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?

A Candid Conversation

A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Without question, it is a very different world today than the one I grew up in. I remember being a child living in what was then called uptown, it was actually the Yonge and Eglinton area of Toronto. It was a very modest upbringing. My parents worked hard to give their three daughters what they could. We all helped around the house, took turns doing the dishes and things to help our mom. We were respectful and obeyed the rules set out by our parents. We had one bathroom, one television and therefore had to agree on what to watch. Our parents set out most of the viewing schedule and I remember the whole family sitting around the living room watching Carol Burnett, The Waltons and many other entertaining programs. We as children didn’t use the phone much,we waited for someone to come knocking on the door to see if we wanted to play or we went door knocking ourselves. It was simple, stay close, come home as soon as the streetlights came on. At the time, we could not have imagined it being any different than it was. Progress to us (and to our delight), was returning to school in September to find a new piece of equipment added to the playground. For the many that grew up as I did in the sixties and seventies it is very hard to fathom what is going on with our youth today. Years ago, we thought that older people were looking to recruit the younger ones for their crimes and misdemeanors by telling them that they could not get into any serious trouble due to the young offender’s act.It would often be the case that a couple or a few named young adults would be arrested and we would see on the news that there was a young offender involved who could not be named. It seems that that is not even the case anymore. We see on the news on a regular basis, children as young as eleven and twelveare involved in horrific crimes and there are no older adults involved. Which begs the question, what the hell is going on with our youth?Where are the parents is one of the biggest questions that I hear posed when these stories hit the news. What is going on in homes across our region that would make these children think that it is okay to go out and commit the crimes they do? The most recent that comes to mind is the smash and grab at the Oshawa Centre involving a group of boys aged from 13-19. Then there are the 8 kids involved in the armed robbery of another youth on William Lott Dr. in North Oshawa. Here we had12-, 13-, and 15-year-old girls and boys. Back in the summer there was the swarming of a Pizza worker in south Oshawa that involved an 11-year-old boy and 3 girls aged 13,14, and 15. Most heinous of recent youth criminal acts is the elderly woman killed in frontof her home in Pickering by a 14-year-old boy in an absolutely unprovoked attack. Something needs to change. Now. People need to speak up.

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On November 4, Prime Minister Mark Carney will table his government’s first budget since assuming office. Canadians should be aware that this will not be a routine fiscal update. This budget will be nothing less than a test of credibility; a balancing act between urgent promises and the cold arithmetic of national finances. For years, Ottawa has grown accustomed to deficit financing as a political safety valve. Every government since the pandemic has justified red ink with appeals to crisis. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has found that the federal budget deficit will grow beyond previous projections. The total of just over $132 billion between 2025 and 2028 projected in Budget 2024 has escalated to the nearly $255 billion now projected for those years. Moreover, the debt-to-GDP ratio — the Liberals’ so-called “fiscal anchor” — is no longer guaranteed to decline. Much of this is driven by a considerable decline in federal tax revenues due to the personal income tax cut and other measures, as well as even larger increases in federal program spending. Total operating spending alone (excluding many federal transfers) is projected to be more than $10 billion per year higher than previously anticipated. Adding unannounced measures back into the PBO estimates will make cumulative deficits over the next four years exceed $360 billion—almost three times the amount last year’s budget anticipated. Even more concerning is the fact that federal debt is set to grow at a faster rate than the economy. In recent testimony to a parliamentary committee, the PBO noted that this was the first time in 30 years he had seen a projection where this key measure of fiscal sustainability continued to rise over time. Simply put, federal finances are at a precipice. This should trouble Canadians. Debt is not abstract. It is a mortgage on future taxpayers; a quiet siphon on every program we prize. The more Ottawa borrows, the more billions they sink into debt servicing, leaving less for housing, health care, or pensions. To govern as if fiscal gravity does not exist is reckless, and Prime Minister Carney knows it. Nowhere are expectations higher than in housing. For years, governments of all stripes have promised affordability but delivered little relief. Prime Minister Carney has already unveiled the Build Canada Homes initiative, a sprawling plan to accelerate construction. In this budget, the Liberals are expected to sweeten the pot with tax credits, subsidies, and incentives to coax builders and pension funds into action. However, here lies the contradiction: pouring billions into subsidies without tackling municipal bottlenecks, zoning gridlock, or labour shortages risks throwing money into a void. Canadians want roofs, not rhetoric. Unless Ottawa coordinates with provinces and cities to streamline approvals and mobilize labour, the housing crisis will remain a slow-burn national scandal. Also, beyond our borders, allies are losing patience. NATO’s 2 % of GDP target is no longer aspirational; it is a demand. The liberal government is poised to announce significant defence spending increases — new equipment, recruitment campaigns, and modernization of our aging forces. Canadians seems to be split on this. Many resent the idea of billions for tanks and jets while mortgages crush families. Yet the reality of a turbulent world — Russia’s ambitions, China’s assertiveness, American unpredictability — leaves Ottawa with little choice. Defence spending is not charity; it is insurance. Ignoring it only postpones and increases the bill. Whispers of a GST hike hang over this budget like a storm cloud. No government relishes raising taxes, but arithmetic is unforgiving. With deficits swelling, revenue must come from somewhere. Closing corporate loopholes, trimming boutique tax credits, and modestly raising consumption taxes are all on the table. Opponents will howl, but consider this: Canadians already pay the price of deficits, not in taxes today but in higher borrowing costs. A transparent, modest tax increase coupled with serious spending reform would be more honest than endless borrowing masked as generosity. Pre-budget consultations have revealed widespread anxiety about affordability. Groceries, rents, and energy bills are draining households. The government will likely respond with targeted relief measures — perhaps expanded child benefits or new credits for low-income families. These are politically irresistible, but they raise uncomfortable questions: how many more patchwork programs can Canada afford? And do such measures solve the underlying problems — productivity stagnation, weak wages, and supply shortages — or merely mute the symptoms for another year? For decades, Canada has lagged in productivity growth. Our economy too often relies on debt-fuelled consumption rather than investment. Prime Minister Carney, a former central banker with global gravitas, knows this better than anyone does. Yet productivity is the unsexy word missing from political stump speeches. If this budget does not deliver bold measures — from R&D incentives to trade diversification beyond the United States — then Canada will continue its slide toward mediocrity. Housing relief may win headlines; productivity reform would win the future. All of this unfolds under the shadow of minority politics. The Liberals must craft a budget palatable not only to their base but also to opposition parties whose votes are essential for passage. That means sprinkling in enough social supports to appease the New Democrats, while avoiding measures so fiscally reckless that Conservatives can paint the government as irresponsible. Budgets in minority Parliaments are less about economics than about survival. Yet survivalism cannot be Canada’s economic plan. Ultimately, the Fall Budget 2025 is a referendum on credibility. Can the Liberals admit that fiscal resources are finite? Can they deliver tangible progress on housing without throwing money into bureaucratic black holes? Can they prepare Canada for geopolitical storms while safeguarding households at home? Prime Minister Mark Carney’s reputation as a disciplined, globally respected technocrat will be on the line. If he bends to the temptation of pleasing everyone, the result will be a document that satisfies no one and deepens the deficit hole. If he seizes the moment with a clear, tough-minded plan — pairing targeted investments with genuine spending reform and honest revenue measures — he could reset Canada’s trajectory. This upcoming budget is not simply about numbers. It is about the social contract between Canadians and their government. Do we believe Ottawa can make hard choices, or only easy promises? Do we measure success by the billions spent, or by results delivered? Come November 4, Canadians will hear more than a speech. They will hear whether their government has the courage to level with them, or whether it will continue the comfortable illusion that Ottawa can spend without consequence. The country deserves better than illusions.

