Canada and Christmas 2022

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Barely out of the Corona virus pandemic, Canada has entered into a dangerous area of high inflation. The politicians and the Bank of Canada are trying to resolve the problem but there is only a faint hope that they will succeed. So, here we are, trying to celebrate Christmas in an optimistic way and hoping for the best for the New Year, 2023. The World, including Canada, has finished 2022 grasping for some kind of relief in view of the war in Europe and a worsening economy. The year 2023 will be decisive in giving us the highly desired optimism for finding the road that will get us back to a new palatable normal. By now most countries' economies are in shatters. Such an insecure global outlook hardly makes for a secure context for economies to make a quick recovery. However, let us hope that the strongest economies will continue to show a resilience in the midst of the worsening geopolitical environment as government relief programs continue to offer some kind of support. How long this support will be in place is hard to predict. On the positive side, financial markets have done better than expected despite the earlier doom and gloom pronouncements prophesied nine months ago. Certainly, some things in the present world have clearly changed, and perhaps permanently. The global job market has been ravaged by COVID, especially in the service and tourism sectors, where typically low wages left millions vulnerable and highly dependent on government stimulus measures to survive. The prospects in this area are not very optimistic at present, with the war in Ukraine entering a new and more dangerous phase. The chances of small to medium sized businesses having to close their operations for good are strong and worrisome, as this is bound to create unprecedented hardship for many people and their families. The future doesn't look good, as the World Bank contends that Covid-19's wide-ranging effects will result in an increase of the poorest by up to 150 million people. The success of the past 30 years, where the numbers of the world's poorest declined from 36% of the 1990 global population to 8% just prior to the pandemic, has now been devastated. This is a tragedy of significant proportions. Yet we are still optimistic that the Western economies, including Canada's, are capable of rebounding despite a new insecure world which is devastating much of their productivity, just as we looked for recovery to commence. Unlike the Great Recession of 2008-2009, when economists felt they understood the ground and how to rebuild, our current predicament has left these same financial experts scratching their heads. They are aware the unemployment numbers will remain stagnant for perhaps decades. Our present economic challenges are on a global scale and the reverberating effects will remain unknown for years to come. Health concerns and the recent war in Ukraine have paralyzed us and have transcended everything as civilization seeks to survive something it can't even see. Our recovery will take much more than we actually think. Just when trust and cohesion are required at the societal level to wade through this calamity, increasing numbers of citizens and businesses are deeply concerned about where the economy is going. The wobbly decisions made by governments both provincially and federally add ferment to a badly deteriorating situation. The societal unease and fragmentation arising from this uncertainty could become an element for endless partisan divisions in upcoming provincial and federal elections. There will certainly be positive global changes on the societal scene and new trade opportunities with Canada's traditional allies in America, Asia and Europe. Let us hope we will have a new vision with the ability to focus on Main Street, not only on Wall Street. Canadians will look forward to effective and fair societal changes in line with their values and traditions and a more collaborative form of politics at all levels of government. This will be our life in 2023 - more uncertainty, slow economic recovery, rising divisions within the temporary hegemony caused by COVID, increased tensions with Russia and China, and the ever-present politically motivated climate change challenge. But for now, let's focus on enjoying the holiday season, look forward to the traditional Christmas festivities with our families, and hope for a better and more optimistic future. Will Canada remain a reasonable and reasoning country? The answer to that question is within our control, although much of our fate in 2023 will be determined elsewhere. How it will unfold and how drastically these external forces will influence us remains to be seen. So shall it be 'Bah, humbug!' or 'Merry Christmas!' Your choice.

A Fast for the Holidays

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones As 2022 comes to a close, grave existential questions loom. Is the doomsday clock ticking louder? Have we harmed our planetary home beyond repair? Is the global economy headed for collapse, or will a reckless war end all things? These are some of the debates that friends and families will have when they gather in groups around the dinner table. This year, those holiday meals themselves may be the source of despair. The higher costs for food make entertaining large groups an expensive proposition. It may not be practical to suggest fasting as an alternative. But it’s good food for thought. And research findings suggest ample benefits. As a new year’s resolution, fasting could have personal health and economic benefits. A global trend towards more mindful eating would be a welcome development for the planet too. Narrowly defined, fasting means not eating. But there are different approaches with varying levels of austerity. Longer fasts, 24 hours or more, are hard to do and not generally recommended. Intermittent fasting is far easier and can result in a wide array of health benefits, including weight loss, improved brain health, reduced insulin resistance, reduced inflammation in the body, and improved blood pressure. What is intermittent fasting? It can take different forms. Time-restricted fasting limits food intake to specific hours of the day. Alternate day fasting involves eating normally one day and eating very little the next. The common theme is a longer-than-usual gap between eating. What happens when food intake is absent? For a typical person, after about 12-16 hours without eating, the body starts to react as if there is a threat, turning to stored energy and activating biological alerts. People who are fasting will experience hunger, but they also have increased performance, for example, on memory tests. Another element of fasting shouldn’t be ignored, and that is the reduced consumption of food that would have been eaten in the absence of a fast. Fasting during the holidays isn’t the social thing to do. But if the food on the table is loaded with fats, sugars and salt, then a fast is a good friend. Put another way, fasting well should also mean eating well. There must be a reasonable balance between calorie restriction and healthy caloric intake. There is no good that comes from fasting one day if the next day involves a binge. For people who are underweight, emotionally unwell, or managing complex medical conditions, and for breastfeeding mothers, fasting is not a good idea. But for the majority of people who are carrying extra pounds, the greatest benefit of fasting is healthy weight loss. If fasting helps reduce weight and maintain weight loss, then this means a decrease in risk of diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The connection between fasting and cognitive function is an area of recent research. Scientists are studying how cells react to the deprivation of energy and how they then respond afresh when food finally arrives. There’s some indication that fasting helps neurons and brain cells build resilience against deterioration of neural connections brought on with aging. Unfortunately, most people eat three meals a day, plus multiple snacks. At this time of year, the meals tend to be big and decidedly not healthy. The snacks are often worse. Also at this time of year, we tend to get more mail. It’s encouraging to hear from long-time readers indicating how this column has helped them in one way or another. We wish all of you a happy and healthy new year. 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

When Job Hunting Your Image is Everything (Part 1)

