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

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

You Cannot Attract What You Resist

You Cannot Attract What You Resist By Nick Kossovan My favourite quote illustrating the futility of resisting reality is by American author Byron Katie: "When you argue with reality, you lose, but only 100% of the time." A few years ago, I read Rhonda Byrne's The Secret to better understand the Law of Attraction. According to Byrne, one aspect of the Law of Attraction is that "what you resist, persists," because, theoretically, you're giving energy to what you don't want, keeping it alive in your mind. Resistance is feeling-based. Resistance involves telling yourself false stories to create excuses for why you're not getting what you want. Resistance is refusing to read the room, such as AI being more cost-effective than hiring junior employees, lean teams looking great on earnings calls, and "let's wait and see" becoming a corporate strategy. Resistance is the refusal to accept the reality you find yourself in. As detrimental as it is to their job search—by now it's common knowledge that employers will check your digital footprint to determine whether you're interview-worthy—I see job seekers ad nauseam take to LinkedIn to voice their "resistance" to hiring practices, which, in turn, explains their lengthy job search. Employers avoid hiring candidates who lack emotional regulation. Every day, I see the same pattern: job seekers unwilling to adapt to the new paradigm for finding work. Applying with an opinion resume, as if it's 2005. Telling the same unsubstantiated career stories. When nothing happens, they get angry at recruiters, hiring managers, the enigmatic ATS, and the non-existent "hiring system." (For a "system" to exist, all hiring managers and recruiters would need to assess candidates similarly, which isn't the case.) Every day, we try to avoid or escape the realities that don't suit us. The two predominant ways we do so are by: 1. Judging our reality (employers) 2. Arguing with our reality (employers) If your job search isn't progressing as you'd like, public outbursts, which signal to employers that you can't control your emotions, aren't the answer. The answer is to stop resisting what you can't control or change and to adapt; to become okay with what's not okay. When it comes to job search success, job seekers would be much better off understanding and accepting that employers design their hiring processes to protect their business and reduce hiring risk. Hiring the wrong person can be costly in terms of training, severance, and lost productivity. Successful job seekers don't resist an employer's hiring process; they recognize that employers are risk-averse and therefore hire as they do, and they adapt. They don't entertain the limiting belief that investing in an employer's hiring process may be wasted effort. For example, as a job seeker, you've likely noticed that many employers ask candidates to complete an assignment to verify their skills. Those who resist think, "Assignments are free labour." They're judging an employer's request without considering that employers are navigating a job market full of bad actors who make exaggerated claims about their skills and experience. This is the reality employers face, and job seekers need to deal with it too. Also, arguing against (read: resisting) doing an assignment won't change the reasons employers ask candidates to do one. Having resistance to how employers hire isn't doing you any favours. The more you can let go of that resistance—softening it—the smoother your job search will be. Stoic philosopher Epictetus said: "Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not." The way an employer designs their hiring process and evaluates candidates is outside a job seeker's control. While I understand it may feel counterintuitive, you need to trust that going with the flow regarding how employers hire and believing it'll lead to employment can be the most beneficial mindset shift for your job search. When it comes to job searching, the single best advantage you can give yourself is to learn to navigate the job market's currents, understand and accept why employers are hiring the way they are, why ghosting has become common (liability issues are real), why feedback isn't given (again, liability issues), and why employers are more risk-averse than ever, rather than exhausting yourself by resisting what you have no influence over changing. Let employers be employers! A utopian solution to ease the frustration and anger, stemming from their resistance to the realities of today's job market and not wanting to understand why employers are trying everything in their power to reduce hiring risks, would be to tape Alcoholics Anonymous's Serenity Prayer, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference," to every job seeker's laptop, monitor, wall, fridge, and anywhere they'll see it repeatedly. Stop fighting what you don't know, can't manage, or don't like, or what's not going your way. The universe doesn't give you what you ask for. It gives you what you're being. By resisting employers' hiring processes and candidate assessment methods, you not only waste mental energy you could be using for your job search, you're also prolonging it.

Cold Enough for You?

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Cold Enough for You? Maybe not as cold as the shoulder President Trump is currently giving the Prime Minister following the China meetings and the push toward what many are calling a new world economic order. Protectionism and economic nationalism are nothing new to President Trump. It’s where he cut his teeth politically. Tearing up NAFTA, repatriating auto and manufacturing jobs, and using tariffs as leverage have all been central to his strategy. There’s no question these policies have hurt Canada—and Ontario in particular. Here at home, the Ontario Premier has expressed outrage over the federal government’s decision to remove tariffs on Chinese EVs, even going so far as to encourage a boycott of Chinese electric vehicles. At the same time, he has followed through on his promise to keep Crown Royal off LCBO shelves. When you look closely, Ontario’s actions mirror the very protectionism being criticized south of the border. Keeping Crown Royal off shelves is framed as a protest over the closure of its Ontario plant. Yet the company maintains significant operations—and its head office—in Manitoba and Quebec. You can’t parade as “Captain Canada” while selectively protecting only Ontario jobs. That said, I voted for Doug Ford to look after Ontario. That’s his lane. Protecting Canada as a whole is the Prime Minister’s job. The deal Mark Carney is attempting to strike with China and other so-called “friendly” EU nations is clearly an effort to counterbalance our reliance on a superpower neighbour that holds most of the cards. Doing business with China—given its ability to manufacture goods at costs Canada simply cannot match—may reduce inflation. But let’s not kid ourselves: it will almost certainly come at the expense of domestic employment. We are living through a period of aggressive attacks on globalization. I’m not convinced that’s entirely a bad thing, but the consequences will be real. Canadians should brace themselves for changes in the cost of goods, inflation, and employment levels. What we do need, however, is political discipline. The legislative framework is clear: the Prime Minister speaks for Canada; premiers speak for their provinces. Staying in your lane matters. As for Ontario, stay tuned for this week’s Mr. X Files. I’ll be digging into the Ryan Amato emails. Amato, the former Chief of Staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs during the Greenbelt scandal, has refused to release emails sent through his personal account and is now before the courts. There are only two reasons not to release those emails: they incriminate him, or they incriminate others—either within government or among developers. Amato has a decision to make. Honesty has never been a defining trait of his modus operandi, but the very real prospect of jail time—and the reality that he likely wouldn’t fare well on the range—may yet be enough to convince him to release the emails. Because when they do come out, Canadians will finally see who the real criminals in the Greenbelt scandal were.

CHINESE WET DREAM!!!

CHINESE WET DREAM!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers Not only is our country falling apart, being invaded through our ridiculous immigration policy. But now, it appears that our new Prime Minister is about to give us away to China. Carney could not negotiate with the long time neighbors to the south. So he thinks he is going to gain any leverage against the U.S. by elbowing it up with the Chinese. PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON OUR CITY STREETS. FOOD BANKS DEPENDENCY ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. We in Canada have no real politics. The NDP have run aground. The PC can’t even win their wards but expect to be voted Prime Minister. And the Liberals.... well they are finishing us off. Personally, the best thing that could happen to Canada is to become the 51st. The real threat is that if in the U.S. the democrats come back in power. Then the American empire will fall. This week the news reports read: Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies. Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital. Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he has found “much alignment” with Chinese President Xi Jinping in their views on Greenland, which some experts say is a signal of a new pragmatism in Canadian foreign policy while facing what Carney called a “new world order.” This is our leader folks... The Chinese are not only laughing at us... but I am sure that they feel as if they won the ultimate lotery... Imagine, inviting the Chinese to take over Canada. It has been in the works for years. “I had discussions with President Xi about the situation in Greenland, about our sovereignty in the Arctic, about the sovereignty of the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark. And I found much alignment of views in that regard,” Carney told reporters after his meeting with Xi. The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally. Here’s what that could entail. EU trade, tech disruptions? Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology. The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland. An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures. The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe. NATO response? A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said. In other words. They are not going to do a single thing. As “NO” NATO means that Europe is exposed. It means, China, Russia and anyone with ambitions to go on a war rampage. I think people need to look at what is going on in the world. Look at what took part in Venezuela. They went in. They flexed muscle and they got the job done. A historical beacon. The world may or may not be a better place. One thing. There is clear marker on who rules and those that are so into the financial rat race that has corrupted it’s integrity and committment to the millions of people you reprent. I think the key to our success as a civilization is to rule with the best interest of the people. We have to start here at home. Put an end to those homeless...

Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel

Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada likes to describe itself as a single national economy. In reality, it operates more like a loose confederation of protected markets, each guarded by provincially self-regulated bodies whose original public-interest purpose has quietly morphed into something else: gatekeeping. In an era of slowing productivity, labour shortages, and intensifying global competition, this model has become obsolete. Worse, it has turned into a bureaucratic brake on economic revival. This regulatory paralysis is most visible—and most damaging—in the treatment of foreign-trained professionals, one of Canada’s most underutilized economic assets. Every year, Canada deliberately selects and admits tens of thousands of internationally educated engineers, doctors, nurses, architects, and skilled tradespeople under immigration programs explicitly designed to address labour shortages. Yet upon arrival, many discover that the real barrier was never immigration policy, but provincial regulatory bodies that treat foreign credentials with reflexive suspicion and procedural inertia. The result is a quiet national scandal. Highly qualified professionals drive taxis, work survival jobs, or abandon their fields altogether while Canada continues to claim—often in the same breath—that it faces critical skills shortages. This is not anecdotal. Statistics Canada and multiple provincial auditors have documented persistent underemployment and earnings gaps among internationally trained professionals, even years after arrival. The problem is not a lack of competence; it is a lack of regulatory adaptability. Provincial self-regulatory bodies insist they are protecting public safety. In practice, many operate on a presumption of incompetence unless applicants can reproduce, at great cost and delay, credentials they already hold—sometimes from jurisdictions with standards equal to or higher than Canada’s. Experience gained abroad is discounted. Exams are duplicated. “Canadian experience” requirements still linger despite repeated political promises to abolish them. Appeals processes are opaque, timelines stretch into years, and outcomes vary arbitrarily by province. This dysfunction carries a double economic cost. First, Canada wastes human capital it has already screened, selected, and welcomed. Second, it actively discourages future talent. Global labour markets are competitive and informed. When internationally trained professionals learn that recognition in Canada is slow, unpredictable, and fragmented by province, they choose Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States instead. At a moment when advanced economies are competing aggressively for skilled workers, Canada signals hesitation and distrust. However, the problem does not stop with immigrants. The same regulatory rigidity that blocks an engineer trained in Germany or a nurse trained in the Philippines also obstructs mobility between Ontario and Alberta, or Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Protectionism, once normalized, rarely confines itself to one group. Foreign-trained professionals merely expose a deeper structural flaw in Canada’s regulatory architecture. For decades, Canada tolerated this fragmentation because growth masked inefficiency. That era is over. Productivity has stagnated for more than ten years. Business investment per worker lags well behind peer countries. Major projects—housing, infrastructure, energy—are delayed not by lack of capital or demand, but by regulatory complexity layered across provincial boundaries. At the centre of this dysfunction sits a uniquely Canadian phenomenon: provincially self-regulated professional and occupational regimes. Self-regulation was originally justified on sound principles. Professions such as engineering, medicine, and law require technical expertise and ethical standards best maintained by peers rather than politicians. However, over time, many of these bodies drifted from public protection toward institutional self-preservation. Entry barriers hardened. Credential recognition slowed. Interprovincial mobility became an administrative maze. What was once oversight now functions as an economic toll booth. The economic cost is no longer theoretical. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Canada’s internal trade barriers impose an economic penalty equivalent to a four per cent tariff we levy on ourselves. This is not the work of foreign competitors, but of Canadian governments and delegated regulators constraining other Canadians. No serious country seeking growth would tolerate such a self-inflicted handicap. Labour mobility illustrates the absurdity. Canada faces acute shortages in construction, health care, engineering, and advanced manufacturing. Yet a professional licensed and competent in one province often cannot work seamlessly in another without months of paperwork, duplicative fees, and discretionary approval. Defenders of the status quo argue that standards differ and public safety is at risk. That argument collapses under scrutiny. Canadian provinces educate professionals to broadly similar national benchmarks, and accreditation bodies already operate at national or international levels. If a professional is competent in one province, the presumption should be competence everywhere in Canada—subject only to narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Housing provides a stark example. Canada’s housing shortage is now a national emergency. Governments promise faster construction, yet skilled trades and professionals remain trapped behind provincial certification walls. Red Seal programs exist, but implementation is uneven. Municipal approvals vary wildly. Engineers, planners, and inspectors face province-specific rules layered on top of local ones. The result is predictable: delays, cost overruns, and fewer homes built. Energy and infrastructure face similar constraints. Canada speaks confidently about electrification, clean growth, and industrial renewal, yet struggles to mobilize talent across provinces to deliver projects on time. Regulatory inertia is no longer a technical issue; it is a strategic vulnerability. Other federations have confronted this challenge. Australia moved decisively toward mutual recognition of occupational credentials decades ago. The European Union, despite its complexity, has made professional mobility a core economic principle across sovereign states. Canada, by contrast, still tolerates internal barriers that would be unthinkable at an international negotiating table. The irony is striking. Canadian governments celebrate trade diversification abroad while tolerating protectionism at home. We negotiate for years to reduce tariffs with Europe or Asia, then quietly allow domestic regulators to block Canadian workers and firms at provincial borders. This is not federalism at its best; it is fragmentation disguised as autonomy. The solution is not to abolish standards or politicize professions. It is to modernize governance. Provinces should be required—by federal legislation if necessary—to adopt automatic mutual recognition for licensed professionals and trades. Self-regulatory bodies should retain authority over ethics and discipline, but not over interprovincial or international market access. Economic mobility is a national interest. Ottawa already has constitutional tools it is reluctant to use. The federal government can attach conditions to funding, harmonize national frameworks, and enforce the spirit of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. What it lacks is political resolve. Provinces, for their part, must recognize that regulatory sovereignty without economic growth is an empty victory. Canada does not suffer from a lack of talent, capital, or ambition. It suffers from institutional inertia. Every month a skilled worker waits for recognition, every project stalled by duplicative rules, every firm deterred by regulatory uncertainty compounds our productivity problem. If Canada is serious about economic revival, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: the era of provincially self-regulated silos is over. What once protected the public now too often protects incumbents. Reform will provoke resistance—from regulators, associations, and political actors invested in the status quo. So let us understand that resistance for what it is: not a defence of safety or quality, but a defence of control. Economic renewal requires mobility, speed, and scale. Do you think Canada can afford to keep regulating itself into irrelevance?

Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair?

