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.

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.

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

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.

Make to an Employer? What Difference Will You Make to an Employer?

What Difference Will You Make to an Employer? By Nick Kossovan It’s common knowledge that companies don't hire the most qualified candidates. Employers hire the person they believe will deliver the best value in exchange for their payroll cost. Since most job seekers know the above, I'm surprised that so few mention their Employee Value Proposition (EVP). Most job seekers list their education, skills, and experience without substantiating them and expect employers to determine whether they can benefit their company; hence, most resumes and LinkedIn profiles are just a list of opinions—borderline platitudes—that are meaningless and, therefore, have no value. Job seekers need to better explain, along with providing evidence, how they'll contribute to an employer's success. Employers don't hire opinions (read: talk is cheap); they hire results. You're not offering anything tangible when you claim: · I'm a great communicator. · I'm detail oriented. · I'm a team player. Tangible: · "At Global Dynamics, I held quarterly town hall meetings with my 22 sales reps, highlighting our accomplishments, identifying opportunity areas, and recognizing outstanding performers." · "For eight years, I managed Vandelay Industries IT department, overseeing a staff of 18 and a 12-million-dollar budget while coordinating cross-specialty projects. My strong attention to detail is why I never exceeded budget." · "While working at Cyberdyne Systems, I was part of the customer service team, consisting of nine of us, striving to improve our response time. Through collaboration and sharing of best practices, we reduced our average response time from 48 to 12 business hours, resulting in a 35% improvement in customer feedback ratings." These examples of tangible answers provide employers with what they most want to hear from candidates but rarely do; what value the candidate will bring to the company. Typically, job seekers present their skills, experience, and unsubstantiated opinions and expect recruiters and employers to figure out their value, which is a lazy practice. Getting hired isn't based on "I have an MBA in Marketing and Sales," "I've been a web designer for over 15 years," "I'm young, beautiful and energetic," blah, blah, blah. Likewise, being rejected isn't based on "I'm overqualified," "I'm too old," "I don't have enough education," blah, blah, blah. Getting hired depends entirely on showing employers that you can add value and substance to their company; that you'll serve a purpose. When you articulate a solid value offer, the "blah, blah, blah" doesn't matter. Job seekers focus too much on the "blah, blah, blah," and when not hired, they say, "It's not me, it's..." The biggest mistake I see job seekers make is focusing on the "blah, blah, blah"—their experience and education—believing this is what interests employers. Hiring managers are more interested in whether you can solve the problems the position exists to solve than in your education and experience. Not impressive: Education Impressive: A track record of achieving tangible results. You aren't who you say you are; you are what you do. If you want to be somebody who works hard, you have to actually work hard. If you want to be somebody who goes to the gym, you actually have to go to the gym. If you want to be a good friend, spouse, or colleague, you have to actually be a good friend, spouse, or colleague. Actions build reputations, not words. The biggest challenge job seekers face today is differentiating themselves. To stand out and be memorable, don't be like most job seekers, someone who's all talk and no action. Any recruiter or hiring manager will tell you that the job market is heavily populated with job seekers who talk themselves up, talk a "good game" about everything they can "supposedly" do, drop names, etc., but have nothing to show for it. More than ever, employers want to hear candidates offer a value proposition summarizing what value they bring. If you're looking for a low-hanging fruit method to differentiate yourself, do what job seekers hardly ever do and make a hard-to-ignore value proposition. 1. Increase sales: "Based on my experience managing Regina and Saskatoon for PharmaKorp, I'm confident that I can increase BioGen's sales by no less than 25% in Winnipeg and the surrounding area by the end of 2025." 2. Reduce cost: "During my 12 years as Taco Town's head of purchasing, I renegotiated contracts with key suppliers, resulting in 15% cost savings, saving the company over $450,000 annually. I know I can do the same for The Pasta House." 3. Increase customer satisfaction: "During my time at Globex Corporation, I established a systematic feedback mechanism that enabled customers to share their experiences. This led to targeted improvements, increasing our Net Promoter Score by 15 points. I can increase Dunder Mifflin's net promoter score." 4. Save time: "As Zap Delivery's dispatcher, I implemented advanced routing software that analyzed traffic patterns, reducing average delivery times by 20%. My implementation of this software at Froggy's Delivery can reduce your delivery times by at least 20%, if not more." If you want to achieve job search success as soon as possible, structure your job search with a single thread that's evident and consistent throughout your résumé, LinkedIn profile, cover letters and especially during interviews; clearly convey what difference you'll make to the employer. 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