By Nick Kossovan This column is the first of a 2-part series discussing an aspect that most job seekers ignore, the image they project to employers. Part 1: Getting noticed is your image's job. "Image is everything. You don't spare any expense to create the right image. And word of mouth is critical. Once you get a good reputation, momentum will carry you." Haruki Murakami, Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage Four questions you should ask yourself as a job seeker: - Who am I? - What do I do, or what would I like to do? - Why does it matter? - How do I want others to perceive me? In answering these questions with definitive answers, you'll become more strategic regarding how you present yourself (physically and verbally), which influences the impression people have of you. "Image" is one of the oldest forms of nonverbal communication used to attract others. A person's appearance is often used to judge their integrity, credibility and level of professionalism. The right image can open doors, draw attention to strengths and qualities, and open doors to life-changing possibilities. Since first impressions are everlasting, my first rule when job searching is: Image is everything. (My second rule: Don't look for a job. Instead, look for where you'll be accepted. Think: "I'm not looking for a job; I'm looking for my tribe!") The notion that your image significantly impacts your career-actually, your image influences all aspects of your life-makes many uncomfortable. The majority of people would rather be heads-down, focusing on their work, with their fingers crossed that their work alone will propel them forward, not their image. However, as creatures of our environment, we form perceptions based on what we see. By being aware of this and how your image is directly correlated with how you're perceived, you can craft an image that attracts opportunities rather than repels them. People don't have much imagination when it comes to other people. What you show them-what they see-is the only thing they'll first know about you, which we all learn at an early age; thus, why "What I show is what they'll know" is ground-zero social guidance. Hence, we have a fashion industry, sexy sports car models, plastic surgery, Invisalign, and multiple brands to self-identify with for essentially the same product (e.g., soft drinks, coffee, jeans, etc.). The constant effort to create an image in the hopes of being noticed and accepted is why for many people, "approval nods" are essential to their self-esteem. Consequently, when employers don't give approval nods, their egos and self-confidence suffer badly and why heartbreak is a frequent occurrence when conducting a job search. A stranger form a first impression of you in about seven seconds. In today's increasingly open and interconnected world, where employers can easily research you to determine if you're interview-worthy, your overall presentation is increasingly important to your job search and career success. Then there's the initial meeting when the interviewer's opinion of you will determine whether you advance in the hiring process. As much as it may offend you, your interviewer's opinion of you will be based on your image. When I was starting out, still trying to reach the first rung of the ladder, an advertising executive gave me this advice: "Create the image you want the world to see and constantly work at living up to it." Then to emphasize his point, he mentioned Madonna, Norman Mailer, Tupac Shakur and Mother Theresa as examples. Your what I call "pre-screen image," which includes your resume, LinkedIn profile, and other digital footprints, is what gets you in the door-in front of those who'll judge your suitability for the job and your fit with the company's culture. In other words, are you one of them? This "Are you one of us?" judgment is why I view employers as exclusive clubs. Afterwards, once you've been selected for an interview, you must look "the part." Forget facts and logic, especially at the initial stages of the hiring process. Recent research reveals that a person's image and emotional projections far outweigh facts and logical conclusions about them. According to studies, people understand images faster than words and remember them for longer periods. Whenever there is a discrepancy between what we see and hear, our brains tend to believe what we see. A potent image speaks to us on a symbolic level, feeding us information by intuition and association. TRUTH BOMB: Seeing is believing. Before you return to your job search, ask yourself this question: What does my image say about who I am? It's common for me to hear a job seeker tell me they are this and that… blah, blah, blah, yet what I see contradicts what they're trying to convince me to believe about them. In other words, their image makes it hard for me to believe what they're saying about themselves. Does your image work in your favour or against you? In my next column, I'll discuss the second hardest part of your image's job, making employers fall in love with you. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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

GOODBYE INTERNET

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 - It has taken the government 30 years to figure out how to regulate and control not to mention censor the internet. As one of the pioneers in internet technologies I can tell you first hand that as soon as the internet became commercialized. The governments of the world have been licking their chops on finding ways to take control. How to monetize. Well in this modern age of protecting ‘US’ bull shit. The government has found the silver bullet. The government both in Canada and the U.S. are calling necessary to block internet users from the internet in the name of National security. I say malarkey. I say this is just another example of how government controls the population at large. Take note that the internet in it’s pure form is a system set up as ‘FREE WARE’. This means anyone has access. This system was set forth to be the ultimate in communication with self governance as the primary regulator. As everything that has been created for the good of man. It ends up being a tool for commerce to make money and for government to be used as a tool against it’s people. Personally, I believe that if the government is successful in passing laws that will give them rights to restrict users from receiving material from parts of the net. The net as we know is finished. It is not bad enough that as it is, that we have Google and the likes polluting the broadbands of the net with ads, tracking technology and intel gathering on users. Now the government? You got to be kidding me. The worst of it is that if anyone attempts to by-pass their restriction. They will be deemed and enemy of the state and face some serious criminal allegation and be labeled a terrorist or one that supports foreign enemy. I am beyond words on how the government plans on monitoring use and prevent from foreign countries to send info in. Think about it. It is a web. This means that there are endless points of entry. Not only that. The web was designed specifically to prevent anyone to block others from navigating it. Then now how is it that the government is so advanced in the field of internet technology? THEY ARE NOT. What the government will do. They will monitor usage and anyone that is found to be dealing or receiving/interacting with any sources the government deem a threat. The user will be blocked. This means that every Canadian citizen will be monitored and censored. We are giving up our civil liberty and our privacy. We are being forced once again under the guise of a threat of foreign governments to comply and give up privacy. Does this not sound familiar to the COVID situation? The government will accomplish this feat of monitoring every citizen with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence is a series of system designed to compute at a higher rate never seen before. These systems are already in use in many of the countries we deem enemy of the state. Such as China, Korea. This technology is being forced upon us as a good thing. I say, thank you but no thank you. We the people are ignorant of the fact. We must stop be made to fear and demand our governments do their jobs and assure our security not by taking our rights and freedoms instead by identifying the enemy and take proper diplomatic avenues to address any threat. No, once again we the people take the brunt of their neglect and failure to act on our behalf.