Is It Legal!!! And Or Fair? A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist I just saw a REEL on Facebook of Tito-Dante Marimpeitri outside of City Hall in downtown Oshawa. It is easily the twentieth video I have seen of him since he declared his intention to run for Mayor of Oshawa on January 1st. I have never seen him on Facebook or in REELS prior to making this announcement and it’s obvious he intends to post something everyday to try and stay top of mind with the voters and show the residents that he covers all areas and all topics. I guess my question is, what happens after the election? Win or lose does he intend to keep this level of engagement up? If not, then what a farce this is. If so, where will he find the time? I have to say that it’s more than a little annoying that these local politicians get elected, disappear from the public view, collect a paycheck, and won’t take or return a phone call, or email. Then, when we’re in an election year, they seem to pop up everywhere. Like they are literally coming out of the woodwork. Shameful. Oshawa residents deserve better than that. Why don’t we have some sort of accountability system for these local politicians? That is something that needs to be seriously considered going forward. I am seeing every single Councillor for all the wards front and centre with their motions, observances, statements etc…Where have they been for the last three years? And in some cases, seven years. I don’t find it engaging, I find it contrived, obvious, and insulting. Surely, we can do better than this. Our current council is made up of several people who are quite literally collecting a paycheck for nothing more than the fact that they got elected! They have no intention to move on, nor do they do this city any good. Career politicians are what they call those types. They didn’t come in with any real credentials, and they have nothing to go to when they leave so the plan is just to run, election after election and hope they slide by. That may work for a period of time and in certain places, but I have a feeling that the residents of Oshawa are ready for something new. Their charitable spirits have been stretched to the limit, and they are hungry for change. Not talk of change and the quaint catch phrases that actually mean nothing, but real change, the kind you can’t help but notice when you walk downtown. Yes, I do think change is coming and it might be prudent for some of the current Councillors to polish up their resumes.

Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize

Nuclear Energy and Industrial Revival: Why Durham Region Matters More Than Most Canadians Realize by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada’s debate about industrial revival too often unfolds at a distance; Ottawa strategies, federal tax credits, and abstract conversations about global competitiveness. Yet industrial renewal does not happen in the abstract. It happens in specific places, shaped by infrastructure, skills, and long-term choices. In Ontario, that reality is becoming increasingly stark. The province’s electricity system is approaching a structural inflection point. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has identified a looming electricity capacity gap beginning in the mid-2030s, as demand rises far faster than new, clean generation is coming online. Electrification of transportation, housing, industry, and data centres is accelerating, while existing assets age and fossil fuels face tightening constraints. According to Ontario’s Integrated Energy Plan, between now and 2050 the province could require up to 17,500 megawatts of additional nuclear generation alone—the equivalent of adding five new Darlington-scale nuclear stations. At the same time, an economic impact study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association in 2024 found that the nuclear sector already contributes $22 billion annually to GDP and sustains approximately 80,000 high-skilled jobs across engineering, construction, manufacturing, mining, and plant operations. More than half of Ontario’s electricity is produced on just three relatively compact sites: Pickering, Tiverton, and Clarington. In the face of unprecedented electricity demand growth, neither Canada nor Ontario can afford further delay in launching the next generation of large-scale nuclear projects. This is where place matters; and why Durham Region is far more central to Canada’s economic future than most Canadians realize. If nuclear energy is to become the backbone of Canada’s reindustrialization, Durham is not merely a participant. It is a proof point, and potentially the model for what a modern, high-skill, energy-anchored industrial economy can look like. Energy Is Local Before It Is National Every serious discussion about productivity eventually collides with the same constraint: energy. Manufacturing, data centres, electrified transportation, hydrogen production, and advanced materials all depend on electricity that is reliable, affordable, and available at scale. This requirement is not theoretical in Durham Region; it is lived reality. Durham sits at the intersection of critical energy infrastructure, a deeply skilled workforce, major transportation corridors, and proximity to Canada’s largest market. It is home to the Darlington and Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, one of the most important energy assets in the country. Darlington and Pickering do not merely power homes. It underwrites the economic stability of the Greater Toronto Area and beyond. Its baseload reliability enables industrial activity that cannot tolerate interruption. Factories do not shut down when the wind drops. Data centres cannot pause when clouds roll in. Nuclear power’s constant output gives regions like Durham a competitive advantage that many jurisdictions simply do not possess. Durham as an Industrial Anchor For decades, Durham Region has been described as a commuter belt, an extension of Toronto rather than an economic engine in its own right. That perception is no longer accurate. With Darlington and Pickering at its core, Durham hosts one of the most advanced industrial ecosystems in Canada. Nuclear operations demand excellence: engineers, technicians, skilled trades, safety specialists, digital systems experts, and project managers working to standards matched by few other sectors. Crucially, these skills do not disappear when a refurbishment project ends. They remain embedded in the regional workforce. This is precisely how industrial clusters form. Nuclear capability spills over into advanced manufacturing, precision machining, construction, cybersecurity, and clean-technology services. Durham’s proximity to ports, highways, rail lines, and airports only amplifies this advantage. If Canada is serious about rebuilding industrial capacity, Durham is not peripheral. It is a strategic hub. The Reindustrialization Opportunity Canada’s productivity problem is not caused by a lack of talent. It is caused by a lack of scale, certainty, and long-term thinking. Nuclear energy addresses all three; and Durham is where the benefits are most visible. The refurbishment of Darlington and Pickering has sustained thousands of high-quality jobs and generated billions of dollars in economic activity. More importantly, it has demonstrated that Canada can still execute complex, multi-decade infrastructure projects on time and on budget; a claim too rarely made in recent years. That achievement sends a powerful signal to investors: this is a region where large projects can be built, operated, and maintained with confidence. In a world where capital is mobile and competition is intense, that signal matters. Small Modular Reactors and Durham’s Next Chapter Looking ahead, Durham Region is uniquely positioned to play a leading role in Canada’s next nuclear chapter: small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs are not a distant concept. They are an industrial opportunity. Designed for flexibility and scalability, they can power hydrogen production, data centres, advanced manufacturing, and industrial facilities across Ontario, while also providing clean energy solutions for remote and northern communities. Durham already has what most regions lack: nuclear expertise, regulatory familiarity, established supply chains, and public understanding of the industry. This gives it a decisive head start as Canada seeks to move SMRs from concept to deployment. Durham could become a centre of SMR engineering, training, and manufacturing; exporting not just electricity, but knowledge, skills, and technology. Jobs That Sustain Communities Nuclear energy is often discussed in terms of megawatts and emissions. In Durham, its value is measured in livelihoods. Nuclear jobs are not precarious. They are long-term, highly skilled, and well compensated. They support apprenticeships, sustain local businesses, and anchor families in the community. Unlike many sectors in today’s economy, nuclear work cannot be easily offshored or automated away. For a region experiencing rapid population growth, housing pressure, and infrastructure demands, this stability is essential. Industrial revival is not just about GDP; it is about sustaining communities that work. Addressing the Critics—Locally and Honestly Durham residents are no strangers to nuclear energy. They live with it, work with it, and understand it better than most Canadians. That lived experience cuts through abstract fear. Canada’s nuclear safety record is among the strongest in the world. Facilities like Darlington and Pickering operate under one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes anywhere. Waste management, often portrayed as an unsolvable problem, is a challenge of governance and political resolve but not of engineering capability to recycle. The greater risk for Durham, and for Canada as a whole, is not nuclear power. It is stagnation. Regions that fail to anchor themselves in the next wave of industrial activity will watch opportunity pass them. A Regional Model for a National Strategy Durham Region offers Canada a template for industrial renewal: reliable nuclear energy, skilled labour, integrated supply chains, and long-term planning. What is missing is not capacity, but political ambition. Canada can choose to treat nuclear energy as a legacy sector to be managed cautiously; or as a strategic asset to be expanded confidently. If it chooses the latter, Durham should be at the centre of that vision. Industrial revival will not be built by slogans or subsidies alone. It will be built by regions that can deliver power, skills, and confidence at scale. Durham already does. The question is: are political leaders at all levels finally prepared to listen and act to develop the remarkable, resource-rich country that Canada truly is?