PULLING TEETH…

PULLING TEETH... By Wayne and Tamara I am employed by a dentist who is a specialist. He has a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality. For the most part the staff has learned to deal with this, but not accept it. The rest of the staff has been with him for years, as have I. Our boss is generous in many ways, but his behavior often leaves us wondering if it is all worth it. We are told to take an unpaid hour off for lunch, yet we are expected to pick up the phone and deal with his interruptions. The company he hired to do payroll handed us an office manual with the intended rules, yet it states they can change the rules at any time because he is an “at will” employer. I checked with a state agency and they agree. Everyone in the office is grateful to be employed, but at the same time we are frustrated by the lack of respect we receive from him and by the overall standards that apply to “at will” employees. When we try to talk to him on issues, we are reminded of our place in this office with a you-can-move-on-if-you-want reply. He knows that is not possible for most of us. What I’m looking for is guidance from someone at how to approach an unequal situation. Tabitha Tabitha, the great unspoken topic in psychology is dominance. People resist even bringing up the subject. What people are more than willing to talk about is communication skills. There the core idea is: I believe this, you believe that, and I can get you to change your actions through some words. It is all misdirection. If there were a simple way to make your boss agree with what you are saying, then you could, for example, make anyone come to your religion. All you would have to do is figure out the right words to say, and they would accept your way of thinking. Words don’t determine behavior, power does. In most situations, one person or group has power. What they say goes. People love to explain behavior in ethical, economic or social terms, but behavior most often comes down to a simple matter of power. The easiest representation of power is dollars. I have so many dollars, so I can send my kids to the best schools. You cannot. I can buy lobbyists and influence. You cannot. Rightly or wrongly, your boss has a sense of entitlement in the workplace. His people are telling him the legal minimum requirements he has to meet, and that is where he is drawing the line. Someone like you, in a subordinate position, can make inroads only by being creative. In a weak position, you must act like a martial artist. You can step to one side or use your opponent’s leverage against him, but a direct counterattack will not work. As a staff, find ways to minimize the lunch interruptions. On Monday one person might handle the phones; on Tuesday someone else. If one of you is disturbed at lunchtime, then find ways to lessen that day’s burden on her. Supporting and caring for one another will lessen the stress of the job. Since your boss has a generous side, try assaulting him with kindness. That often defuses people who are carrying an emotional load they cannot discharge. Even small actions, like bringing a plant to the office or voting for candidates who support your view of employee rights, will make you feel better. Some people reading your letter would count you lucky to be working in an educated, safe, clean environment. Many people work in dangerous environments for little pay. But what it comes down to is this. You know where your boss sits, you know where the law sits, now look for the parries and countermoves which work for you and the rest of the staff. Wayne & Tamara

Fights Over Drugs Have Enduring Meaning

Fights Over Drugs Have Enduring Meaning By Diana Gifford Every so often, history taps you on the shoulder. That happened to me recently when I discovered a book on the science, culture, and regulation of drugs by Professor Lucas Richert, a historian of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The book devotes its entire first chapter to none other than my father, Dr. Ken Walker — better known to readers by his penname, W. Gifford-Jones, MD. Richert’s book, Strange Trips, presents the history of recreational, palliative and pharmaceutical drugs and the tension in debates between evidence and opinion, compassion and politics. Readers may not know that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, my father became Canada’s most vocal advocate for the legalization of medical heroin. He had lost close friends to cancer and seen his own patients suffering in pain. At the time, heroin was widely used in Britain for pain control, yet Canadian patients were denied access. Why? Not because of science, he argued, but because of “political, not medical, decisions.” Richert captures this clash well. As one expert observed, “heroin is particularly good at inducing opinions which conflict with all the evidence and ‘evidence’ that is then moulded to fit the opinions.” My father’s campaign forced Canadians to ask: should terminally ill patients be denied effective relief because heroin carried a stigma? He didn’t stop with advocating for change in his column. He collected more than 30,000 signatures on a petition, received another 20,000 letters of support, and presented them in Ottawa to Health Minister Monique Bégin. He flew to the UK on a fact-finding mission, speaking with doctors, nurses, and patients. Scotland Yard officials, he noted, brushed off the claims of critics that medical heroin stored in hospital pharmacies would increase crime. They had far bigger problems to worry about. When political action stalled, he doubled down, placing full-page awareness ads in newspapers. In one, he accused opponents with the blunt headline: “Will the real hypocrites please stand up.” That kind of language didn’t make him friends in the medical establishment or in policy circles, but it drew public attention to the cause. Support began to build. Editorials in The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail endorsed his position, pointing out that British cancer patients had long had access to heroin without social upheaval. The Canadian Medical Association ultimately supported legalization, after uncovering how Canada had been pressured decades earlier by the United States into banning the drug. Dr. William Ghent, a leading CMA figure, didn’t mince words: “We followed the US like sheep, and now, like sheep, we’ve got their manure to deal with.” By the mid-1980s, the government relented. New trials were approved, and eventually heroin was legalized for cases of severe chronic pain and terminal illness. The fight didn’t end debates in palliative care, and experts then and now would argue the focus should be broader than drugs alone. But it was a turning point. Canada acknowledged that compassion had a place in drug policy. The debate continues today in a new form. Researchers now point to psychedelics such as psilocybin as tools to ease end-of-life distress, yet patients face the same barriers of politics, stigma, and delay. Humans often fail to learn from history, and as Richert’s book shows, the fight over heroin was just one of many stories. For me, it is a point of pride to see my father’s efforts remembered, not only as a medical crusade but as part of the larger story of how societies negotiate the meaning of medicine. Readers who want more detail can find a synopsis of Richert’s chapter, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, available through our website. ================================================================== This column offers health and wellness, not medical advice. Visit www.docgiff.com to learn more. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones

Calling Yourself 'Talent' Does Not Mean You Can Offer Value to Employers

Calling Yourself 'Talent' Does Not Mean You Can Offer Value to Employers By Nick Kossovan The job market is crowded with applicants claiming to be "talented." What's lacking are job seekers who provide concrete evidence of their skills and how their supposed "talent" has benefited their previous employers, rather than just making grandiose statements. Claiming you're talented is egotistical boasting, as if you’re a God-given prodigy. The word "talent" used to be reserved for artists. Today, many job seekers have adopted the feel-good trend of calling themselves "talent," conveniently ignoring the fact that employers don't hire based on self-proclaimed talent; they hire candidates with a proven track record of delivering results that positively impacted their previous employer's bottom line. Although believing, even imagining, that you're talented feels good, it can undermine your job search. · It's subjective: Calling yourself "talent" is engaging in an ego-boosting self-assessment that holds no real value for employers. Employers look for objective evidence of abilities, which few job seekers effectively showcase in their resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and interviews. · You sound conceited: Using pompous adjectives makes you seem arrogant and out of touch with what employers look for in a candidate. · There's no substance: Abstract labels don't convey the specific skills, experience, and dedication you bring to a role. When's the last time someone told you you're talented? In that moment, you felt good about yourself—maybe you're better than you thought. You've got something. Your ego eats it up. Believing you have talent is all about ego. An ego-driven, linear view of talent assumes that if I possess talent, then I'm "above you." Our assumptions about talent are often mistaken, and therefore, our assumptions about talent are frequently flawed, contributing to the disconnect between employers and job seekers occurring in the job market, which is counterproductive. In his 2020 book The Practice: Shipping Creative Work, Seth Godin writes, "It's insulting to call a professional talented. Skill is rarer than talent. Skill is earned." Acquiring skills requires effort and disciplined focus; hence, explaining the shortage of skilled individuals. Skills development involves repeatedly practising and failing. Unless you embrace this cycle until you master the skill and apply it (key) to produce results that employers need and want consistently, then no one, especially employers, will care about your "talent." Leon Uris, the author of Exodus (1958) and Trinity (1976), understood that calling yourself "talent" without working hard to develop that talent is just fooling yourself: "Talent isn't enough. You need motivation—and persistence, too: what Steinbeck called a blend of faith and arrogance. When you're young, plain old poverty can be enough, along with an insatiable hunger for recognition. You have to have that feeling of "I'll show them." If you don't have it, don't become a writer.” Talent alone is meaningless (read: of no value) without continuous effort to master it. I've met, as I'm sure you have, many people who claim to be talented, some even occasionally show their talent—like the numerous paintings I have hanging in my home from artistic friends—but they never find success. Why is that? Because they think that their "gift" is enough. Exhibit A: All the job seekers who say they are talented but can't convince employers how their talent would benefit their business. Achieving success, in any endeavour, including job searching, has never been, nor will it ever be, about talent. The key to success, for the most part, is strategic hustle and resilience to create what those who don't put in the work call "sheer luck." Was it Tiger Woods' supposed talent, gift, inclination, propensity, or aptitude for golf that created his extraordinary career, or his determination, which drove his intense practice habits, averaging more than 10 hours per day on the driving range? Wayne Gretzky, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Eddie Van Halen, Ernest Hemingway, Robin Williams, Philip Seymour Hoffman, a fully actualized actor-artist, and Serena Williams are just a few examples of people who transformed their innate abilities into huge success by working hard and making sacrifices most people aren't willing to make. If you've jumped on the "Let's call employees' talent' to boost their ego" bandwagon—talent still means employee, talent acquisition still means recruiting—ponder this humbling thought: no company has ever gone out of business because self-proclaimed talented employees left, thus why employers dismiss the veiled threat they'll lose "talent" over their return-to-office mandate or refusal to give in to specific demands. Employers also rightfully dismiss the unsubstantiated claim that their hiring process overlooks "talent." No job seeker, regardless of how talented or skilled they think they are, is an employer's 'must-have.' I'm a case in point; no employer has ever ceased to exist because they didn't hire me. The gap between job seekers and employers, that's causing much of the frustration and anger on both sides of the hiring desk, stems from job seekers believing they should be hired based on unsubstantiated talent. Your skills are your superpower! Demonstrating, through your resume, LinkedIn profile, and interviews, that you have the skills and experience to deliver the results employers need and want is how you speed up your job search. Leave the word "talent" to the artists. ___________________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids

Glamorizing Sexuality in Schools is Harming Our Kids By Councillor Lisa Robinson This year, it’s time to raise strong, confident children who know their value comes from being human — not from a label. As the 2025 - 2026 school year begins, parents, teachers, and students must ask: are we truly preparing children for life — or are we exposing them to confusing messages and adult agendas that could harm them? Schools should teach reading, writing, math, and character. Yet many classrooms have become social experiments, filled with identity labels, sexual themes, and divisive categories that pit students against each other. No child should ever be bullied or feel unsafe because of who they are. That is obvious. But the current approach is not protection — it’s confusion. It sends a message: some children deserve the spotlight, while others are invisible. Consider straight students who receive no recognition while other sexualities are celebrated. Every child wants to feel special, to be seen and recognized. When straight children are overlooked, some may go along with what is being presented — even if it doesn’t reflect who they are — just to feel acknowledged. That is not equality — that is favoritism. Glamorizing sexuality in front of children is not protection. It is adult content thrust on minds that are not ready. And then we wonder why anxiety, confusion, and even suicide rates among youth continue to rise. Parents need to be informed. Children should never be placed in situations where they are told to hide things or lie about what is happening in school. No safe, no good adult would ever instruct a child to deceive their parents — ever. Teachers, staff, and administrators must remember that respecting family boundaries is part of protecting children. If we truly care about children’s mental health, we must: Teach respect, kindness, courage, and resilience. Stop dividing students by labels and identities. Protect children from bullying without pushing ideology. Remind every child — straight, gay, religious, or non-religious — that their value comes from being human, not from a label. Remind children that it’s okay to be young. Childhood is not a rehearsal for adulthood — they do not need to rush into adult decisions or activities. Their childhood is valuable and deserves protection. Fantasy is not reality Every child deserves to be seen — not for a label, but for who they are. That is real equality. That is fairness. That is how we will actually reduce youth suicide — not by injecting identity politics into every classroom. Children need stability, not confusion. They need role models, not agendas. They need schools that build them up, not break them down. This school year can be different. It can be better. Let’s stop glamorizing sexuality. Let’s stop giving attention and praise based on who a child says they are attracted to. Let’s raise strong, grounded, confident young people who know they matter — not because of a label, but because they are human beings of infinite worth. Parents, teachers, and children: let’s put our children first this school year. Let’s make this a year of clarity, respect, and real support for every child. Let children be children “No label defines a child. No agenda owns their childhood.” - Lisa Robinson 2025 Then my name,”…… Kind regards, Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” City of Pickering “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