Canada in need of a comprehensive industrial strategy

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In an uncertain world, Canada needs to have a plan for the future. A plan that is realistic, and takes care of the interest of Canadians first. Just as the giant south of the border takes time to think ahead for the future of the nation, despite the fact that it is politically embroiled in a polarized fight. The United States has made it clear that it would pursue an aggressive industrial strategy to ensure its competitiveness vis-à-vis China in key advanced industries and technologies. The reality is that the United States has a plan and Canada does not. Instead of focusing on a dream world and fantasy projects Canada should seriously think about its own industrial strategy. In the context of rising geopolitical tensions Canada would be ill-advised not to prepare for the resurgence of the importance of industrial policy. The need to do that is evermore pressing with the ongoing conflict in Europe and the rising tensions in South East Asia. Essentially, there are three families of technologies that will be of particular importance over the coming decade: first, computing-related technologies, including microelectronics, quantum information systems and artificial intelligence; second, biotechnologies and bio-manufacturing; and third, new, efficient, non-polluting energy technologies. However, it is also important that we do not lose elementary manufacturing skills, which were outsourced overseas for cheap, short term gain. Canada must find a solution for itself in terms of its industrial policy. It should not necessary be by means of central economic planning lead exclusively by the government of the day, with many political interests involved. The solution must be one which maximally limits political interference, is based on the positives of a "free-market" dynamic, and acts in symbiosis with the government. Today we need to be aware of the dynamic interaction between technological change and national security. In the context of intense technological rivalry and national-security imperatives, any future industrial policy needs to take into consideration: the semiconductor industry, critical minerals, the pharmaceutical industry (vaccines for example), and it must ensure key supply chain resiliency. However, no policy has value if there is no clear way of implementing it. Americans have successfully done so before, and even Canadians, during WW2 under the leadership of a competent engineer, have done it well. Obviously, there is a need of somebody as well oriented and capable as C.D. Howe was. We should never forget to learn from the past, and we can learn a lot from Howe. During a crucial time in Canadian history, he was able to transform the Canadian economy from agriculture-based to industry-based. During the Second World War, his involvement in the war effort was so extensive that he was nicknamed the "Minister of Everything". The question is: Is there a modern-day C.D. Howe in Canada when we really need one? and what does this all mean for Canada? To be sure, there will be some North American integration on industrial policy and supply chain resiliency. That is only common sense and we need to take it into consideration. In an era of protectionism, a politically influenced globalist economy and recent geopolitical issues to complicate matters, it would be a mistake to think that the Americans will carry the day for us. What is abundantly clear today is that the United States seem to have a robust, comprehensive and ambitious industrial strategy with a clear roadmap to implement it; while Canada is tinkering in the margins of both. One wonders where the priorities of the Trudeau government are today. The challenge is clearly two-fold: First, it has yet to articulate, coherently and in detail, what Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland calls Canada's "muscular" industrial strategy; and second, we need to raise the degree of sophistication and policy focus that is necessary to implement what is said. Unfortunately, there are no signs of real action, only a slew of lawyer-generated wordings with no real substance. Lately we have seen a trumpeted movement on electric vehicles, in which the federal government has made important strides in attracting key investments in the automotive sector and parts of the EV supply chain. This has made labour and provincial politicians ecstatic. The question is whether the Canadian market is ready for them, and whether the heavy subsidies from public money are worth it. Yes, electrical vehicles are interesting, but several key questions arise regarding their suitability for Canada and just how 'green' they are. For example, how well do they work over the long distances and low temperatures in Canada? And how environmentally friendly are the batteries they use? There are more questions, but I think these two penetrate to the heart of the matter. Furthermore, providing subsidies to companies in one sector is not a comprehensive industrial strategy. Nor is it a substitute for reimagining our national environment for innovation. It only adds to our already overgrown bureaucratic structures. As a key component in an industrial strategy, we need a modern incarnation of what used to be corporate labs. There, industrial research was conducted through collaboration between governments, universities and businesses, leading to real innovation at scale in the economy. Canadian policy makers need to think strategically about fundamental and common-sense actions rooted in Canadian reality. In the context of national-security considerations and intense strategic competitiveness at the technological level, they should identify sooner rather than later, what sectors a modern Canadian industrial strategy should focused on. We really do need to be clear, right now, on our key objectives and outcomes for Canada. The question is: How will Canada ensure clarity of purpose, consistency in execution, and long-term commitment to the protection of our economic vibrancy, national security, and the well-being of all Canadians? I'll leave it to you to reflect on that.

Swallow it’s good for you

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” No you perv’s it is not that kind of column. Now that we cleared the air sort of say. What is it with government that thinks we are that stupid. Or wait. Could it be that we are. It makes common sense that if you have tooth ache that you go to a dentist and not a gynecologist or proctologist. Vise versa if you have to have a historectomy you don’t go to a dentist. Points of entry can make a world of difference and the complexity to achieve either task would be long, painful and unpractical. Then if these statement stand true. Why are we as a general population being fed the line that it is good for us.... Take for example the corporate and private as well as government. They tell us that we must conform in the name of convenience. Use your credit card. Meanwhile the credit cards make billions each day from users being fooled to believe that it is convenient. During the COVID out break and in part even today. We are led to believe that the vaccine reduces risk of severity and spread. Much like in my opening statement. They are telling us without real knowledge or thought that it is ok to go to a gynecologist to have a tooth removed. The vaccine even today. Almost a year after the fact is being questioned as to it’s effectiveness, it’s real purpose and the after affects on the human body. Have we accomplished a tooth extraction from a wrongful entry and now attempting to justify it? Now it is a matter of ‘SWALLOW IT’S GOOD FOR YOU’ mentality being challenged by the same science that forced us to take it and like it. We live in a world that has no real direction. One government follows the lead of another. The essence of democracy as for the people by the people no longer applies. It appears that governments of the world rule on misinformation and forced social compliance. We the people are stupid. We the people allow it to happen. We the people are not ignorant of the facts but instead ignorant of period. Never surrender that of which others have sacrificed for you to exercise. We the people ar not numbers. This in part is our demise and we keep swallowing thinking it is good for us.

