIALS USE FACEBOOK IN A WORD DOMINATED BY SOCIAL MEDIA THE USE OF FACEBOOK by elected officials, including mayors and councillors throughout Durham Region, varies significantly. The complexity of navigating the responsibilities of public office in the face of growing online engagement has resulted in a range of approaches - and even consequences for some. The more engaged members of Oshawa Council use their Facebook accounts to actively post updates, respond to questions, and communicate daily with their residents. Probably the best example of this is Ward 5 Regional councillor Brian Nicholson. One need only take a quick glance at his multiple Facebook groups to see how quickly information is shared – in real time - on matters concerning Council decisions that affect what he has long-since referred to as ‘Southern Oshawa’. However, communicating on a daily basis with constituents in this way must undoubtedly blur the line between a councillor’s public duties and their private life, with the increasing expectation that they make themselves available at all hours of the day and night. I had occasion some time ago during a casual conversation to raise that very subject with the councillor from Ward 5, and when I asked him as to the effect social media had on his time off, he immediately responded by reminding me that, once elected, a member of Council “really doesn’t have time off.” As it stands, councillor Nicholson administers a number of Facebook groups. I can recall him telling me not long ago that his individual posts were on average read by well over 20,000 people, and that actual constituent inquiries numbered in the range of 100 per day. He also used to constantly credit municipal staff for making him “look good” by the speed with which they were taking care of issues passed on from social media. Other councillors appear more inclined to use their Facebook presence to simply share specific announcements and various press releases issued by the municipality – on routine matters such as snow removal, garbage collection, and the introduction of new policies and programs that residents may find of interest. One such councillor is Rosemary McConkey from Ward 1. She once told me quite unequivocally that she “doesn’t do photo-ops” therefore what you won’t see by way of self-promotion on her Facebook page will undoubtedly be made up for by endless Excel spreadsheets and other routine documents. The councillor from Columbus appears more inclined to act as an information resource, and you won’t find a whole lot of real-time interaction on what many see as a somewhat tinder dry social media presence. On the other hand, some councillors seem to want very little to do with Facebook and all that it represents, and a good example of that is Ward 5 City councillor and ex-Mayor John Gray. A glance at his political page shows it to have been dormant since the last election, with the latest post dating back to October 2022. He does make use of his personal page to some extent, however you will see only seven posts since November 2024, all of which were added by others onto his timeline. He has repeatedly told me his preference will always be actual personal contact, either face-to-face or by telephone, and he has no willingness to change that. Another interesting example of the use of Facebook comes from the Man-Who-Would-Be-Mayor himself, Ward 2 Regional councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri. A glance at his political page shows no activity for the last four months, however if you swing over to his so-called personal page, you will see a veritable onslaught of selfie-videos the good councillor is using to share his views on everything from homebuilding to homicides. It seems he can’t make a move without finding one reason or other to offer his loyal viewers a bit of commentary. The abandonment of his Ward 2 councillor page is undoubtedly strategic, as he prepares to campaign for the Mayor’s job in the next election. As one might expect, there is more than a handful of fans ready and willing to press the “like” button on most of his Facebook posts, including Ward 4 Regional councillor Rick Kerr, a man who lives in hope of becoming Tito’s Deputy Mayor. Meanwhile, it’s important to remember a councillor's social media conduct can be reviewed by an Integrity Commissioner if it violates the Code of Conduct adopted by Council. Oshawa's own policy sets clear guidelines for online conduct. The expected standards dictate that members must not use their social media presence to bully, shame, or engage in disrespectful behavior toward the public, other council members, or staff. Of course, the most recent offender in this regard was Ward 4 City councillor Derek Giberson who decided it was somehow appropriate to make comments on social media regarding an identifiable individual within the community who was engaged in a matter that was before the courts. The Ward 4 councillor was ultimately found to be in contravention of the obligation of elected officials to refrain from commenting on such matters. No sitting Oshawa councillor has since been seen to bring about such public humiliation and shame. Of course, other rules exist to ensure that the proper use of social media is maintained. Blocking users on a Facebook account used for official business can be legally and ethically complex. In the city of Toronto, their social media guidebook advises councillors to be careful that blocking does not unfairly affect users, particularly if the account is intended for political debate. The consequences for violating a social media policy or Code of Conduct can be significant. The recent case in Cambridge, where a councillor faced a potential pay suspension, illustrates that misconduct on Facebook can lead to official punishment. On a final note, it must be remembered that, contrary to popular fiction, an elected official cannot separate their political Facebook account from any other they see as being personal. Statements and posts added or even shared to any social media account created in the name of a person holding elected office are equal in stature when held to the standards set by a municipal Code of Conduct. They are equally subject to potential review by an integrity commissioner or any other judicial body that may be called upon to examine a councillor’s conduct. Social media, and especially Facebook, are questionable means of communication and very much worthwhile in the practice of censorphip, but they can also be self-destructive when in the wrong hands.