DESPERATE MOVE…

DESPERATE MOVE... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Whitby Council has called on the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to remove the GST/HST from all newly-built or substantially renovated homes purchased from the builder as primary residences in Ontario. This in my opinion is a sign of desperation by Whitby. 1st. Who ever came up with this does not understand the bigger picture. The problem with affordability is not the HST. The problem is the prices in comparison to incomes. This move by Whitby shows the lack of desperation and leadership. 2nd, If Whitby is so concerned over affordability. They should have pressured the builders to drop prices... After all. I am sure you can run a type of auction mentality when it comes to who can build where. NO instead the municipality attempts to make the problem political instead of economic and beneficiary to those suffering at the hands of over priced developers and mortgage companies. Staff was directed to send the resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, Federal Ministers of Finance, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, and to the Premier of Ontario and Ontario Ministers of Finance, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Whitby MP and MPP, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and to all municipalities in Ontario. In Whitby’s desperation... they forgot to cc. To God himself. These type of move by municipalities showcase the lack of Leadership. Roy in my opinion has to go. The current GST/HST rate on new homes in Ontario is 13 per cent, which adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical home. The existing federal and provincial HST rebates on new homes purchased from the builder are limited by purchase-price thresholds, with most new homes in Ontario priced above the level required to qualify for meaningful relief, thereby limiting their effectiveness in improving overall housing affordability, a town statement pointed out. With this said. You can write all the letter you want to the Feds and they will surely use it for toilet paper as the builders are within the rules of the game set out by the Feds. Then the real beef should be with the builders that inflate prices in order to stay above the threshold. The federal and provincial governments have proposed new GST/HST rebates only for first-time homebuyers purchasing from the builder a newly built or substantially renovated home. In other words. It favor no one. Specially new home buyers. According to research conducted by the Ontario Homebuilders’ Association, first-time home buyers currently represent approximately 5 per cent of the new home market. Once again. Whitby’s attempt are nothing but an attempt to politically grandstand during an election year. Here is my suggestion if I had the priviledge of being elected. 1st. Cap home values in the municipality. You don’t like it go build some other place. 2nd. All builders would have to pay a community surcharge for future affects of their developments. Make them pay for destroying our municipalities. They want to make money. So should we. 3rd. The government is forcing municipalities to build, build, build. They put all kinds of pressure and up to incentives. This is wrong. In order to lead we must play within the rules... We can’t win as a single municipality. We must learn to work with the rules stipulated. In this case. The problem with housing is not so much availability as it is affordability. Who can affor a million dollar income on one salary? Who can afford the down payment? Who can afford the taxes and all the other things that go along with a mortgage and home ownership? Then if this stand true. What is the real reason of sending a meaningless letter to the Feds to get rid of the HST. It has no purpose other than a political move during an election year. This bringing me to my point. We must get rid of all incumbents and start fresh. Most on most councils are either careered politicians, pension fluffers and or sitting on the top of their personal achievement mountain. Look where most of them end up working after politics. We need to elect people from the business community. Front line soldiers that know the value of a dollar. Someone that can be atoned to the harsh economy. I know that if I had won in 2022. I would have kept taxes at zero increase during my administration. I would have cut waste all around. If you can run a business you can run the corporation of any municipality. Let’s stop electing those that have no real life business savvy.

Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians

Not Far Right. Just Fed Up. A View From Regular Canadians By Dale Jodoin Columnist I want to write this the way people actually speak when the microphones are off and the cameras are gone. Not as a lecture. Not as a warning. Just as a person who has listened long enough to notice a pattern. Something is shifting, and it has nothing to do with secret symbols, coded music, or hidden messages in culture. It has everything to do with trust being broken. Lately, large left leaning newspapers keep telling us the same story. They say the far right is quietly creeping into everyday life. They say it hides in jokes, fitness videos, clothes, online influencers, and casual conversation. They say regular people do not even notice it happening. They warn us to be afraid of our own culture. But that story does not reflect what people are actually living through. What I hear from Canadians is not fear of one another. It is frustration with a system that no longer feels fair. People feel talked down to. They feel managed instead of represented. And when they try to speak honestly, they are immediately labeled. That label is always the same. Far right. The term used to mean something serious. It described real extremism. Today, it is used as a shortcut to shut down debate. If you disagree with government policy, you are far right. If you question new laws, you are far right. If you worry about your children, you are far right. Once that word is applied, discussion ends. That is not journalism. That is social pressure. Most of the people being described this way are not radicals. They are parents trying to raise kids in a confusing world. They are workers watching prices rise while services fall apart. They are seniors scared to get sick because health care is overwhelmed. They are immigrants who came legally and feel angry that fairness has been replaced by chaos. These are not people being pulled into some dark movement. These are people paying attention. The idea that everyday culture is being infiltrated suggests that citizens are passive and easily fooled. It assumes people cannot think for themselves. It assumes they need to be protected from their own thoughts. That attitude alone explains why trust in the media is collapsing. Canadians know when something feels off. They know when the rules apply differently depending on who you are. They know when crime is explained away while victims are ignored. They know when speech is policed more harshly than violence. Young people see this clearly. They are not being radicalized. They are watching adults argue while institutions fail. They see fear used as a tool. They see words redefined. They see silence rewarded and honesty punished. Many of them are stepping back, not because they believe something extreme, but because they do not trust the system to treat them fairly. That is not dangerous. That is rational. Immigration is one of the clearest examples of how honest discussion has been poisoned. Canada has always welcomed newcomers. That has not changed. Most Canadians still believe in immigration done properly. What people object to is scale without planning, promises without infrastructure, and rules that no longer apply equally. Mass immigration without enough housing drives prices up. Without enough doctors, it overwhelms health care. Without honest expectations, it creates tension. Saying this is not hatred. It is reality. Yet if you raise these concerns, the response is not discussion. It is an accusation. Parents face the same problem. Many feel they have lost their voice. They are told not to question schools. They are told concern is harm. They are told to trust systems that refuse transparency. When parents push back, they are treated as dangerous. This creates fear, not progress. Across Europe, citizens are expressing the same frustration. They are not marching for hate. They are voting for change. They are asking for borders that work, laws that apply equally, and leaders who listen. When they do, media voices warn the public to fear them. That reaction reveals more about power than about people. What is really happening is not a rise of extremism. It is a collapse of patience. People are tired of being blamed for problems they did not create. They are tired of being told silence is kindness. They are tired of being managed by narratives instead of served by policy. This is no longer about left versus right. That argument is outdated. This is about citizens versus systems that forgot who they exist for. The people being called far right do not share one ideology. They share a sense that something fundamental is being lost. Fairness. Balance. Common sense. The ability to speak without fear. They stand against real antisemitism and real racism. They stand with Jewish Canadians who feel unsafe. They stand with Muslim Canadians who came here for freedom and peace. They stand for freedom of worship and equal law. They do not want chaos. They want stability. Calling people names will not fix housing. It will not fix health care. It will not protect children. It will not reduce crime. It only deepens resentment and destroys trust. The real danger is not culture being influenced. The real danger is citizens no longer believing those who claim to inform them. When people stop trusting media and government, society weakens. People withdraw. Conversation dies. People know when headlines do not match their lived experience. They know when fear is being sold as concern. They know when power is protecting itself. That awareness is not frightening. It is necessary. Canadians are not far right. They are not far left. They are tired of being bullied by language and ignored by policy. They are simply asking to be treated like adults again. That is not extremism. That is a country quietly but firmly asking to be heard.