AMBER ALERT

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. “AMBER ALERT” - should be an “RED ALERT” for all of us. How is it that the government can send out such a message to all cell phone numbers? Have we as consumers... as citizens surrendered the right to our privacy? If the government can send us a message. It rationally can be thought that the government utilizing similar technology can access our cell phones through our numbers. Oh you shake your head and question that logic? Think about it. Your smart phone is smart alright... This is why they issued it to a dummy like you and me. We barely know how to dial it and use some of the apps that have been tested on lab chimp. You think that anyone of us truly know the actual threat to privacy these phones are? To entrust that our government would never do that to us... that the government and all it’s agencies work above board and no one is above the law is nothing short of lunacy. The fact is that our privacy is violated on a daily basis. In the field of technology. A signal that can be sent out is a signal that can be received. The ability lies on the operator and the knowledge they have on how to manipulate the electronic logistics within any device. With the advancements in modern electronic technology today nothing is impossible. I remember back in 1993. When we at the Central began working within the internet framework. The Central was the first newspaper to publish on line across the globe. Believe it or not. Right here in Oshawa we made global history by being also the first commercial entity to be broadcasting live music online across the planet. At that time the technology was primitive in comparison to what we have today. At that time we could literally find anyone in the world by using and IP address and some fancy written computer language. NO GOOGLE. NO GOOGLE MAPS. Now if we could do that then. Imagine what can be done today. I remember ICQ, one of the very first social media outlets. A simple way to chat with people all over the world. Way before FB. We could technically utilize that technology to listen to different environments by manipulating the code. Highly illegal. Highly sophisticated for the time. Imagine what can be done today. We as a media company much like the police and security entities at times rely on utilizing technology to give an edge. Not that we can utilize any of that information gathered but we much like the police sit on it... and what things play out. Now back to the so called ‘AMBER’ alerts that have been sold to us as good for us. As part of saving life bullshit. Amber alerts save no lives. In my opinion as a internet sophisticado with years of active experience. I believe that the amber alerts are nothing short than a refresh on the intelligence systems servers that tally all active cell phone number available. Numbers that can and are being used to monitor, track and carry on sophisticated surveillance on all citizens. We the dummies using smart phones allow it as it is being sold to us as good for us. That we are helping save lives. Malarkey. Much like personal information that we entrust with Rogers, Bell and others that is sent to over seas phone centers. Information that is bought and sold in the information black market. I suggest to all that you disable your amber alert from your phones. That you learn about the technology and keep your cell phones off when not in use. Then again. Did you know that all cell phones once you turn them off they still can send out of your where abouts? Privacy is just another word much like love. We all think we have it.

Bill 21 on role to disarming Canadians

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East It is a fact and a reality now that the government of Canada is continuing its wrongful objectives in leading the nation out to rough seas. The newly proposed Bill 21 with its significant amendment is essentially directed against law-abiding citizens possessing firearms, instead of concentrating on how to enforce the law against illegally possessed firearms, their widespread availability, and crime generating environment. The significant amendments made to Bill C-21, a bill initially crafted to ban handguns, illustrates how determined the Liberals are to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to posses firearms of their choice, as allowed by traditions and heritage. With the additional firearms to be banned, the bill is an attempt to revive, in new clothes, the most hated gun registry, the darling of Minister Bill Blair. Last month, the federal government proposed amending its gun control bill to define what an "assault-style" weapon is. It includes a clause that would ban any rifle or shotgun that could potentially accept a magazine with more than five rounds. It builds on a regulatory ban of more than 1,500 models of what the government considered "assault-style" firearms last year. The proposed reforms have reopened the debate about what firearms are to be prohibited, restricted or non-restricted in the country, and concerns about whether the criteria used to make those decisions are being applied consistently. The concerns arise because the definition applies only to some variations of certain models, depending on bore diameter and muzzle energy. So the proposed definition is essentially lawyer-generated wordsmithing with no basis in the real world. Let us assume for a moment that there is no hidden agenda, and the ultimate goal of the government is the protection of Canadian citizens. If that is the case, wouldn't it be more effective and economical to enforce the law and strengthen border control against illegal traffic of guns instead of establishing a new version of a useless and costly firearms registry? Indeed, we have the experience to realize that the cost of such a registry to taxpayers is millions of dollars, with zero results in reducing firearms related crimes. So here we have it: A Liberal amendment to Bill C-21, which is currently being studied to death (yet again), by members of Parliament, would set out a regulatory ban on what the government calls "assault-style weapons" by putting an evergreen definition for such firearms into law. The phrase "assault weapon" is not currently a legal term and the automatic weapons that the phrase typically refers to are already prohibited in Canada. The federal government, though, has frequently used the term assault or "assault-style" to describe weapons capable of firing more than one shot in quick succession, even if they are not automatic firearms. The amendment to define "assault-style" firearms in law has drawn criticism from firearms groups and some federal politicians, despite assurances made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that: "We're not going after rifles and shotguns used by hunters and others in a law-abiding way, but we are going against those guns that are designed to kill the largest number of people in the smallest amount of time," Trudeau said. "Those guns have no place in our communities across the country, and the federal government will continue to be strong on that as we move forward." Despite the assurances given by the PM, in view of his record in governing and making promises, it seems reasonable to have doubts about the intentions of this bill. I am personally afraid that there are other plans in the making, for a future for the nation that we are kept in the dark about. Maybe a new world order inspired by the World Economic Foundation (WEF)? It is clear that the firearms tragedies recorded in the past were due to the blatant lack of professionalism in those who were responsible for controlling the issuing of weapons permits. We have the example of Switzerland to look to. There, all kinds of weapons are present in the households of citizens, yet nothing like what happened in Canada has occurred there. Perhaps our parliamentarians should take a look at how the Swiss are dealing with the issue, or am I asking for too much? So, the government continues to beat the drum against possession of firearms, period. There is no clear definition of what they want to ban, as the real purpose of the ban is probably to exercise more control over the population. Considering how things are going in parliament today, Bill 21 will eventually be banning hunting guns too, despite assurances to the contrary. When we observe that the minister usually noted for his controversial remarks which border on misinformation, is making assurances that Bill 21 will not harm hunters, how can we help being suspicious? Here is what he declares in a loud voice, with full confidence. You be the judge: In an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino also tried to allay fears that the government is targeting hunters. Mendicino noted that the bill is still being considered at committee and hasn't been finalized. He also said banning hunting models would be a "red line" for the government. "We're not going after guns that are commonly used for hunting. We are after the guns that exert the most lethal force in the shortest period of time," Mendicino told host David Cochrane. How about enforcing the law, Minister? As Public Safety Minister isn't it your role to go after criminals? Or are you capable of nothing but spouting the empty verbiage you are so famous for? Anyway, I think there are issues of far more immediate concern the Liberal Government should be working on, for the best interest of the nation. How about stopping the inordinate amount of government spending? How about doing something effective to get the economy rolling? Current practices, including the hiking of interest rates only exacerbate the problems. What do you think?