COMING OUT AND PROUD!!!

coming out and proud By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. - ONE DAY AT A TIME - White/Black, Sad/Happy, Peace/War, Love/Hate... For the love of words... the ultimate human weapon against eternal ignorance. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." The outcome is nothing short of eternal bliss: Eternal bliss is the state of total peace of mind. This peace is not just for a moment or any given period of time. This state of peaceful mind has to be permanent, only then you can say it is eternal peace. To achieve such state of mind is not easy. With this said... one has truly to understand the composition of words to be descriptive of the intended message. We are upon one of, if not the most important dates in our sovereign identity. In a society of Pride. We must show our true personal pride to our family, community and our country. Some may surrender to eternal ignorance and be proud of false ideology. We may find eternal bliss in our decision, escaping the illogical agenda behind the ignorance. Not the agenda pride we are force to tolerate. The true patriotic pride. But foremost. We must dig deep and find our true essence of who we are as a people. Leaving out social agenda, political direction and or external influences. We as a united nation should not be waving all color flags and or flags of foreign nation to show either our pride or support for external conflict. We as Canadians should only fly one flag proudly and that is the good old red and white maple. A symbol of peace, unity and resillience. A symbol of valor, sacrifice and committment. A symbol of inclusivity through adaptation, assimilation and respect for Canadian way of life, culture, customs and traditions. Not forced acceptance. We as PROUD Canadians patriots are about to take a moment and celebrate our true identity. Something that needs to be our primary focus when we refer to PRIDE and not the alternative sexual lifestyle. Canada Day celebrated on July 1st of each year, holds a special place in the hearts of Canadians across the globe. It is a day of immense significance; it marks the birth of a nation and commemorates the rich history, diverse culture, and shared values of the Canadian people. For this reason on July 1st, 2024. I will be COMING OUT AND PROUDLY of support my country as a good patriot . OUR CANADA. My Canadian history. My Canadian culture, customs traditions and languages. I will be coming out in support of a nation that has given me a life of opportunity. A land that allowed me to enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers so valiantly sacrificed during world conflicts. I will stand proud with all that served and and support their causes and their well being. We are a united nation that should not be compromised by external influences, agenda nor cause. We as Canadians are for Canada first. Happy Canada Day. I hope all come out and show your true patriotic pride.