A LOOK AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF CANADA’S DECLINE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2025

A LOOK AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF CANADA’S DECLINE BETWEEN 2015 AND 2025 NATIONAL POST COLUMNIST TRISTAN HOPPER released a short work of roughly 164 pages last April entitled ‘Don’t be Canada: How the Great White North did Everything Wrong all at Once.’ In it, he says Canada has mismanaged several critical issues compared to other developed nations, including drug and crime policies, euthanasia, health care, transgender policy, the judiciary, and housing. “We just sort of became wildly complacent and got into a headspace that we were special, we were Canadian, we had a functioning society, and ... we didn’t have to defend it,” Hopper said in an interview with the Epoch Times. His work makes for interesting reading, and it reminded me of an earlier volume penned by author and journalist Kenneth McDonald, a copy of which I bought during my time as a college student in Toronto. McDonald’s work is entitled ‘His Pride Our Fall: Recovering from the Trudeau revolution.’ It’s a critique about Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, and the damage that resulted from 16 years of Trudeaumania when, as prime minister, the elder Trudeau made himself a nuisance by inserting the tentacles of government where they had no place to be – in the private lives of ordinary citizens. Once a thriving nation, Canada has seen a steep erosion in prosperity and security since 2015 as a direct result of self-inflicted policy failures. My column this week will highlight some of the philosophical extremes from the first Trudeau ‘legacy’ which ultimately gave rise to the disastrous sequel, during which time Justin Trudeau aggressively pursued a vision of Canada that has left us with a crippling debt, an ever-expanding government, and a variety of misguided policies on immigration, justice reform, and gender issues – just to name a few. Let’s begin by identifying the state, or what I like to refer to as Big Government, for what it is; a massive regulator of all things – a sort of untamable master exercising full dominion over its people. Those are my words, however Kenneth McDonald offers the following analysis: “The secret of (the state’s) power lies in its very remoteness. “It is one thing to refrain from advising the man next door, whom we know. “It is another thing altogether to compose a set of regulations for people collectively…not in order to create wealth, but to regulate the private citizens who are engaged in wealth creation.” When the growth of the state passes beyond control, as ours has, it becomes a law unto itself. Justin Trudeau enjoyed a powerful opportunity to bring forward a self-satisfying process of dismantling a nation that he described in a 2015 interview with The New York Times as “a country with no core identity, no mainstream…" which he said made it the "first post-national state". As ludicrous as that sounds, it has its origins in Pierre Trudeau’s own policies - most notably official multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – both of which were manifestly created to shift the Canadian identity away from its traditional Eurocentric and Common Law heritage towards a more civic framework based on universal liberal values. In 1971, Trudeau introduced official multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. This policy was revolutionary because it decoupled state and culture, and It asserted that no single cultural entity could (or should) define Canada. It was an attempt to actually delegitimize – in his view - the idea of a "core" national identity. As most of us now realize, encouraging diverse ethnic groups to preserve their own heritage has not resulted in a peaceful Canada enjoying some sort of fictional mosaic. Rather, we have become a series of politically armed cultural camps – each one jostling the other in an attempt to gain power and control. On the matter of our economy, or more to the point, what’s left of it, we can look back to 1971 when the prevailing wisdom among Trudeau’s inner circle suggested that, to one who sees some people as poor while others are rich, it may seem obvious that the rich should share some of their wealth – and if they are at all reluctant, surely a just society would require (force) them to do it. From this rather frightening inclination sprung the idea within the Liberal Party – one that remains central to their manifesto – that state socialism is, in itself, part of the ‘age of miracles’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's premiership (1968–1984) marked a definitive shift toward structural deficit spending in Canada. The federal government had carried debt since Confederation (1867) to finance nation-building and wars, however, Trudeau oversaw a period of nearly continuous and rapidly increasing budget deficits – a tradition carried on by his son and political heir, Justin. Trudeau the elder’s first budget ran a deficit of $667 million, and as a result of his spending habits, Canada's national debt increased from approximately $18 billion to over $200 billion, representing a more than tenfold increase, or roughly 700% in nominal terms. Not to be outdone by his father, Justin Trudeau’s first budget saw a deficit of $19.0 billion after accounting adjustments, and during his ten years in office, the total debt in Canada nearly doubled, reaching approximately $654.2 billion by the end of the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Like father, like son. Of course, one cannot attempt to highlight the more disastrous aspects of the Trudeau-x2 legacy without referencing the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a legal instrument that has caused significant damage to our justice system by having shifted too much power to unelected judges, allowing them to overrule the will of democratically elected legislatures. Charter challenges can be lengthy and complex, contributing to delays in the justice system - but more importantly, certain judicial interpretations of the Charter have made it much more difficult to secure convictions for serious crimes. Now isn’t that just great. Once again, not to be outdone by his father, Trudeau the younger made his own legal mess through a determination to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearms offences, and to codify a ‘principle of restraint’ into law which encouraged granting bail at the earliest opportunity. Fast forward to today and we all know the results of his "soft-on-crime" ideology and the disastrous outcomes that have allowed repeat offenders the freedom to commit more crimes. And yet, in spite of the damage left by these two men, there exists an element within Canadian society who refuse to accept certain realities, preferring instead to hold on to a collective dream where peace and love and good intentions are all that is needed. God help them – and indeed, the rest of us.

Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office

Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada does not lack political talent. What it increasingly lacks is political leaders who have lived meaningful working lives outside politics before asking voters for power. Over the past two decades, Ottawa has quietly normalized a narrow career pipeline: university, partisan internship, political staffer, senior adviser, nomination contest, elected office. Many MPs now arrive in Parliament fluent in messaging, strategy, and procedure—but unfamiliar with payrolls, private-sector risk, frontline public services, or life outside the political bubble. This is not renewal. It is monoculture. If Canadians want better policy and greater public trust, political parties should adopt a clear expectation: no one should run for elected office without substantial work experience outside politics. Not as a symbolic suggestion, but as a serious norm shaping nominations and political culture. A Closed Political Ecosystem Ottawa has become an echo chamber. Political staffers work long hours, but within a narrow universe dominated by polling, communications strategy, stakeholder optics, and partisan warfare. Over time, reality is filtered through briefing notes rather than lived experience. This helps explain why governments increasingly confuse announcements with outcomes. Billions are “invested,” strategies unveiled, targets proclaimed—yet housing remains unaffordable, infrastructure projects run late and over budget, and health-care access deteriorates. Politics becomes performative, while results lag. When people who have never left the bubble write the rules, they often mistake motion for progress. They know how to manage process, but not consequences. Why Outside Work Experience Changes Judgment There is a fundamental difference between studying how the economy works and participating in it. Someone who has run a small business understands regulatory burden in their bones. Someone who has managed people knows that labour shortages are not solved by press releases. A nurse, teacher, engineer or tradesperson understands burnout, staffing gaps, and operational reality in ways no departmental memo can capture. These experiences create judgment. They teach trade-offs, limits, and humility. They discourage ideological rigidity and bureaucratic fantasy. Canada’s political class increasingly lacks this grounding. Too many MPs arrive skilled in social media but inexperienced in balance sheets. Too many cabinet ministers have negotiated caucus politics but never negotiated a commercial contract. Too many critics of “corporate greed” have never tried to keep an enterprise alive through inflation, interest-rate shocks, and supply-chain disruptions. This gap shows up in policy failure after policy failure—across party lines. Policy Made by People Who Don’t Bear Its Costs Consider housing. Ottawa produces endless plans, funding envelopes, and targets, yet affordability worsens. Why? Because policymakers underestimate timelines, misunderstand incentives, and overestimate state capacity. Few have ever tried to build anything—literally or figuratively. Consider infrastructure. Anyone who has managed projects outside government knows that missed deadlines and cost overruns carry consequences. In Ottawa, they generate reviews and task forces. Consider health care. Decisions about staffing models, compensation structures, and reform are routinely made by people who have never worked a night shift, covered for a sick colleague, or faced a waiting room full of frustrated patients. These failures are not abstract. They shape daily life for millions of Canadians. And they are exacerbated by a political class trained in politics before life. A Crisis of Representation There is also a deeper democratic cost. Voters increasingly distrust politicians not only because they disagree with them, but because they do not recognize them. When candidates have spent their entire adult lives in politics, empathy sounds rehearsed. Outrage feels performative. Solutions feel disconnected. Canada once sent farmers, factory workers, engineers, nurses, entrepreneurs, and veterans to Parliament in large numbers. Today, staffers and lawyers dominate. Both groups have value—but neither should dominate to this extent. Politics should not be a profession you enter before you have lived under the rules you intend to write. Answering the Objections Defenders of the status quo argue that political staffers gain deep insight into how government works. That is true—but incomplete. Knowing how to move a file through a department is not the same as knowing whether the file makes sense in the real world. Others worry that valuing outside experience could disadvantage young or marginalized candidates. In reality, the current system already favours those who can afford low-paid internships and precarious Hill jobs in expensive cities. Valuing experience gained in trades, community work, small business, or frontline services could broaden—rather than narrow—the pool. This is not about age. It is about perspective. How Parties Can Act—Now This reform does not require new laws. Political parties control nominations. They could: · Discourage staffers from running without a minimum period in non-political employment; · Explicitly value outside work experience in nomination criteria; · Introduce cooling-off periods between senior staff roles and candidacy; and · Require transparent disclosure of candidates’ work histories so voters can judge for themselves. None of this bans anyone from running. It simply changes incentives—and expectations. A Healthier Politics Political staffers are not the problem. They work hard and are essential to democracy. However, working in politics is not the same as living outside it. Canada would be better governed if fewer politicians learned politics first and life second. Until then, Ottawa will remain trapped by its most dangerous illusion: that understanding government is the same as understanding the country. Before we trust people to run Canada, we should insist they first live in it—beyond the bubble. Hope somebody will listen.

A FEW PEOPLE AND EVENTS THAT APPEARD IN THIS COLUMN IN 2025

A FEW PEOPLE AND EVENTS THAT APPEARD IN THIS COLUMN IN 2025 HOW WE PERCEIVE THE ACTUAL SPEED OF TIME will very likely be influenced by our attention, emotions, and the inevitable series of events - whether good or bad - that conspire to shape our memories year after year. The age-old saying ‘time flies’ has never been more real for me, personally, since I began writing a weekly column for this newspaper. Constant research and the reality of having to meet a deadline every Friday has created a sort of whirlwind of activity that goes far beyond just keeping up with the news. Writing what has amounted to 55 essays on the issues of our time has definitely been a rewarding, if daunting task. For the purposes of what will be my last column for 2025, I decided to look back at some of what has transpired in local and regional politics. I now invite you to tag along with me for a short while as we consider the merits or otherwise of what amounts to a brief ‘Year in Review’. January began with Oshawa’s Mayor Dan Carter literally walking out of a committee meeting in a huff following repeated exchanges with the chair, councillor Derek Giberson. Up to that point, the Mayor had been acting as councillor Giberson’s political benefactor, and to see them at odds was a defining moment that foreshadowed a deteriorating working relationship for the rest of 2025. Meanwhile in Pickering, the new year kicked off with the publication of a YouTube video dedicated to exposing what Mayor Kevin Ashe described as “…a growing infiltration of alt-right individuals, ideologies, and influences” within his municipal arena. The video, aimed at Ward 1 city councillor Lisa Robinson, was created in a style similar to a television docudrama, complete with background music and a narration by staff. 580 days of docked pay so far haven’t been enough to put the brakes on the Ward 1 councillor’s determination, and she and her opponents still seem to be headed for some kind of final showdown. A real nail-biter, to be sure. Also in January, Durham Region councillors were seen to hold their noses and actually vote in favour of investigating the construction of a $1-Billion gondola transit system along Oshawa’s Simcoe Street corridor, extending from Lakeview Park right on up to Durham College. “We understand the public is going to be skeptical and council is going to be skeptical. It’s a new technology,” said Durham Region’s David Dunn, who gave the update on the Transit Study. “A large part of our plan moving forward will be in educating people so they can make informed decisions and they don’t just see this as a novel approach.” Good luck with that Dave, however, I for one can’t wait for the inevitable CBC documentary entitled “Gondola Apocalypse – An Oshawa Nightmare.” Should they in fact turn this story into a television movie, I can envision Dave’s character being played by Mike Myers of Austin Powers fame. Remember the famous line, “I hope I didn't just say that all out loud just now”? Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in his 1842 poem Locksley Hall, gave us the line, "In the Spring a young man's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.” Well, in Oshawa, Mayor Carter’s thoughts turned heavily towards flexing his own muscles as he warned Council that, “At this particular time, I have embraced the Strong Mayor Powers, and I just want to remind everyone of that.” Those comments were made as some councillors had the apparent audacity to challenge a few key components of his tax-and-spend agenda during a springtime debate. Undeterred, councillor Nicholson went on to move a motion that “Council recommends a budget increase target of not more than 4% in 2026.” This proposal was ultimately successful, but without the support of the Mayor and certain councillors apparently unwilling to rule out another major tax increase, including Derek Giberson, Jim Lee, and Rick Kerr. Fast forward to Christmas Day and you’d have seen councillor Nicholson on social media still enjoying his success in having given every Oshawa taxpayer a present containing a more moderate increase of 3.89 per cent. As to councillor Jim Lee, he was ultimately joined by his colleague Derek Giberson – both of them donning a Grinch’s hat while steadfastly refusing to abandon their career-ending desire for higher spending on the backs of Oshawa taxpayers. “You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch…” Spring soon turned into summer, and things got quite heated as to proposed changes to a municipal by-law governing the number and location of social services within Oshawa’s city limits. One councillor took his colleagues to task on social media by suggesting, “If tomorrow's Zoning By-law amendment passes…it will prevent any new social services operated by a non-profit or charity from opening anywhere in the City of Oshawa within an 800 metre radius of an existing social service…” Well, the amendment did pass, and a degree of sanity has been added to an issue that still wreaks havoc on the entire downtown. Of course, the By-law as it now stands is being challenged by one or more representatives of the alt-Left who enjoy a bit of theatre, however that’s not likely to sway anyone of good sense. Also occurring in the early days of summer was a memorable ‘epic fail’ over at the Heritage Oshawa committee, as certain members decided it was in everyone’s best interest to remove an architecturally significant home from a list formulated by volunteers in 1998 identifying properties that showed built-heritage value. What was most remarkable was the flippant manner in which committee member Sarah Smale apparently came to her decision. To suggest, as she did, that a mere drive-by glance was either in whole, or in part, a suitable method of deciding the fate of a historically unique structure was tantamount to a betrayal of her role to work at preserving Oshawa’s built heritage. For his part, councillor Jim Lee was nothing less than adversarial towards the committee itself, and I foresee many more unique properties being threatened by the wrecker’s ball as a result. So that brings us to the end of 2025 as we look to the year ahead. Time alone will reveal just how the ongoing saga over at Whitby Town Hall plays out between the Mayor and councillor Yamada – who has filed a human rights complaint in his ongoing attempt to become a political dramatist. What better than to act out your own screenplay? He may want to take notes as to the drama playing out in Clarington where a lawyer - who just happens to be an elected official - was arrested and charged with uttering threats. I used to enjoy making predictions about the people and events likely to make the news, however, as time moves on I have come to expect the unexpected. You know what they say – a week is a long time in politics. Happy New Year!