I Am the Storm

I Am the Storm By Councillor Lisa Robinson There comes a point when the storm you’ve been forced to endure stops being something outside of you… and becomes the fire inside you. I’ve faced more than most will ever see behind closed doors. The slander. The political punishment. The calculated attempts to isolate, humiliate, and silence. Every tactic known — from weaponizing codes of conduct to manipulating procedure — was designed to wear me down, to make me doubt myself, to force me to give up and stop. But they underestimated me. I wasn’t built to bow to pressure. I was built to withstand it. The harder they’ve pushed, the stronger I’ve become. Every sanction, every vote to strip me of pay, (1.5 years thus far) every moment they tried to bury my voice has only deepened my determination. I’ve walked through their storm — head high, shoulders squared — refusing to bend to a system that punishes truth-tellers while protecting those who hide behind process. I’ve endured the isolation of standing alone at the table, watching colleagues look away instead of standing up. I’ve endured the personal attacks, the whisper campaigns, and the very public attempts to crush my credibility. But I am still here. Unbroken. Unshaken. Unafraid. Because what they don’t realize is this: I was never meant to be swept away by the storm. I am the storm. I was put in this place for a reason...to stand, to fight, and to rise. And storms don’t ask permission. They don’t wait for permission. They move with force, they reshape everything in their path, and they leave no doubt about their power. This fight was never just about me. It’s about every person who’s been punished for refusing to stay silent. It’s about calling out corruption, exposing hypocrisy, and standing up for what is right — even when you stand alone. I will not apologize for speaking the truth. I will not back down because it makes others uncomfortable. And I will never surrender my voice to those who fear it. They tried to contain the storm. Instead, they created one. I will survive the storm — because I am the storm. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

Canada used to be a country that got things done

Canada used to be a country that got things done By Dale Jodoin Canada used to be a country that got things done. We built highways through rock, railways across frozen land, towns from nothing. We didn’t stop because someone might be afraid of noise or dust. We worked, we built, we grew. Now, it feels like we’ve traded courage for comfort and backbone for bubble wrap. Everywhere you look, someone’s afraid of something. The left tells us to tremble at every tweet from Donald J. Trump, the current president of the United States. They say his name will terrify Canadians into silence, making them fear their ammo. And if you don’t side with the left? You’re labelled fascist, racist, or worse. The center is under attack from both sides while the country slowly fractures. Look around. We’re scared of words, jokes, fireworks, even history. People demand that everyone else stop doing what makes them happy just because someone might be uncomfortable. Life doesn’t come with a comfort guarantee. Take fireworks. Every July, a few voices demand their cancellation—because they rattle dogs, unsettle veterans, or trigger anxiety. Those are valid concerns. But the solution is not to cancel joy for everyone. If fireworks bother you, stay home. Don’t take something meaningful away from thousands of others. That’s the deeper problem: we’ve become a nation afraid to offend. You can’t build anything that way. You can’t have free speech if everyone is terrified of it. When did we forget how to disagree without crying for someone to be silenced? On university campuses, the culture’s even worse. Students are screened for “triggering” words. Professors are censured for jokes that used to spark debate. We’re training a generation more worried about being offended than about being resilient. What happens when life gives them something truly hard, without trigger warnings or safe spaces? Here’s the truth: fear has become a shield. It’s easier to say, “I’m terrified,” than to take responsibility. If someone says something you don’t like, talk, debate, or walk away. Don’t demand the world rewrites everything just so you’ll never feel uneasy. Canada was built by people who faced fear, not by people who hid from it. Immigration, once a symbol of hope, is being twisted into a tool of division. Immigrants came to build something together with us to enrich the country. Now politicians use immigration stories to pit one group against another. They whisper victimhood to some, blame to others. That’s not unity. That’s manipulation. It’s quietly ripping the country apart. We used to be one people, proud and united. Now we fracture into isolated groups, each one afraid someone else will speak. The loudest voices are treated like everyone’s voice. The rest of us are just trying to keep the lights on, raise kids, and live in peace. It’s almost absurd. We live in one of the safest countries on Earth, yet act like we’re on constant alert. Our grandparents survived wars, hunger, freezing winters. We stress over tweets. If we keep living by everyone else’s fear, Canada won’t survive not in spirit. Fear shrinks people, kills joy, stops progress. The only cure is courage. And a little humour along the way doesn’t hurt. So here’s the deal: if you’re scared of something, fine. But don’t ask the rest of us to silence our joy because of it. If you don’t like what someone says, let it pass. If fireworks bother you, stay away. If politics makes you anxious, switch off the news. Canada can be strong again. We just need to remember who we are: people with courage, hard work, and the freedom to speak our minds. We’re not here to babysit fear. We’re here to build a country. And if that offends someone well, maybe they should try being offended elsewhere. Written by Dale Jodoin newspaper writer and journalists