2025 - Canada Under Fire

2025 - Canada Under Fire by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As the summer plods along with challenging domestic and international problems, Canadians also face an unprecedented rash of forest fires with many communities affected from coast to coast to coast. It has really been a season and a year of extremes. Currently, Canada is in the grip of its second-worst wildfire season on record, with flames now stretching beyond the West into the Prairie and Atlantic provinces including Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre says 7.5 million hectares have already burned in 2025, surpassing the 10-year average and reinforcing warnings that wildfire seasons are growing longer, more destructive and less predictable. Regions such as Alberta have been hit hard, with significant damages reported in popular areas like Jasper. Over the past weeks, raging, out-of-control wildfires have forced tens of thousands from their homes nationwide. In Manitoba alone, the Canadian Red Cross reports that it has helped more than 32,000 people evacuated from about 12,000 households. Recent years have been particularly challenging, with 2023 marking the worst wildfire season on record, where approximately 16 million hectares were scorched. The previous year also saw over five million hectares burned, highlighting a troubling trend in wildfire intensity and frequency across the country. In summary, the wildfire situation in Canada is critical with extensive areas affected, requiring ongoing efforts to manage and contain the fires. Drought is one example of root causes of wildfires. Canada is a big place and it is always dry somewhere, but not like this year. Agriculture Canada's map shows most of the country was abnormally dry. Large stretches of the Prairies were under at least moderate drought conditions, reaching extreme proportions in southern Alberta. In British Columbia, once the "wet coast," 28 of 34 river basins were at the province's top two drought levels. Ranchers were selling cattle that they could not grow enough hay to feed, and low stream flows threatened salmon runs. However, the effect of the prolonged heat was not restricted to the land. Waters off all three Canadian coasts have never been warmer. Hudson Bay is up to 30 C warmer. The Pacific coast is between 20 C and 40 C warmer. Both the Atlantic and Arctic coasts are 50 C above average. Then there were the fires that spread smoke across the continent and into Europe, where "Canadian wildfires" made headlines from the New York Times to Europe's nightly news. All 13 provinces and territories have been affected, often at the same time. Tens of thousands of people have been forced from their homes, hundreds of houses were destroyed and firefighters have been killed. If we look at the history of forest and vegetation fires in Canada in general, since the 1970s and 1980s, the total annual number of wildfires in Canada has decreased while the total area burned has increased, though there is variability from year to year. The number and size of large fires has increased since 1959, and the average fire season has become longer by about two weeks. In Canada, wildfire season usually starts in May. The 2023 fires have been compared to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire and the 2021 Lytton wildfire, but the fires this year were second worse. When people revert to blaming the now well-known slogan of “climate change” perpetuated by humans, we might do well to consider that the so-called ‘climate change’ is a natural and cyclic phenomenon depending on many variables, including the path of the earth in space. At the same time we must not ignore the basic issue of forest management. It seems that the political elite and elite scientists do not see the forest for the trees. Lightning causes roughly half of all wildfires in Canada; lightning strikes and lightning-caused fires are happening more frequently. Lightning-caused fires account for about 85% of land burned, often occurring in clusters in remote locations. The other half of wildfires in Canada are human-caused, often unintentionally sparked by discarded cigarette butts, abandoned smouldering campfires, sparks from braking trains and the like. However, let us face it: forest management is also a big factor in the cause/management of wildfires. So here we are; because Canada's forest management has focused on fire suppression, dry vegetation has accumulated on the forest floor. Canada has generally stopped performing controlled burns, which help reduce the risk of larger and more dangerous fires. It is difficult to get permission for controlled burns, especially for Indigenous groups who have historically performed them and are such disproportionately affected by wildfires. Canada lacks a national firefighting service, and local resources are stretched thin due to budget cuts. Pollution due to a global increase in wildfires has created widespread, long-term impacts on human health. Due to wildfire emissions, Canada has broken its record for annual carbon emissions several times. Have any of the so-called climate scientists calculated the contribution of forest fires to the total carbon emissions in Canada? Well ???? Furthermore, is there anyone in government or the public service working on or even considering establishing better forest management practices; a service long neglected by all levels of government in Canada? The answer seems to be a resounding NO. They introduce carbon taxes in various hidden forms, they subsidize fashionable electric vehicle batteries and spend on other politically correct projects, when the recent rash of forest fires in Canada has broken the record on carbon emissions and has made us the laughingstock of the world. It is time to seriously consider and invest in better forest management, rather than continue to spend huge amounts of money overseas and on politically correct pet projects. The forests are burning and people are suffering from coast to coast to coast, while politicians and their advisers in the Canadian public service are fiddling. Enough is enough! Canadians can do without more Neros! What do you think?

They’re Turning Pickering Into a Nuclear Dump — And They’re Doing It Quietly

They’re Turning Pickering Into a Nuclear Dump — And They’re Doing It Quietly By Councillor Lisa Robinson Something is happening in Pickering, and most people don’t even know it. The federal government — through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has quietly approved a new nuclear waste storage structure at the Pickering Waste Management Facility (PWMF). You weren’t notified. You weren’t consulted. And unless you’ve been tracking federal regulatory bulletins, you probably didn’t even hear about it. But make no mistake — it’s happening. This facility is located right on the Pickering Nuclear site, just steps from the shoreline of Lake Ontario, and directly adjacent to residential neighbourhoods, schools, and parks. It’s operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), and is already used to store low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste — things like contaminated tools, filters, and building materials from inside the reactors. So what’s the big deal? This new structure is being built to handle waste from two sources: The decommissioning of Reactors 1 to 4 — which are already offline or being phased out. And — this is key — the possible future refurbishment of Reactors 5 to 8. Now here’s what they don’t want to say out loud: The refurbishment of Units 5 to 8 has not been approved. The formal application won’t even be heard until 2026. And yet — they’re already building the storage site for the waste it would create. This is what happens when decisions are made before the public has a chance to speak. The hearing is still a year away, but the groundwork is already being poured — physically and politically. Let’s talk numbers: Out of a city of over 100,000 people, just nine members of the public submitted feedback on this waste facility. Nine. There was no mailing. No town hall. No door-knocking. No real attempt to inform or involve the community. That’s not public consultation — that’s engineered silence. And while all of this is happening behind the scenes, look who’s suddenly setting up shop in Pickering: SNC-Lavalin — now rebranded as AtkinsRéalis — the same company tied to one of the biggest political scandals in Canadian history. They now own CANDU Energy, the engineering firm that handles nuclear refurbishments. They’ve worked on reactors at Bruce and Darlington — and now, they’re clearly positioning themselves to take on the refurbishment of Pickering’s Units 5 to 8. So let’s put it all together: A new waste facility has already been approved. A refurbishment that hasn’t been approved is being prepared for. A company with political ties is moving in early. And the people of Pickering have been completely cut out of the process. They’ll tell you this is about energy, progress, and modernization. But when radioactive waste is being stored beside homes — for reactors that haven’t even been given the green light — and residents aren’t even told? That’s not modernization. That’s a betrayal of public trust. Let’s be absolutely clear: This is not a done deal. The future of Units 5 to 8 is still subject to public hearings. But what’s being built — and who’s moving into town — tells you how little they care about what you think. So here’s what I’m asking you to do: Demand a public meeting. Ask OPG and the City why you weren’t consulted. File a Freedom of Information request. The paper trail matters. Talk to your neighbours. Most people still don’t know this is happening. Share this op-ed. Get the truth out before it’s too late. Make it clear: Pickering is not Canada’s nuclear dumping ground Email me your thoughts at lrobinson@pickering.ca “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023On And Rise Above It: Lisa Robinson 2023