Why Big Science Matters

Why Big Science Matters By Diana Gifford We applaud people solving problems who are focused, efficient, and fast. But I was recently reminded that progress doesn’t always follow a straight line. Before investigators can conduct studies that yield breakthroughs, they often need others to finance and build major research infrastructure. It takes time, with various stops and starts, different collaborations often involving many institutions and countries, and not always a clear sense of direction. TRIUMF, Canada’s national particle accelerator centre in Vancouver, a partnership of 21 universities, enables study on the inner workings of atoms. The high-energy cyclotron technology developed there, and the specialists trained to use it, produce lifesaving isotopes used to diagnose cancer and guide treatment. As Dr. Lisa Kalynchuk, Vice-President of Research & Innovation at the University of Victoria, put it to me: “When you invest in scientific infrastructure, you’re investing in possibility. You can’t always predict where breakthroughs will appear – but you can create the conditions for them to flourish.” The Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon is a synchrotron – essentially a machine that bends electrons until they emit intense light. It was built to explore the physics and chemistry of advanced materials, enabling researchers to visualize viruses, investigate chronic lung disease, and understand how drugs interact with the body. Infrastructure constructed for physics and engineering research functions as a lab for understanding human life. The International Space Station is an example of extraterritorial international collaboration at the frontiers of scientific exploration. It is also a health lab. Astronauts lose bone density rapidly in microgravity, so efforts to keep them strong have helped with osteoporosis, frailty, and aging here on Earth. Ocean Networks Canada collects and shares data about all aspects of the ocean. The seas are a source of medicines for cancer treatment, new sustainable materials from kelp, renewable energy that reduces the negative health effects from burning fossil fuels, resources to reduce food insecurity, and adapting ocean life systems to better understand human health. The unusually large nerve fibres of squid, for example, made it easier for scientists to understand the electrical basis of the nervous system, knowledge that is shaping treatments for epilepsy, depression, and Parkinson’s disease. Some of the greatest breakthroughs in human health have arrived not by design, but by accident – provided an inquisitive mind was paying attention. Alexander Fleming wasn’t searching for the world’s first antibiotic when he returned from holiday to find that a wandering mold had killed bacteria on a petri dish. Yet penicillin went on to prevent more deaths than we can count. As Louis Pasteur once said, “Chance favors only the prepared mind.” Increasingly, big science facilities throw researchers from different domains together, triggering unexpected and important outcomes. These examples remind us why we must invest in large scale research collaboration even when the practical benefits are not obvious. It’s tempting to demand that every dollar be tied to a clear payoff. But history teaches the opposite. Discoveries emerge when we give scientists the freedom to ask bold questions, even ones that seem unrelated to human health. To insist that research must always serve a tidy, immediate purpose is to miss the possibility of much more. Most people will never see a cyclotron or synchrotron at work. Very few will set foot on the Space Station. But many are benefitting. The decisions made years earlier – that few noticed, debated, or celebrated – have delivered health advances that now touch almost all of us. The next time we hear about governments debating billions in scientific infrastructure, we might remember, these aren’t abstract investments. They are the seedbeds of discoveries that one day may save our lives. —————————————————————————————————————— 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

Many Canadians Take Extra Risks When Traveling Without Insurance

Many Canadians Take Extra Risks When Traveling Without Insurance By Bruno M. Scanga Purchasing travel insurance is one of the easiest decisions you will ever make. However, the sad reality is that many Canadians do not purchase proper coverage before they travel and, in some cases, medical expenses incurred in foreign countries have forced some families into bankruptcy. In 2009, CBC News reported that Canadians made nearly 40 million day trips or overnight excursions to the US.1 This number does not include the number of travelers going abroad for vacations or business functions. In 2012, the Toronto Sun reported that 6 in 10 people2 do not arrange for travel insurance coverage when leaving the country. Traveling without insurance is a risky venture and Canadians pay tens of millions of dollars each year for unexpected injuries or illnesses that require out-of-country hospital care; even if only for a day trip. Why Buy Travel Insurance? Nearly everyone insures their vehicles, homes, and life in the event of an accident, natural disaster or fire. So why are Canadians reluctant to buy travel insurance for the same reasons? Some think it is unnecessary; especially younger people who are generally in very good physical health. Others simply cannot justify the cost….that is, until they experience a problem when they are traveling. Here are a few reasons that you should invest in travel insurance: Provincial governments cover only minimal expenses for out-of-country healthcare. Claims for those expenses can take months or even years to be settled. Accidents happen. They do not discriminate as to who and where they will strike. Something as simple as a broken leg can cost upwards of $20,000.00 in foreign medical expenses. In some countries, medical facilities will refuse to treat those that do not have medical insurance coverage. Travel Insurance Providers Various institutions can provide travel insurance that is based on the length of travel, age and pre-existing medical conditions. Travel agents, insurance brokers and credit card companies offer insurance but it is important that you understand the terms and conditions and any exclusions that the policy may carry. A few of the many questions to ask are: Does the policy have continuous coverage while you are away and is it renewable if your stay becomes extended? Does the underwriter have a 24 hour, English, or French language emergency contact number? Do you have to pay for all applicable expenses and claim later, or do they pay the institution up-front? According to the Government of Canada’s website, the following incident occurred. ‘Gabrielle had insurance that lapsed three weeks before she was involved in an accident. Her Canadian family had to raise $300,000 over a three-day period to cover the costs of medical treatment and evacuation. Fortunately, she survived, but her family is left with a hefty debt to repay.’ 3 There are various types of travel insurance plans depending on your needs. Single and multi-trip policies as well as annual premiums are available. And if you are flying abroad, most plans also cover trip cancellation, loss or damage of luggage, flight, and travel accidents. Enjoy peace of mind with travel insurance for you and your whole family. Don’t risk the trip without coverage.