Most Likely Reasons Your Job Search Isn't Going How You Wish

By Nick Kossovan Job searches are inherently stressful because they never go as you wish. Jobs don't go to the most" qualified" candidate. The reality is that there is no such thing as the "most qualified candidate." There's no way to know without a doubt who's most qualified for a job. This is why job searching never appears fair from the job seeker's point of view. Viewing job searching through the lens of "fairness" will drive you mad. It simply is what it is. No doubt, my assessment of who is most qualified will differ from that of another hiring manager. This discrepancy in assessment is caused by our inherent biases. Having biases-shortcuts to making decisions-doesn't make hiring managers bad people any more than your biases make you a bad person. Every decision you make is influenced by your biases, including whether you like someone. Therefore, you have no right to judge a person's bias. Truth Bomb: Generally speaking, hiring managers prefer candidates similar to themselves. This universal human trait is known as looking-glass merit, whereby hiring managers look for candidates who make them feel comfortable. Before you get judgmental ask yourself: If you were hiring your next colleague, would you hire someone you'd enjoy working with eight hours a day or someone you'd have to tolerate? Trying to fight biases is a waste of your time and energy. Your focus is to get on a payroll, not fix the world's wrongs that you perceive as your obstacles. Instead, let's look at what I believe are reasons-reasons you have some control over-your job search isn't unfolding as you wish. You don't value networking. "The wealthiest people in the world look for and build networks; everyone else looks for work." - Robert Kiyosaki. Let that sink in for a moment. Through networking, you gain access to employers and those who can introduce you to them. Therefore, all the human bias stuff I just mentioned gets negated. Although the biases persist, they shrink and do not affect the hiring manager as much as if you're an unknown (READ: stranger). Actually, networking creates its own bias, you become familiar, and we all lean towards those with whom we're familiar. Furthermore, networking uncovers unadvertised job opportunities, but you already know this. - You feel entitled. "Success is not an entitlement. It has to be earned." - Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. A sense of entitlement, a vibe your interviewer will feel, is a huge turnoff. Get rid of any sense of entitlement that you may have that you're owed a job, a living or even a certain lifestyle. - Your image doesn't align with the position you're seeking. People judge you based on how you present yourself. - Image is everything! The image you display is the first thing a person will see and judge. It happens instantly and subconsciously. It has nothing to do with rational reasons but rather impressions and emotions. You either feel right or not. Hence, how you present yourself profoundly impacts all aspects of your life. Carefully consider how you want to be perceived by employers and the rest of the world, then craft an image accordingly. Image formula: Appearance + Behaviour + Communication - You lack confidence. Having confidence is critical to your job search and career success. Lack of confidence is the most common reason I reject a candidate. I hire candidates who have a positive attitude, are motivated and enthusiastic, and-most importantly-have convinced me they're a can-do person capable of getting the job done. When interviewing, you want to come across as a go-getter, fast-track type of person. You want your interviewer to believe in you, which is essentially the purpose of an interview; to make your interviewer believe in you. If a candidate doesn't believe in themselves, why should I? - You don't take calculated risks. Like it or not, a job search is fraught with risks. When the essence of a job search is to present yourself to employers to determine if you're worth hiring, how could it not be? Considering you're already taking the biggest risk of all, asking strangers to judge you, what are a few more risks, especially if they can help you further your job search or, better yet, bring it to a conclusion? Job search risks worth considering: - Taking a temporary role. (An income is much better than no income.) - Taking a pay cut. (Same reason as taking on a temp job.) - Changing company size. (Not all great careers are made in Fortune 500 companies.) - Switching industries. - Relocating There is one risk I strongly suggest every job seeker take; choosing an employer based on culture rather than salary. If you want to exponentially shorten your job search, heed the advice I give all job seekers, search for your tribe! Don't look for a job. Instead, look for where you'll most likely be accepted. Think: "I'm not looking for a job; I'm looking for my tribe!" If you're having a tough time with your job search, I guarantee it's because you're trying to fit into companies where you don't belong. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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

A Spoonful Of Sugar

My husband and I have been married only 11 months. We always had problems, but our relationship was never this bad before. I am wondering if I should stay with him. Since the beginning, we've had arguments almost every day. I admit I start most of them. I get mad at him so easily when he doesn't do what I want, or leaves me home to go with his friends to nightclubs. Yesterday I found out he is posting saying he is not married. This is not the first time he has done this, and some of these women he's called. He says he does this because I hurt him, get mad so easily, and don't let him do what he wants. Today he said, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you." I still love him and want to be with him. I want to repair our marriage, but I'm scared. Maybe we should separate since we've tried to make it work and failed so many times. Courtney Courtney, learning the meaning of the word "but" can clarify your life. Everything which comes before the "but" is sugar to make the medicine go down, everything which comes after is the medicine. Too often we hear both parts of the statement and end up confused. "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" means "I am not in love with you." That is the message your husband lacks the courage to say plainly. Whenever you hear "but", remember the second part is what the speaker means. We tell people the word "but" should go off in their head like a gunshot. Pay close attention to what follows. It is the part which matters. You wanted to get married, but you had problems in your relationship from the beginning. You ignored the "buts" while you were dating, but it is not possible to ignore them now. Wayne Simple Arithmetic I am single, never married, have a good career, and hold four academic qualifications through a university. I enjoy working with people at a professional level. Five years ago, I met Mr. X while traveling to work, and we became friends. At first, he did not tell me he was married. A friend told me. When I questioned him, he admitted it, saying they were separated. I was also told the wife keeps coming and going in his life. After about a year, I had no more calls from Mr. X. When I investigated, I found the wife was back again. I decided to move on, and when I was fine, received a call from Mr. X saying she moved out. He promised not to take her back, so again we got together. However, he refused to go out in public. All he wanted to do was book a room and chat about his situation. After much complaining by me, we went to a movie. He would not walk alongside me, and even in the cinema, he sat as if being watched. He forgets my birthday, and when I am writing exams he does not even inquire about the result. In May, he stopped calling. Now he wants to come back to me as his wife is moving out again. I am tired of this situation, but I do not know what to do. Serena Serena, some things in relationships are as clear as the multiplication tables. You say three things about Mr. X. He won't take you out in public, he won't introduce you to friends, another woman keeps appearing in his life. Any number multiplied by zero is still zero. Three times zero is zero. If this was a question on an exam, you would have the answer. Wasting time trying to revise the multiplication tables prevents you from finding the correct answer and the correct man. Tamara Wayne & Tamara are also the authors of Cheating in a Nutshell, What Infidelity Does to the Victim, available from Amazon, Apple and most booksellers. Wayne & Tamara write: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com