INTERNET VOTING THE LAST BLOW TO DEMOCRACY

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “I live a dream in a nightmare world” This week I received a real interesting email. It read: City of Oshawa exploring internet voting. The City of Oshawa is exploring the possibility of offering internet voting for its 2026 Municipal and School Board Elections and wants to know your thoughts. First and foremost. The City does not care about your thoughts as they already made their minds. The token request for your thought is as if to give you the impression that they care. Did they care when you gave them your thoughts on the budget? No. They stuck it to us. Now this. As if it is not bad enough that the City of Oshawa has a municipal election and only one seat changes. Our democracy has come down to name recognition voting by the same 18% voters turn out. A percentage that is slowly diminishing due to natural death. Now, the City wants to go online voting. This further giving the incumbent an edge over any new comers. Last municipal election it was a disaster. Most of the new candidates or all that ran on a shoe string budget or no budget. Faced with ever declining municipal voter turnout in local elections, the City of Oshawa is considering the possibility of offering internet voting for the 2026 municipal and school board elections. Internet voting allows eligible voters to cast their ballot online. It is a proven secure method of voting since ballots can be cast anywhere with internet access using a device of the voter’s choice, including computers, laptops, tablets or smartphones. Oshawa’s turnout in the 2022 municipal election dropped to a dismal record low of 18.42 per cent of all eligible voters. It was just the latest in a declining Oshawa municipal election voter trend that saw a turnout of 24.1 per cent in 2018, 26.4 per cent in 2014 and 29.9 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot in 2010. You have to go all the way back to the election of 1994 to find a voter turnout of over a third of all eligible voters, when 33.5 per cent cast a ballot. Contrast that with the glory days of voter participation and the highest ever turnout: 51.7 per cent in 1960. Those days are long gone, however, and most municipalities would be happy today to hit the Ontario municipal average of 36.9 per cent across the 444 municipalities of the province for the 2022 election. Voter turnout for Oshawa municipal elections rarely ever went under 33 per cent until the 1970s but has steadily slid since 1997 from a high of 29.9 per cent in 2010 to a dismal 18.42 per cent in 2022. With this in mind. Now the City of Oshawa wants to go electronic.... A way for creating new avenues to corrupt the democratic process by registering people that are either dead or not living in Oshawa anymore. This compounded with the real threat of external election influences. This is a formula for disaster. The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions, and Intergovernmental Affairs, announced that the measures brought in to protect by-elections from any potential foreign interference will be applied to the Durham electoral district by-election to be held on March 4, 2024. These measures are continuously reviewed in light of the potential for new and evolving threats. The Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force provided enhanced monitoring and assessing of foreign interference threats during the by-election period. These assessments will be provided to the Deputy Minister Committee on Intelligence Response, which will stand ready to brief and advise ministers with mandates to combat foreign interference and protect Canada's democratic institutions. How do you like them apples. If this is known. That tampering can happen and has happened. What are we to assume that will happen with City Online voting? Other Durham municipalities that have adopted internet and/or telephone voting over the last decade include Ajax, Pickering and Clarington. Ajax was the early adopter in the group, taking on internet and telephone voting — in addition to traditional paper and advance voting — in 2014. And it had a noticeable impact in voter turnout. When Ajax did not have internet voting in 2010, turnout was 25.4 per cent. In the 2014 municipal election, with internet voting added, turnout jumped to 30.4 per cent, and was 32.9 per cent in 2018. However, voter turnout in Ajax slumped back to 22.5 per cent in 2022, suggesting internet voting is not a cure-all. Pickering and Clarington opted for internet voting only in time for the 2022 election. In 2018, Pickering’s turnout was 29.17 per cent in the 2018 municipal election before the advent of internet voting. In 2022, the turnout was actually lower at 27.4 per cent. Meanwhile, in Clarington, in 2018 the turnout before online voting was used, it was 28.57 per cent. After adopting online or internet voting, it was very slightly down at 28.05 per cent. So much for transparency, accountability when all they do is look for ways to stack the deck against any new comer.

A Too Uncommon Theory of Medicine

By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford Are your health care providers trained in integrative medicine? It’s not an area of medical specialization, like gynaecology or gastroenterology. Think of it as a theory of medicine. Doctors practicing integrative medicine respect the roles of prescription drugs and surgery when the situation calls for these treatments. But they also study and embrace the potential for natural remedies, lifestyle modifications, nutrition, and traditional practices in both health promotion and disease treatment. Hippocrates, born in 460 BC, was the most influential philosopher of integrative medicine. He believed the human body should be treated as a whole, not as the sum of its parts. Benedict Lust, born in 1872 in Baden, Germany, is regarded as the “Father of Naturopathy”, a form of alternative medicine whose legitimate members promote evidence-based natural remedies. Then there is Linus Pauling. Through his research, he advanced the prevention and treatment of disease by studying how the body benefits from optimized amounts of substances which are natural to the body. Pauling was a molecular biologist. His practice of orthomolecular medicine acknowledges the body’s biochemical pathways and genetic variabilities that interact with diseases such as atherosclerosis, cancer, and brain-related conditions. Dr. Andrew Saul was the founder of the Orthomolecular Medical News Service, and with his death earlier this year, we lost one of the world’s foremost advocates for evidence-based natural therapies. He made it his life’s work to pass on a wealth of knowledge, including the message that natural remedies never killed anyone. Prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs can’t make that claim. Saul practiced what he preached. His home included a garden full of vegetables, and he stressed that for a few dollars it would produce thousands of dollars of fresh produce for his family. Saul’s news service shares research papers from esteemed scientists from around the world. But it’s the simple messages that stick, and his reminders about the importance of vitamins are worthy of note. Take the 80-year-old tennis player who had to stop playing his favourite game due to severe leg cramps. He wasn’t getting oxygenated blood to his leg muscles. After taking natural vitamin E, he was back on the court. Vitamin E increases the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. This is the other reason E can stop anginal heart pain. Saul chastised dermatologists for telling patients to keep out of the sun and to use sun block. He championed the need for 3,000 to 5,000 units of vitamin D daily to decrease the risk of multiple sclerosis and maintain our sense of balance as we age. What irritated Saul the most? It was the failure of doctors to accept that vitamin C carries out so many vital health functions, and that it fights the number one killer, heart disease. He pointed to medical studies showing its effectiveness in fighting viral diseases such as pneumonia, hepatitis, meningitis, polio and even the lethal bite of a rattlesnake. He repeated over and over that no one had ever died from an overdose of vitamin C. If you take more than you body can use, it is excreted in the urine. Another fact he underscored was that the dose is so important – the greater the degree of infection the greater amounts of C needed to cure it. Saul reported that in patients desperately ill with infection, in the process of dying, one decision could save them – that is, huge doses of vitamin C, such as 300,000 milligrams administered intravenously. His final advice? Hospitals are the locus of death. So stay away, or get out of them quickly. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