The New World Order Canada Is Walking Into

The New World Order Canada Is Walking Into By Dale Jodoin Columnist I keep hearing the same thing from people in parking lots, coffee shops, even at the checkout line when the bill comes up and everybody does that little sigh. Canada feels different now. Not in a good way. Not in a loud, dramatic way either. More like the air changed and you cannot quite explain it, but you know you are not imagining it. For a long time, Canadians believed their country was different. Not perfect, but different. You could speak your mind, go to work, go to church if you wanted, or stay home if you did not. You could start a small business with a bit of grit and a few tools. You did not feel like the government was trying to train you like a pet. That belief is fading. What is replacing it is control, wrapped up in nice words. Ottawa will tell you it is all for safety, fairness, and progress. Those words sound good. They always sound good. But the real test is not what the government says. The real test is what it builds, and how much power it gives itself to steer daily life. Start with the politics, because the politics explain the speed of everything else. The Liberals are sitting one seat away from a majority. That is close enough to change the whole mood in the country. It means they do not have to move like a careful minority government. They can move like a government that expects to win. Then a Conservative MP crossed the floor and joined the Liberals. Plenty of Canadians saw that and felt their stomach drop. I am not talking about people who live for party politics. I mean regular voters who picked a Conservative, and woke up to find their MP now wearing Liberal colours. You can call it legal, sure. But people call it a betrayal for a reason. Some people call it a traitor move. Not as a courtroom term, but as the kind of anger that comes from feeling like your vote got tossed in the trash. And even without a full majority on paper, the Liberals still get what they need because the NDP backs them on key votes. That is the part that drives people nuts. It feels like we are being governed by a majority government that did not actually win a majority. So now you have a government that is almost a majority, and a second party that keeps it standing. Then you look at the bills coming down the pipe and you think, of course they are moving fast. Who is going to stop them? This is where the bigger worry kicks in. It is not only about taxes or spending. It is about information. It is about what you are allowed to see, what you are allowed to share, and what you are allowed to say without getting dragged through the mud. Governments that want more control rarely admit it. They pick softer language. Online safety. Fighting hate. Protecting kids. You would have to be heartless to oppose the goals in a headline. But laws are not headlines. Laws are tools. And once the tools exist, they get used. Here is what I mean. Look at the online world. Streaming, social media, news. That is where most people now get information, entertainment, and even a sense of what the country is talking about. If you can shape that, you can shape the country without ever touching a ballot box. Bill C 11 brought the CRTC deeper into the streaming world. Supporters say it is about helping Canadian culture and Canadian creators. Fine. I do not hate Canadian culture. I want our artists to do well too. But here is the question people keep asking me, and it is a fair question. Why is the government getting closer to what I watch? Even if the goal is culture, the method is influential. When a regulator gets power to shape what is pushed and what is not, that is not neutral. And it is not only about music and movies. The same idea can be used later for other things, especially when politics gets heated, and politics always gets heated. Now look at Bill C 18, the Online News Act. The government said it was meant to support journalism. Newsrooms are hurting, so again, the headline sounds good. But what happened after should have Canadians wide awake. One major platform blocked news links in Canada. Another negotiated a payment system. So now news is caught in a tug of war between government rules and corporate decisions. Ask yourself what that does to trust. If the public starts to believe news depends on government designed systems or corporate deals, people stop believing the news is free. Even if reporters are doing honest work, the shadow hangs over everything. Then there is Bill C 63, the Online Harms plan. Again, the headline goal is to reduce harmful content online, protect kids, and hold platforms accountable. I do not know many parents who would argue with protecting kids. But the concern people have is simple. Who defines harm. Who decides what crosses the line. Who gets the power to punish and silence. Once the system exists, the definitions can widen. That is what history shows. It does not always happen in one big jump. It happens by small expansions that sound reasonable at the time. This is where people feel the walls moving in. They see laws that reach further into the online space, and they hear critics being called names instead of being answered. Racist. Extremist. Hateful. Dangerous. It is like the country has forgotten how to argue. Now it just labels and shoves. That is a big deal, because labels are a form of control. When a person fears being smeared, they shut up. When a worker fears losing their job because they shared the wrong opinion, they shut up. When a parent fears their kid will be targeted at school for repeating what they heard at home, they shut up. It is not freedom if you have to whisper. Religion is caught in this too, and Canadians know it even if they avoid the topic. Faith is treated like it is acceptable only if it stays quiet. The moment a religious belief clashes with the fashionable politics of the day, it is treated like a threat. People get told to keep it private, keep it hidden, keep it out of public life. That is not respect. That is tolerance on a short leash. Economic freedom is tightening at the same time, which makes everything feel worse. Small businesses are being buried under rules, fees, and costs. Big corporations can absorb it. Small shops cannot. That means fewer people taking risks, fewer new businesses, fewer local jobs. A country that makes it hard to build something trains people to depend on the system instead. Put all of this together and the picture gets clearer. A government one seat away from a majority. An MP crossing the floor that many voters saw as a betrayal. A second party that props the government up. New laws that push regulators deeper into streaming, deeper into news, deeper into what can be said online. And a culture that punishes disagreement with labels instead of debate. That is what people mean when they say Canada is walking into a new world order. Not secret meetings. Not science fiction. Just a steady shift where the state gets more say, and the citizen gets less room. The scary part is how normal it can start to feel. You get used to watching your words. You get used to saying, I will keep that to myself. You get used to silence. Canada is still free enough to change course. But that does not happen by accident. It happens when people notice the squeeze, talk about it plainly, and refuse to accept that control is the price of living here. Because once the country gets used to control, it rarely gives it back.

Year-End Tax Planning Ideas

Year-End Tax Planning Ideas By Bruno M. Scanga Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to all our readers!! The following are some ideas for individuals and business owners to reduce income taxes as 2025 draws to a close. Individuals should consider doing their RRSP contributions before the RRSP rush in the first 60 days of 2026. You can get better values by buying today than when all the last-minute procrastinators rush to buy their RRSPs in the New Year and temporarily push up market values. Another idea is to remember to top up any RESP contributions to take advantage of the 20% educational grant before year-end. While there is no technical deadline, it is best to spread your contributions out annually to a maximum of $2,500 to generate the maximum $7,200 in Federal education grants (plus any applicable provincial grants). If you have children in college or university, start looking at their earned income and whether they will have any unused tuition or other credits that can be used by the parents. Remember also to keep track of all receipts for expenses related to moving expenses to get the children to school as well. Consider delaying the purchase of any mutual funds in open or non-registered accounts until the New Year. Many funds pay year-end tax distributions in December and any purchases late in the year will get the same taxable distributions as those made in January. So check with your Advisor on the possible taxable distributions if any, on all such purchases before year-end. Finally, keep track of and gather all medical and dental receipts to see if you can get any tax credits for large expenses incurred during the year not covered by insurance. Business owners have a wider range of tax planning strategies available to them. Proprietorships can consider incorporating for 2025 if they are having a year of higher than normal income. The goal would be to reduce personal income taxes by having some of the business income taxed at the much lower corporate tax rate. Business owners can also reduce their taxes by income splitting with spouses or even teenage or adult children. The key is to make sure they are doing work for the corporation whereby the compensation is reasonable for the work being done. Consult your tax accountant for the CRA guidelines in this area. You can also start planning your income mix between earned income and dividend income. Some shareholders can receive dividends only and pay little or no tax on up to a certain maximum if they have no earned income. Recent Federal Budget tax changes to tax rates on retained earnings will affect this strategy so consult your tax specialist for their advice. Make sure you deduct as many of your medical expenses as possible in the corporation for those businesses that have Heath Spending Accounts. The medical expense is a deduction to the company, and the reimbursement is tax free to the individual with the savings being equal to something close to your personal marginal tax rate. Some other tactics to consider include taking or repaying shareholder’s loans from the corporation and making sure you pay the interest on any outstanding shareholder loans. The key is to get started before year-end to reduce your taxes.