What A Dog’s Nose Knows

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones What a wonderful world if people could be as generous to humankind as dogs. Regardless of our faults, dogs provide unfailing loving care. A new study suggests dogs may be able to use their sniffing powers to know when someone is having a really bad day. Who knew there is an aroma to being stressed, but dogs seem to detect it. In this, they have a huge advantage over humans. The nose of a dog has 220 million smell cells compared to a meagre 5 million in humans. The powerful sniffers of dogs have long been effective in detecting cancer. A report years ago in the British Journal Lancet reported that a woman’s dog repeatedly sniffed at one mole on her thigh but ignored others. When wearing shorts, her dog had tried to bite off the mole! She presented the issue to her doctor. The diagnosis was a malignant melanoma. We now know that cancers contain alkanes and benzene derivates which are not present in healthy tissue. Scientists have shown dogs can detect either a single chemical or a combination of them. Bloodhounds have a reputation as the best in tracking down criminals. But other breeds, like poodles, are suited for medical careers. Studies show that dogs are right 99 percent of the time in diagnosing cancer. Another study showed that dermatologists and plastic surgeons were right just 66 percent of the time! Clara Wilson, a doctoral student at Queen’s University, Belfast, School of Psychology, is one of the authors of a new fascinating experiment. She set out to learn if your dog, or in fact anyone’s dog, could smell your level of stress. Wilson collected samples of sweat and breath from 36 people before and after they faced a difficult math problem – with a time difference of just 4 minutes. Apparently these people were not mathematicians, as the numerical test induced a faster heart rate and raised blood pressure. Four dogs trained in selecting scents from a line-up were then put to the task. The dogs accurately identified the samples taken from “stressed” participants, ignoring the “relaxed” samples from the same person. “The research highlights that dogs do not need visual or audio cues to pick up on human stress,” Wilson explains. “Dogs can smell stress from breath and sweat alone, which could be useful when training service dogs and therapy dogs.” We know that dogs can offer great psychological support to people afflicted with anxiety problems. They also help those recovering from a traumatic injury. But there are times, such as the death of a loved one, when the degree of stress in a dog’s brain is overwhelmingly apparent. For instance, Dave Ross was a police dog handler who lost his life. His German shepherd, Danny, attended the funeral. It was apparent to all that the dog was whining while lying at the casket. We don’t know the nature of that German shepherd’s anxiety. But one thing is certain. The dog was not begging for a bone. Man’s best friend was hurting. Future science will dig deeper into the workings of a dog’s nose and brain. The foundation for such work has been laid by pioneering scholars like Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado Boulder. His brain imaging work with animals shows evidence of their abilities to feel grief, fear, love, and compassion. For now, just know that those 200 million cells in the nose of a dog can tell when you are having a bad day. 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

A GLASS OF WATER

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. Before you read this. I want you to go and get a glass of water and put it in front of you. Go ahead. Once you have in front of you. Look at it. What do you see? Most will say. A glass of water. Then I want you to tell me what kind of water do you see in the glass. Most will say. Tap water obviously. A glass full of clean water. Ok. Now that we have established that it is a glass of water let’s talk about how clean an pure it truly is. That water to the average person looks clean and we are told that it is potable. Why is it Called Potable Water? Potable comes from the Latin potare, meaning "to drink." The Romans came up with the word and built some of the world's first aqueducts, above-ground channels that brought potable water from the mountains to the cities. Now in this form the water coming in was deemed cleaned by nature. Never been compromised by use or tainted by any additives. Is this the same water in the glass in front of you? Obviously not as the water in your cup comes from a public works plant that recycles water from the lake. The USGS defines clean, safe water as “water that will not harm you if you come in contact with it.” When we're talking about clean water, we are often referring to drinking water, but it is also essential that water for all domestic use is clean. With this said. Nothing is stated from source. Let’s take this a step further and look at it from another point of view. We all go to the bathroom. We all dump all kinds of chemicals down the drain. Where do you think these chemicals and waste ends up? Yes back in that water you are looking at in that glass on top of your table. Potable water normally was virgin water coming from a stream that was governed by nature’s property. Today potable water comes from a cocktail of liquid sources purified at a local municipal works facility. Then if so how clean is our water? How potable in it’s pure sense is that water. Well some may argue that one way to further clean that soup of liquids we call potable water is to boil. Boil. If you don't have safe bottled water, you should boil your water to make it safe to drink. Boiling is the surest method to kill disease-causing germs, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites. adding a pinch of salt for each quart or liter of boiled water. Unfortunately it is the same composition of liquids that we started off with only further cleansed. Technically the water we drink today is a cocktail of all kinds of liquid. Bodily fluids, man made chemicals. This bringing to question the impact that these purified cocktails are having on our DNA composition. As water is so much needed for the body to survive. Without water the human body would just dry up and die. We must look at modern recycled water impact on human DNA. How it is changing and how it will affect future generations to come. We hear on how ill prepared we as a civilization were when it came to global COVID. Should we not be preparing for an attack on our water supply and the way we so called clean it? We live in a fragile society that prepares after the emergency is upon us. That is not preparedness. That is plain insanity as billions of lives are at stake. So what are you going to do. Will you sill drink that soup of liquid chemical that have been deemed the only choice in order to preserve your life? Or will you demand real result when it comes to our water supply?