Job Seekers: Look to Those Who Are Getting Hired

Job Seekers: Look to Those Who Are Getting Hired By Nick Kossovan This past August, I participated in a LinkedIn Live session with career coach Ruth Sternberg, titled Job Search Myths Shattered. In my closing remarks, I mentioned that even in today's challenging job market, people are getting hired every day. High inflation, recession fears, and geopolitical posturing, such as tariffs, have many companies and industries operating in a state of fear, prompting them to question whether it's wise to be hiring. Even if you doubled Canada's national unemployment rate of 7.1% (August 2025) in order to satisfy those who claim unemployment is higher than reported, it would still show that over 85% of Canadians are employed, a positive data point. Another positive, though not to the extent job seekers would like, is that employers are still hiring. Regardless of the state of the economy, the job market is constantly churning, creating job openings through promotions, terminations, resignations, retirements, and unexpected events such as deaths. The job market is neither inherently good nor bad. It's neutral. It's indifferent. It simply reflects the economics of business, showing where capital is flowing and why. It's easy to find "the bad" when you're always looking for "the bad." For quite some time, companies have capitalized on the cost benefits of offshoring their jobs. As automation and artificial intelligence rapidly enhance their capabilities, companies are focusing on investing in technology that will reduce their biggest expense: labour costs. I believe we're witnessing the beginning of a future with a smaller workforce, where working for a business in the traditional sense will become less common, but let's wait and see what unfolds. For now, amid efforts to leverage technology to lower the number of employees, hence boosting profits—the core reason a business exists—hiring continues. When you describe the job market as "bad" because your job search is taking longer than expected and you keep pointing to other job seekers facing the same challenges, you're signalling that you don't understand the economics behind business decisions. If you can't demonstrate that you understand the economic factors influencing business decisions, especially when it comes to hiring, why would a company trust you to help them make or save money? I get it; pessimistic and inflammatory posts about the job market and employers, which, by the way, discourage employers from contacting you, drive engagement. However, if your 'likes' and 'commenting for reach' aren't resulting in employers contacting you—which is probably the case—consider a different approach. Pay attention to what those who are getting hired are doing that you might not be doing or not doing to the same extent. From what I've observed, those who are getting hired focus on a few key areas: Following instructions Quality applications stand out. I'm not a fan of applying to online job postings alongside hundreds or even thousands of other candidates, making your application akin to a lottery ticket. Networking offers better odds; however, applying to jobs where you meet at least 90% of the requirements should still be part of your job search, as you never know when you might hit the jackpot. Therefore, to increase your lottery odds, follow the instructions! Meticulously following instructions showcases your professionalism and willingness to adhere to directives. Carefully review the job posting. Identify submission requirements, such as document format (e.g., PDF), specific questions to address in a cover letter, or ‘Reference Job ID #H587’ in your email subject line. Your applications will get noticed more if you do what most job seekers don't: submit a quality application that dots all the 'I's and crosses all the 'T's. Submitting 2 - 3 quality applications daily and following up two days later, if necessary, is a much more effective job search strategy than the 'spraying and praying' method many job seekers use. Quality over quantity! Connecting Deny all you want; you won't change the fact that networking gives you a significant advantage by uncovering job opportunities that aren't advertised publicly. Job searching is a people-oriented activity, not something you do by hiding behind your keyboard and naively believing that engaging with people's posts and comments on LinkedIn will lead to forming meaningful professional relationships. Even in 2025, face-to-face interactions have much more stickiness than digital outreach efforts. Those who are getting hired are circulating in the real world, grabbing every chance to connect with others; making eye contact, focusing on the person in front of them, and setting aside their ego, asking themselves, "How can I help this person?" Connecting with others happens when you: · Show genuine interest in the other person · Are honest and authentic · Ask thoughtful, meaningful questions · Ensure the other person feels heard Refusing to be a victim People with a victim mentality tend to have a longer job search than those who do not. Social media, especially LinkedIn, has become flooded with job seekers feeling sorry for themselves. Those getting hired refuse to see themselves as a victim or feel sorry for themselves. Achieving success in your job search requires focusing on what you can control, such as networking and how you present yourself to employers, rather than dwelling on factors outside your influence, like the economy and others' behaviour. Although many job seekers didn't choose to be job searching, everyone can choose where to direct their focus and energy. ___________________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.