World Fatigue: Blame the People

World Fatigue: Blame the People By Dale Jodoin There’s a quiet illness spreading across the Americas. It’s not the kind you can cure with a pill or vaccine. It’s called world fatigue, and it’s affecting millions of people—especially the regular, everyday folks who work, pay taxes, and try their best to live honest lives. World fatigue isn’t about being tired from work or chores. It’s a deep emotional tiredness. A kind of sadness mixed with frustration. It builds up every time you turn on the news or look at your bills. It’s the feeling of being blamed, day after day, for problems you didn’t create. And it’s wearing people down. Ask anyone around you, and they’ll tell you the same thing: “I’m just done. I don’t care anymore.” But they do care—they’re just overwhelmed. That’s world fatigue. And it’s growing. So where is this coming from? Part of it starts with the government and the media. They say they’re trying to inform us, but more and more, it feels like they’re trying to guilt us. We’re told that everything wrong in the world is somehow our fault. There are too many homeless people? It’s our fault. Is the planet changing? It's our fault. Minorities aren’t treated fairly? Again, our fault. The list goes on. The message is always the same: if you don’t feel bad, if you don’t do more, then you’re part of the problem. And while it’s important to care about others, what about us? Who’s looking out for regular Canadians—people who are barely making it through the month? Who’s caring for the seniors, the young families, the people who never ask for much? Instead, we’re called selfish. We’re told we’re the problem. But the real problem is this: people are burning out. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been pushed too far. Even schools are becoming places of confusion. Kids don’t learn basic life skills anymore. Many can’t read a map, balance a budget, or understand how taxes work. Teachers say their hands are tied. They spend more time explaining political ideas and social movements than they do teaching reading, writing, and math. Our kids are growing up with strong opinions—but no tools to live in the real world. And again, who gets blamed when test scores drop? Parents. Taxpayers. Regular people. One of the biggest signs of world fatigue is how cold people are becoming. Neighbours don’t talk. Families drift apart. People don’t wave hello anymore. It’s not that people have lost all compassion—it’s that they’re tired of always being told what to feel, who to support, what to say, and what to believe. And if you don’t follow along exactly, you’re labeled as hateful, old-fashioned, or worse. Even the gay community, which once stood for love and understanding, has now become a political symbol in many ways. Regular people aren’t anti-gay—they’re just tired of being told they’re bad people if they don’t cheer loud enough. We used to give more to our neighbours, to strangers, to people in need. But now, everything costs so much that people are forced to pull back. Groceries have doubled. Rent has tripled. Hydro bills climb while wages stay the same. People aren’t being greedy. They’re in survival mode. Meanwhile, the government sends billions to other countries. Billions more go to foreign aid, international programs, and global projects that have nothing to do with the average Canadian. By the time they finish giving it all away, there’s nothing left for us. Our roads crumble. Our hospitals are full. Our veterans sleep on the streets. And when we ask why, we’re told to be more generous. More kind. But what’s kind about ignoring your own people? World fatigue shows up in our minds and bodies. People are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated than ever before. Psychologists are starting to talk about it, even if the media doesn’t. They say the human brain can only take so much pressure, so much bad news, and so much guilt before it shuts down. That’s what’s happening now. People aren’t angry because they hate—they’re angry because they feel powerless. They’re tired of being told they’re the cause of all suffering in the world. They’re tired of politicians pointing fingers. They’re tired of media stories that divide instead of unite. At the root of it all is one big truth: most people just want their lives back. They want to go to work, raise their kids, enjoy their weekends, and not feel like they’re under attack all the time. They don’t want to fight with neighbours. They don’t want to argue about politics. They don’t want to be called names just for speaking their mind. They want peace. They want fairness. And they want someone to finally say, “We hear you. We see you. And we’re sorry.” But that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the government pushes more rules. More taxes. More lectures. And every time a new problem comes up, they say, “If only the people had done more.” But we have done more. We’ve carried the weight for too long. We’ve stayed quiet. We’ve played along. Now we’re tired. Not because we’re cruel—but because we’re human This is the truth about world fatigue. It’s not a lack of love—it’s too much heartbreak. It’s not that we stopped caring—it’s that no one cared for us. And it’s time we said it out loud. We are not the enemy. We are not the problem. We are the people. And we want our lives back.

Is Canada Still the Country We Thought It Was?

Is Canada Still the Country We Thought It Was? By Dale Jodoin Over the past two decades, many Canadians have noticed something changing. The country feels less united, less fair, and more dangerous. Across schools, courtrooms, and political offices, a growing number of people are asking: Is this still the Canada we were promised? From weak school systems to unequal justice and a rising wave of climate extremism, some say Canada is heading down a troubling path. Across the country, teachers are struggling to keep control in classrooms. Over the years, school systems have shifted their focus—from discipline and structure to emotional comfort. Some students now feel free to yell, act out, or even threaten others without facing serious consequences. "Respect is gone in many classrooms," says one retired educator. "Students are told they’re always the victim, so they don’t take responsibility for bad behavior." As a result, many young people are growing up without learning how to follow rules, listen to others, or work through problems peacefully. This has led to more conflict—not only in schools, but also later in life. Canada’s legal system was built on the idea that everyone is equal under the law. But more people are beginning to feel that justice isn’t being served fairly. In some cases, the punishment depends more on who you are than what you did. Certain groups seem to get lighter sentences, while others face harsher ones. Scam artists, repeat criminals, and violent offenders are often released back into the community with little punishment. This has caused many Canadians to lose faith in the justice system. When people don’t trust the courts, they may feel they need to solve problems on their own. Canada’s political leaders once focused on building roads, creating jobs, and protecting families. Today, many seem more focused on headlines and global image. Regular people say they feel left behind—especially those in rural areas or working-class neighborhoods. While taxes rise and living costs grow, Canadians see billions spent on programs that often don’t help them. Many believe politicians care more about big business, foreign interests, or social media trends than about the average citizen. One small business owner shared: “It feels like the people in charge don’t even live in the same country we do.” Caring for the planet is a good thing. Most Canadians agree we need to reduce pollution and protect nature. But a growing number of people have turned climate action into something more dangerous. Radical groups have started vandalizing businesses, attacking pipelines, and even threatening people with different opinions. These acts aren’t peaceful protests—they’re attacks. Yet many politicians and media outlets avoid calling them out. “When you can’t question something without being silenced or punished, it becomes like a religion,” one analyst said. “And when people act on it with violence, that’s extremism.” Canada is not prepared for this new kind of domestic threat. Law enforcement often backs off. Politicians avoid speaking up. But the damage is real—jobs lost, property destroyed, and public fear on the rise. There is growing concern that young Canadians who still believe in fairness, law, and order will eventually give up on the system. They may stop voting. They may stop speaking out. Some may even feel forced to take action into their own hands when no one else will. That is when a country becomes unstable. “When good people stop believing the rules work, things fall apart fast,” said one retired police officer. “And that’s where we’re headed if we don’t fix this.” Can Canada Still Be Saved? Yes—but change needs to happen now. Schools must return to discipline, structure, and respect. Justice must be equal and fair for all—no matter your background. Leaders must listen to regular Canadians, not just activists or corporations. And Canada must be brave enough to deal with violent climate extremists the same way it handles any other threat. Canada is not just a flag or a place on a map. It’s an idea—one built on fairness, safety, and opportunity. But if we lose those values, we lose the country. There is still time to make things right. But it will take strong voices, open eyes, and a public that refuses to stay silent.