Canada and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

with the European Union (CETA) by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Every September since 2017, Canada and the European Union toast their now five-year-old Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Statements from both sides combine data showing increased two-way trade with heartfelt expressions of the shared principles that are said to be enhanced and put to work by the deal. Great optimism! However, the rhetoric and the statistical numbers give us only a partial and, in some cases, a very misleading picture of how the Canada-EU trade deal works and to whose benefit. In some areas, the effect of CETA in Canada has been worse than we predicted it would be before the deal was signed, and the government has done nothing to correct it. For example, patents on brand name drugs are getting longer in Canada. We don't yet know how much that will cost public and private drug plans, but the best guesses out there suggest it will be a lot. Longer patents mean longer delays for cheaper generic versions of the same drugs. This patent term restoration only applies to drugs approved after CETA came into force in 2017. Generic versions of those drugs will only begin to hit the Canadian market in 2023 and we cannot know how they will be priced or how well they will sell. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately predict how much annual drug expenditures will go up due to CETA. What we do know is that, to date, Health Canada has granted patent term extensions-officially called certificates of supplementary protection, or CSPs-to 71 of 93 applications. In 62 of the 71 cases in which a CSP was issued (87%), the brand name drug patent was lengthened by the maximum of two years. Why would Canada agree to such a costly concession to the EU and Big Pharma generally? The official reasoning is that stronger intellectual property rights attract investment and jobs in innovative sectors like pharma and the life sciences. However, to date we have not seen such a trend, and our drug procurement problems during the pandemic confirmed it. In fact, at this point, what began with a promise to protect Canadians has ended up with a commitment to support pharmaceutical companies. Mostly foreign brand-name pharmaceutical companies have increased their power and profits at the expense of Canadian drug consumers. Another area which was much heralded in the negotiations was meat exports. Here Canada's performance has been, well, non-existent. Despite increases in their duty-free quotas, beef and pork exports have stagnated. Canadian beef has hardly used any of its allotted export quota and pork exports are not worth mentioning. Imports of European beef and veal into Canada, on the other hand, have grown considerably, while the doubling of European cheese import quotas is regularly filled each year by Canadian importers. The EU claims that if Canada has not yet managed to benefit fully from its beef and pork tariff rate quotas, it was related to the need to ensure respect of EU sanitary and phytosanitary standards and, in particular, the ban on the use of growth hormones. Canadian producers of meat products could abide by those EU food standards if they wanted to, but elected to complain about them instead. With the Canadian government's help, they have voiced their complaints in bilateral CETA committees and in the media. Here again, the government has shown its inability to act. One of CETA's most controversial elements in Europe, as in Canada, is the agreement's proposed investment court system. This would be a more permanent version of the ad hoc investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals empowered by international trade and investment treaties to hear corporate complaints against government policy. Canada agreed to remove ISDS from the "New NAFTA," or CUSMA, partly because of the chilling effect it can have on trade policy. However, the Trudeau government is dead set on making sure CETA's investment court system sees the light of day. That can only happen when all EU member states have fully ratified the agreement, and just over a dozen, including Germany, have yet to do. The idea that CETA would be a "living agreement," able to grow and adapt with the times, was sold to the public as a great benefit, again with progressive potential. Currently there are 20 CETA committees populated by public servants that meet at least once a year to discuss how the agreement is working in areas such as food standards, agricultural trade, biotechnology, access to raw materials, regulatory cooperation, etc. Canada and the EU use these committees to raise trade irritants with each other. Meeting agendas are published in advance and summaries posted afterwards, but, largely, this work takes place below the radar for most people and elected politicians. So again, the public servants are making the decisions rather than the elected officials. The latter continue to trust the public service blindly, and authorize their decisions without necessarily knowing what they are signing. CETA yearly celebrations make for convenient political and public relations exercises. The agreement itself might be better forgotten if we didn't have to live with its bad effects and unbalanced outcomes. In conclusion, in CETA Canada's procurement and industrial strategy options are unreasonably compromised compared to those of other countries. The animal agriculture export quotas are going unfilled despite using up much of Canada's leverage in the EU negotiations. Furthermore, as the burgeoning bureaucracy is rapidly getting out of control, these so called low-key CETA committees have created new avenues for corporate lobbying on both sides of the Atlantic. So the question: Is the Canadian government doing anything to help Canadians achieve real benefits in the CETA?

Mitigating Being Laid Off from Your New Job Is Your Responsibility

By Nick Kossovan Is it just me, but does it not seem downsizing is more prevalent this year than during the post-pandemic years following the 2008 recession? I say this because, for the past six months, I frequently receive emails from readers telling me they started a new job only to be laid off months later. Several readers have told me they've been laid off twice, sometime three times, in the last five years. It surprises me how few candidates vet my employer during an interview; I'm rarely asked the hard questions. I realize that thoroughly vetting an employer when whatever savings you have is rapidly shrinking and financial pressures are mounting is easier said than done. Most job seekers just want to get on a payroll, so they don't ask questions that might raise red flags. On the other hand, your diligence may result in you dodging a bullet. Examples of financial questions I'd ask my interviewer and/or founders at a start-up company: - Is the company profitable? If not, when do you project it will be? - What does the company's runway look like? (Amount of time before they run out of money.) - Is the company raising capital? If yes, what is the amount and how much is committed? For public companies, a great deal of financial information is public and most likely on their website; therefore, I'd look at: - The company's "SEDAR" (System for Electric Document Analysis and Retrieval). All employees of a publicly traded company and job seekers seeking employment with such a company should be familiar with SEDAR, a database maintained by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). SEDAR is comparable to the U.S. SEC's EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval) database. You can access SEADR at www.sedar.com. - Recent quarterly earnings reports. - Recent letters to shareholders from the CEO. Reviewing this financial information will inform me of any economic headwinds the company is experiencing and what they anticipate for the future. I am looking for growth, profitability, and capital on hand. Note asking the 'hard' questions doesn't guarantee you'll get honest answers. Prepare for a deep dive into all aspects of the company, including speaking with current employees. Always verify the information you're given. Google is a job seeker's best friend. As a corporate world survival tip, keep in mind that no matter how careful you are, there are always unknown variables (e.g., a pandemic) that can affect your job's existence. So, heed my advice, whether you're an active job seeker or a long-term employee-always be looking. The days an employer could offer lifelong employment ended in the mid-80s. To mitigate the risk of being laid off from a new job, job seekers should consider the following two things, regardless of what their due diligence reveals. Seek revenue-generating roles that contribute directly to the business's profitability. In most cases, cost-center positions are the first to be cut when cuts need to be made. Such job cuts will have little impact on sales; hence, avoid taking on a cost-center position. A revenue-generating employee is less likely to be laid off than a cost-centre employee, who is a distraction (READ: liability) to the company's profitability. It's a cold business reality that employees who bring in the money have more value than those employees who can't point to adding dollars to the bottom line. In tough times, businesses need folks who can ring up sales. I'm not privy to Elon Musk's strategy with Twitter, but I find it interesting that he can let go 50% of Twitter's employees, have 20% more walk out, and the platform, as I write this, continues to function. What does this say about the value of the work most Twitter employees were doing? Before pursuing a job opportunity, ask yourself: How would the company's bottom line be affected if this position suddenly disappeared? - Ask for a healthy compensation structure, but not so high that you become unaffordable at the slightest downturn. All the self-proclaiming career experts are selling the warm and fuzzy narrative to seek your worth. Yes, getting a big salary feels good. However, "big salaries" come with strings, one being more is expected from you. (An employee's compensation needs to be justifiable from a business ROI perspective.) The other is that you may make yourself unaffordable should the business need to cut costs. My advice to jobseekers is to negotiate a base salary they can live with. Then, as applicable, negotiate a commission or bonus structure, profit sharing, RRSP matching, additional benefits, and perks as part of their overall compensation package. Accounting-wise, it makes more sense for a company to lay off an employee making $85K a year as opposed to an employee earning $45K plus 5% commission, even though their combined base salary and commission may be more than $85K. Now's not the time to be greedy. Finally, when you start a new job, make it your mission to show your new employer that you fit in, that you're willing and able to contribute to the company's success, and that hiring you was a good business decision and always be looking. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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