New Economic Problems on the Horizon in Canada

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Canadians, we continue to enjoy our short summer and look forward to the fall, though it may not be a very nice one. Inflation continues to raise its ugly head and that means that the Bank of Canada will probably bump up interest rates even further in September. As outlined by journalist Pete Evans’ realistic analysis of the situation, we are not looking forward to getting out of these economic worries any time soon. Canada's inflation rate bucked its recent trend of slowing last month and rose at a 3.3 per cent annual pace in July, Statistics Canada said’. That was an increase from 2.8 per cent the previous month. Gas prices were a major factor pushing up the inflation rate, mostly due to what economists call the base effect. For most of the past year, the cost of gasoline has been a big factor dragging down the overall rate. However, as you may have noticed, prices are up again. Pump prices increased by 0.9 per cent in July. The same month a year earlier, they declined by more than 9 per cent. Gas prices weren't the only type of energy bill that was a big factor in pushing up the inflation rate. The price of electricity skyrocketed in the past year, up by 11.7 per cent. That's more than twice the annual increase of 5.8 per cent clocked in June and the biggest reason for the uptick was a more than doubling of electricity bills in Alberta, which rose by 127.8 per cent in the year up to July. Food prices, another factor that has been driving up the cost of living, eased somewhat during the month, but they are still going up at an eye-watering pace. Grocery prices increased by 8.5 per cent in the year up to July. That is an easing from 9.1 per cent the previous month, but still three times the overall inflation rate. Not every grocery aisle is getting more expensive, or at the same rate. There was some relief in the produce section, with fresh fruit prices seeing their largest month-over-month decline since February 2008, down 6.5 per cent. The price of grapes plummeted by more than 40 per cent last month, according to Statistics Canada. While a slowdown in the rate that food prices are going up comes as some relief, it remains a crisis, which has prompted calls for drastic measures such as price caps on staple grocery items. Other countries, including France and Greece, have dabbled with implementing price controls, where retail prices for core items are capped at a certain level. Similar attempts at price controls in the 1970s had disastrous results, but some policy experts say it is an idea worth exploring, at least on a limited basis. "It's not the '70s anymore, our markets are different," said Vass Bednar, executive director of the Master of Public Policy Program at McMaster University in Hamilton. "We need to recognize that." While Bednar says she does not advocate for a heavy-handed cap on all types of food in perpetuity, she says it makes sense to look into policies that could ensure some basic necessities — baby formula, bread, certain fruits and vegetables — have at least some options that remain affordable. However, Avery Shenfeld, an economist with CIBC, said he does not see the justification for price caps in Canada's grocery business, given the trends we are seeing beneath the surface. "I don't really think we're in need of that here," he said in an interview. "At the end of the day, the best method of fighting inflation isn't to try to pick one or two prices in the economy and intervene in them. It's really to control the pace of spending power [and] moderate growth a little bit." Food prices are not the only thing getting more expensive, either. Mortgages have been another major pressure point in the increasing consumer price index of late, and that problem got worse in July, not better. Mortgage interest costs have increased by 30.6 per cent in the past year. That's another record year-over-year gain, and the largest single factor in the increase in the overall inflation rate. With this said many smart people in the financial sector seem to think a recession is coming. And yet a lot of them also think that before that, central bankers here, in the United States and overseas are going to raise interest rates some more. The fact is fighting inflation is complicated and politically divisive. For central banks, it becomes even more complicated and politically divisive as inflation gets closer to their target, because rate hikes hurt more for less obvious reward. There are few inflation riddles harder to solve than the fact that the Bank of Canada's own interest rate hikes are actually driving inflation higher, with the mortgage cost component continuing to climb. So let us see what is coming and how our politicians will act to ease the worries of Canadians. Any hope?