COVID ALL OVER AGAIN

COVID ALL OVER AGAIN By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Articles Published Columns in Canada and The United States Not even a day had passed, since the announcement of tariffs on imported goods from the United States...and the vultures hit center stage. Can we as a people be that stupid? Is the system so corrupt that they can treat us like such fools?. I guess Trump sees more than he tells when he addresses the 51st state governor Justin Trudeau. This 25% tariff in my opinion is nothing but a brilliant business move by Trump. He is doing it to Mexico, Canada, Ukraine, Panama, Greenland and most of the European Countries. It makes business sense. A way to even out the playing field and force Nations to become part of the world’s most advanced civilization. Here in Canada we are blinded by our own ignorance of the facts all around us. We are becoming a country that has allowed to become invaded from within. From the eat dog eat dog mentality shown in all political parties to the play on national pride. Something long lost and nothing more than a mere historical illusion being played in a society that has lost it’s direction and values. Now, we are at the mercy of a proposition that may make sense. That roots out our most intimate of nationalistic romance. That challenges us to think outside the box and consider becoming and evolving into something much bigger. As Canadians we do not have a clear National conscious. We are confused people that are desperately looking for direction and out of this fogged social mirage. Made up of misconception, forced compliance and never ending fear mongering. Look at the current fiasco. Politicians not knowing how to response to Trump creative business move. Canadian politicians are calling for Canadians to buy Canadian. That the new 25% tariff will create hardships. The question that lingers is? Why have Canadians not been buying Canadian all along. Answer is simple. Many Canadian companies charge much higher prices for the same American counter part. Now that we are being forced to buy Canadian. Do you think prices will go down? With the excuse of the tariff. Prices will continue to escalate. Why is it that the government not putting in place from the 5 Billion seized from Russian business a program to freeze Canadian made goods to the same as those that were brought in from the U.S. No but wait. Our 51 governor rather send that money to fund a loosing war in the Ukraine and force us to pay our way to our economic graves.

NEW DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ON ITS WAY -MERCHANTS CONCERNED OVER LOSS OF PARKING-

NEW DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ON ITS WAY -MERCHANTS CONCERNED OVER LOSS OF PARKING- By Dean Hickey THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GUIDE the approval of any new development within the city’s downtown core will, by necessity, demand a parallel review of the existing parking capacity upon which so many businesses and residents rely. With the future of Lot 4 now being debated by council, many among the various property owners, merchants, and those who frequent the area will doubtless be concerned as to the potential reduction in the number of available spots. The Economic and Development Services committee decided in early November to declare the surface parking lot at the north side of Athol Street, between Simcoe and Centre Streets, as ‘surplus’ in an effort to engage with those seeking to develop the property into something far beyond its current use. Due to the nature of the process which surrounds such negotiations and decision making, most of what has so-far been discussed has taken place in closed session, and the details have yet to be disclosed. It is known, however, that staff did recommend the approval of a specific proposal having been brought forward as a result of a targeted RFP (Request for Proposals) process, whereby consideration was given to a few select proponents. Committee members took a publicly recorded vote on the matter and, oddly enough, those who were opposed to the staff recommendation were Ward 4 councillors Rick Kerr and Derek Giberson. Both men represent the area that encompasses the downtown, and they are known as having competing visions for the city. Those differences will undoubtedly play a role in their responses to a recent petition that has been submitted to city hall on the issue of parking and the losses that may occur. A group of downtown merchants have signed the petition that reads as follows: “We hereby write, sign, and validate this document as a request…with regards to the acceptance of such project wherein consideration is given to the development of a Parking Lot in the area of Lot 4 in downtown Oshawa. The shortage of parking is NEGATIVELY affecting businesses and is resulting in loss of customers and loss of business revenue. Countless customers have expressed their frustration with the lack of parking, and after circling the downtown area and wasting over fifteen minutes, they give up and go somewhere else. If you want to see businesses grow and thrive in downtown Oshawa, you MUST provide parking. We NEED this parking lot to be built to accommodate customers driving from outside of the area and to generate more productivity in the neighbourhood and provide the potential of expansion for future projects. This is a basic necessity.” One property owner I spoke with, on condition of anonymity for the sake of his tenants, said “Anyone can see we have parking issues downtown. The City doesn’t have the money to do anything about it, so they’re relying on developers.” He went on to add, “Factor in the massive residential developments that are coming downtown and we are severely affected.” He expressed a high level of frustration over the City’s consultation process, telling me it’s quite simply insufficient. “They need better communications people, because we have a manager at city hall who is responsible for downtown business development, and nobody seems to know who she is or what she does.” That’s unfortunate, because the effects of an ever-shrinking supply of parking are being felt directly by those who are trying to make a living in the city’s core, and they need proper representation at the staff level. Supporting a blanket conversion of Lot 4 into other uses may be a recipe for advanced economic decline, if one also takes into account the proposal from the Provincial government for dedicated rapid bus lanes that will consume no less than 125 parking spaces when complete. If that wasn’t bad enough, consider the effect the widening of sidewalks along the north side of King Street has had on the number of spaces available, and the losses continue to mount. This is where the difference in vision between the two Ward 4 councillors may be considered. I was advised by one downtown merchant of a recent survey undertaken by councillor Kerr in an apparent effort to gauge just how troubling the whole parking issue has become. “Rick Kerr is all over this parking thing, and it’s like he’s on a mission” she told me as we discussed her most pressing concerns. Numerous factors have come together in recent years, causing a negative effect on her business. They include open drug use among the homeless, an increase in crime, and of course the slow but steady erosion of accessible parking for customers she says are uncomfortable walking any great distance, particularly as the daylight hours diminish at this time of year. I reached out to councillor Kerr for comment, and he suggested that “Our downtown businesses are stifled now by a lack of parking, for both customers and employees, and I can give you at least three examples. The first is the CIBC building, which has lots of available opportunities for future tenants, however they require reliable, available parking in order to successfully market their office space. Another example is the number of empty store-fronts where businesses have closed or relocated to other areas they see as more accessible. The third component is the lack of development potential for small-footprint buildings that cannot be converted or redeveloped due to their lack of anticipated parking requirements.” While I did not reach out directly to councillor Giberson, his public comments on the issue of mobility within cities, and downtowns in general, has been outwardly focused on the promotion of alternate forms of transportation. In one of his social media posts he offers the following, “It's great to see what Ottawa has been doing in substantially increasing their bike lanes, and they are proof that with time (decade+) and focused will (political, planning & engineering depts, community organizing, financial commitment), you can build up that network and make active transportation and public transportation…a viable alternative to car-centric mobility…” For many elected officials and urban planners, it has become fashionable to cast retailers and others who decry the absence of parking as being somehow biased in their perceptions and without proper appreciation for aspects such as bike lanes, which have certainly been in the news recently. Meanwhile, in the shops and offices downtown, those at ground zero can see for themselves exactly what the absence of a meaningful strategic parking initiative has cost them, and they’re tired of excuses from a bureaucratic and political establishment that lacks the necessary vision.

Canada –an independent nation

Canada –an independent nation by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East With the world in turmoil, Canada embroiled in political fights between the two parties which have traditionally ruled it, and our southern neighbor considering the imposition of a 25% tax on products from Canada under the new Trump administration, it is time to remember a little of our history and learn from our past leaders. Largely unknown and unrecognised by the vast majority of Canadians, the Statute of Westminster Day, celebrated on December 11th is nonetheless an extremelyimportant day in Canada’s history as a nation. The self-governing colonies of the British Empire, which included Canada, were known as the Dominions. Despite their right for self-government, the British parliament had considerable legislative authority over the Dominions. The situation was changed by the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which increased the sovereignty of the Dominions, giving them legal autonomy and making them essentially sovereign nations in their own right. However, at Canada’s request, the British parliament retained the power to amend the constitution of Canada for five more decades after the enactment of the Statute. The anniversary of the Statute of Westminster is celebrated in Canada every year, but it is not a public holiday, which means that government offices, educational establishments, banks, and businesses remain open unless December 11 falls on a weekend. To celebrate the day, the national flag of Canada and the Royal Union Flag, commonly referred to as the Union Jack, are flown side by side on federal buildings and establishments from sunrise to sunset. Please observe that this is the case in your community. In remembering the steps involved in the formation of the Canada of today, July 1, 1867, the day the Confederation of Canada came into being is generally considered the founding date of the country. However, at that rime the country still wasn’t an entirely “autonomous” nation. That came decades later, on December 11, 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster. The British law clarified that Canada and other Commonwealth countries have full legal freedom except in areas where those nations chose to remain subordinate to Britain. That Statute included the Dominion of Canada, the colony of Newfoundland (which would join Canada in 1949), the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State. Having garnered great respect internationally and a strong sense of Canada’s unique nationality as a result of the First World War, Canada signed the Treaty of Versailles ending that war as a separate nation from Britain, though this was not quite the case. During the following years, the government of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie-King sought the full rights of a sovereign country in creation of laws and foreign policy. The process had begun in the 1920’s when Canada signed a fishing treaty with the U.S without British participation, established an embassy in Washington, and decided not to assist a British occupation force in Turkey without the approval of Canada’s Parliament. However, the seeds for autonomy were sown in 1926 at the Imperial Conference when Britain’s foreign minister, Lord Balfour proposed that the Dominions be granted legislative autonomy. In 1929, Canada’s head of the Department of External Affairs, O.D. Skelton, attended the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation in London. Here the various resolutions proposed in 1926 were firmed up. In 1930 the various governments submitted terms of the future Statute to their Parliaments. Then on the date of December 11, 1931, the Statute was passed into law. While the Dominions accepted all resolutions, only Canada couldn’t determine a process to amend the Constitution. Thus, power to amend Canada’s Constitution remained under British authority until 1982 with the passing of Canada’s Constitution Act. In conclusion, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster is a key date that celebrates Canada’s legal independence from Britain. This day is important because it marks Canada’s legislative autonomy, allowing it to make its own laws without British approval. The Statute of Westminster was a pivotal step in Canada’s journey towards becoming a fully sovereign nation. Celebrations on this day highlight Canada’s identity and achievements. The statute is celebrated because it acknowledges the hard work and determination of Canadian leaders who fought for the country’s independence. It also serves as a reminder of Canada’s evolution into a nation that stands on its own while still being part of the Commonwealth. Our current leaders need to remember the work of their forefathers who guided Canada’s evolution to becoming an independent nation, They need to learn from our history, and possibly be inspired by the achievements of their predecessors. Instead of bickering in their ivory towers in Ottawa, our leaders should concentrate on developing new and inspiring objectives for Canada as a nation, working to evolve Canada into a leading nation of the world. What do you think?

Stop Asking Your Interviewer Cliché Questions

By Nick Kossovan Most job search advice is cookie-cutter. The advice you're following is almost certainly the same advice other job seekers follow, making you just another candidate following the same script. In today's hyper-competitive job market, standing out is critical, a challenge most job seekers struggle with. Instead of relying on generic questions recommended by self-proclaimed career coaches, which often lead to a forgettable interview, ask unique, thought-provoking questions that'll spark engaging conversations and leave a lasting impression. English philosopher Francis Bacon once said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." The questions you ask convey the following: · Your level of interest in the company and the role. · Contributing to your employer's success is essential. · You desire a cultural fit. Here are the top four questions experts recommend candidates ask; hence, they've become cliché questions you should avoid asking: · "What are the key responsibilities of this position?" Most likely, the job description answers this question. Therefore, asking this question indicates you didn't read the job description. If you require clarification, ask, "How many outbound calls will I be required to make daily?" "What will be my monthly revenue target?" · "What does a typical day look like?" Although it's important to understand day-to-day expectations, this question tends to elicit vague responses and rarely leads to a deeper conversation. Don't focus on what your day will look like; instead, focus on being clear on the results you need to deliver. Nobody I know has ever been fired for not following a "typical day." However, I know several people who were fired for failing to meet expectations. Before accepting a job offer, ensure you're capable of meeting the employer's expectations. · "How would you describe the company culture?" Asking this question screams, "I read somewhere to ask this question." There are much better ways to research a company's culture, such as speaking to current and former employees, reading online reviews and news articles. Furthermore, since your interviewer works for the company, they're presumably comfortable with the culture. Do you expect your interviewer to give you the brutal truth? "Be careful of Craig; get on his bad side, and he'll make your life miserable." "Bob is close to retirement. I give him lots of slack, which the rest of the team needs to pick up." Truism: No matter how much due diligence you do, only when you start working for the employer will you experience and, therefore, know their culture firsthand. · "What opportunities are there for professional development?" When asked this question, I immediately think the candidate cares more about gaining than contributing, a showstopper. Managing your career is your responsibility, not your employer's. Cliché questions don't impress hiring managers, nor will they differentiate you from your competition. To transform your interaction with your interviewer from a Q&A session into a dynamic discussion, ask unique, insightful questions. Here are my four go-to questions—I have many more—to accomplish this: · "Describe your management style. How will you manage me?" This question gives your interviewer the opportunity to talk about themselves, which we all love doing. As well, being in sync with my boss is extremely important to me. The management style of who'll be my boss is a determining factor in whether or not I'll accept the job. · "What is the one thing I should never do that'll piss you off and possibly damage our working relationship beyond repair?" This question also allows me to determine whether I and my to-be boss would be in sync. Sometimes I ask, "What are your pet peeves?" · "When I join the team, what would be the most important contribution you'd want to see from me in the first six months?" Setting myself up for failure is the last thing I want. As I mentioned, focus on the results you need to produce and timelines. How realistic are the expectations? It's never about the question; it's about what you want to know. It's important to know whether you'll be able to meet or even exceed your new boss's expectations. · "If I wanted to sell you on an idea or suggestion, what do you need to know?" Years ago, a candidate asked me this question. I was impressed he wasn't looking just to put in time; he was looking for how he could be a contributing employee. Every time I ask this question, it leads to an in-depth discussion. Other questions I've asked: · "What keeps you up at night?" · "If you were to leave this company, who would follow?" · "How do you handle an employee making a mistake?" · "If you were to give a Ted Talk, what topic would you talk about?" · "What are three highly valued skills at [company] that I should master to advance?" · "What are the informal expectations of the role?" · "What is one misconception people have about you [or the company]?" Your questions reveal a great deal about your motivations, drive to make a meaningful impact on the business, and a chance to morph the questioning into a conversation. Cliché questions don't lead to meaningful discussions, whereas unique, thought-provoking questions do and, in turn, make you memorable. _____________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

The True Bullies of Pickering: How the Mayor and Council are Abusing Power, Silencing Dissent, and Wasting Your Tax Dollars

By Lisa Robinson For over a year now, the mayor and fellow councillor’s of Pickering have relentlessly attacked me—not because I’m failing the people who elected me, but because I refuse to bow down to their political games and pander to their special interest groups. I’ve been sanctioned, stripped of my pay yet again for daring to speak up for the people of Pickering, for exercising my right to free expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This latest sanction—another three months without pay—marks a total of six months of financial punishment. This isn’t about accountability; it’s about intimidation. They want me to fall in line, but I refuse. The truth is, they’ve weaponized the Integrity Commissioner as their personal attack dog, pushing a one-sided narrative designed to discredit me. They twist my words, manipulate my actions, and suppress the voices of my constituents. Let me be absolutely clear: There was no legitimate investigation. This is a political hit job—a calculated attempt to silence me, to paint me as the problem, when the real bullies are sitting in council chambers. Think about it: if I didn’t care, don’t you think I’d just shut up and fall in line? Why would I keep working for free while they drag my name through the mud? I have nothing to gain from this fight, but they have everything to lose. I’m standing up for common sense for common people, while they cling to power and their self-serving interests, while catering to developers and special interest groups. The mayor himself has abused his power, using city staff on your dime—paid by Pickering’s taxpayers—to craft his 75 page witch hunt of manufactured complaints against me. And his bias is no longer just behind closed doors. On September 3, he openly stated he is biased towards me and that he doesn’t want to hear anything I have to say. What does that tell you? He is not just dismissing me—he’s also dismissing every voter who believes I have the right to be heard on their behalf. While they’re busy orchestrating this smear campaign, I’m out there doing the job I was elected to do. The day after they voted to strip me of my pay, I was the only member of council to show up at the “Pickering Forward” meeting, an important forum to hear what the people had to say about our city’s future. And where were the rest of them? They didn’t show because they don’t care about what you, the voters, have to say, and it wasn’t a photo opportunity. They’re more interested in silencing dissent and consolidating power than in listening to the people. What kind of leadership sanctions a single mother’s pay, knowing full well I have bills to pay, a mortgage to cover, and a family to support? They don’t care. Just imagine someone taking away your ability to pay for the roof over your head or to feed your family because they don’t like what you have to say. They would rather see me suffer, hoping to break me down so I’ll finally cave to their demands. This is not just an abuse of power; it’s vindictive harassment. They are unfit to lead—not just for their bullying and intimidation, but for their brazen attempt to lobby the Provincial government to change the Municipal Act. They want the power to remove elected officials who disagree with them—an assault on democracy. Worse still, they want to ensure that anyone they oust is banned from running in future elections, silencing the people’s choice even further. Their actions are not just authoritarian; they’re downright dangerous. They don’t want a council of diverse voices; they want an echo chamber where only their views reign supreme. Each of their characters should be seriously questioned, not just for what they’re doing to me, but for what they’re doing to you—the people of Pickering. The draconian measures they are putting in place is to stifle public input and are designed to rig future elections, to ensure only those who agree with their power-hungry agenda get a seat at the table. They don’t care about democracy or free speech—they care about control. And let’s not forget the staggering misuse of taxpayer dollars in this vendetta. Instead of returning my rightful salary—just $15,000+ for three months of lost pay—they’ve decided to burn up to $200,000 of your money fighting me in a judicial review. $200,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars that could be better spent on the community is being flushed down the drain to prop up their lies. And if you think it stops there, think again. When I take them to court again for another judicial review, I bet they’ll be more than willing to waste another $200,000, bringing the total to a disgraceful $400,000 of your hard earned tax payers money just to silence one voice. Do they care? Of course not—it’s not their money. It’s yours. Through all of this, I have never stopped fighting for the people of Pickering. I show up. I listen. I push back against corruption and collusion, even when they come after me with everything they’ve got. The mayor and his council have shown that they are not fit to serve—they are power-hungry, vindictive, and have zero regard for the voices of the people. And let me be clear, this isn’t just happening in Pickering – it’s happening in Municipalities across the Country. So it needs to stop immediately. Personally, I won’t back down. I will continue to stand with you—because that’s what real leadership looks like. Even when they try to silence me, I will not be bullied. The people of Pickering deserve better, and I will fight to give them the representation they elected me for. It’s time to hold these bullies accountable.