Age Old Question

I am newly blind and very depressed over the guy situation. Since I've lost my sight, it's almost like males have disappeared too. I've always attracted men and enjoyed dating. I still laugh and flirt, and I'm very open to questions. I want people to be comfortable. I just turned 36 and feel old and ugly, like I'm no longer a person worthy of a relationship. I am careful not to let the outside world see this side of me. I know there is nothing more of a turnoff than a whiner. So, what do I do? Where do I meet men who aren't afraid of a woman who isn't "normal?" Darla Darla, there is no timetable or technique which guarantees you will find a man. Sighted or not, the wisest advice remains the same. Be fully engaged in life, follow what most deeply interests you, and fill your own well. Filling your own well is never a waste. At worst you will become a happier, more complete, more fulfilled person. Often when we stop chasing, things come because it is then time. There are people offering gimmicks to get someone. What they won't tell you is that it may get you someone, but not your someone. For a relationship to last, it must be your someone, not just anyone. The divorce rate confirms this. Live your life with gusto! If you allow yourself to be moved by what stirs you, a larger plan will unfold. It will seem right, even though it may be something you never imagined. Just because you are 36 and want a man, it doesn't mean today he will arrive. Men are not like Chinese takeout. Tamara The Same Boat Please excuse the untidiness of this letter. It is the first time I have put my life in writing. I read with great interest the story of the young couple that were virgins before marriage, and a year later, still are. Their story is my own. I speak from 45 years of lost love, sex, and caring. I remained a virgin two years after marriage. I had such migraine headaches from the stress my boss would not allow me back to work without a doctor's note. How could I go back to the doctor I knew since childhood, a virgin two years after he attended my wedding? So I saw another doctor. I cried myself to sleep many nights. I needed someone to hold and love me. Eventually, we did indulge, and I got pregnant immediately. I had a child all my own to love. Three years later we got together, and again I was pregnant. Four years more passed, and I was given the gift of pregnancy for my anniversary. Now, with three children, life did not improve. My husband worked in law enforcement, so he worked around the clock. Obviously, he kept himself happy while I craved love so desperately. I don't think it is good for children not to see love between their mother and father. Our last child was especially aware because I left the useless bedroom while she was young. The moral of the story is this. Young man, get out of your loveless marriage. At 65 I'm too old now to make the change, plus my friends would be stunned. Vera Vera, many people carry a secret without realizing how many others carry the same secret. Even though you feel it is too late for you, you shared your experience to help another whose life is still ahead of him. There is another moral. A secret exposed loses its power. The fear of revealing a problem traps you in the problem. When you overcome fear and openly express your feelings and the need for help, a solution becomes possible. Locked in the fear of discovery, the problem denied, there is no solution but more secrecy. Wayne & Tamara write: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com

Poor Sleep Can Lead to Inflammatory Problems

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones An old Irish proverb says, “A good laugh and a long sleep are the best cures in the doctor’s book.” But research suggests it would be wiser to think of good sleep as an ingredient of wellbeing – a starting point for health, not a fixer-upper. Sleep is an essential building block of good health, along with quality nutrition, moderate exercise, socioeconomic connectivity, mindfulness, and ample good luck. Guidelines recommend “7 to 9 hours of good-quality sleep for adults aged 18 to 64, on a regular basis, with consistent sleep and wake times for health benefits.” For adults aged 65 and older, a slightly modified “7 to 8 hours of sleep” is advised. But sleep is too often neglected – insufficient in both quantity and quality. According to a global sleep survey, 62% of adults worldwide feel they don’t sleep well when they go to bed. Surveys show that North Americans, on average, sleep just under 7 hours a night. Some are getting more – and good for them. Some are getting less – with serious consequences. Poor quality sleep has harmful implications for insomniacs. The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute reports, “Sleep deficiency is linked to many chronic health problems, including heart disease, kidney disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, obesity, and depression.” But drowsy people have negative implications for other people too. Lack of sleep is a major factor in deadly car accidents and other transportation tragedies. Both the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and the Exxon Valdez oil spill involved workers affected by sleep deprivation. Although people commonly try to “catch up” on sleep during the weekend, studies have found this to be a losing strategy. For one thing, less weekday sleep equates to later nights, awake and snacking, which leads to weight gain and involves challenges in managing diabetes, for example. It may be disappointing to learn more bad news. Research now shows that even long periods of sufficient sleep don’t make up for sleep deficits. Not getting good sleep? The damage is done. Scientists are starting to unpack exactly what kind of problems develop from lack of good sleep. One study founds that consistently losing an hour and a half of sleep a night can increase the risk of inflammatory disorders and cardiovascular disease. The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, showed that sleep disruptions in both humans and mice led to the same loss in the protective effects of their immune systems “actually making infections worse”. In effect, poor sleep causes trouble in blood cell production, leading to overproduction of white blood cells that normally fight infections, but the overabundance instead results in inflammation. Another study involving more than 7,000 men and women at the ages of 50, 60 and 70, found that people at age 50 getting five hours of sleep or less were “20% more likely to have been diagnosed with a chronic disease and 40% more likely to be diagnosed with two or more chronic diseases over 25 years, compared to people who slept for up to seven hours.” Those are big differences! Those two more hours of sleep gives the body enough time to complete one full sleep cycle, allowing brain and body to recuperate and immune systems to function effectively. What are some tips for healthy sleep? Get natural daylight exposure. Limit alcohol before bed. Eliminate noise and light disruptions. And at bedtime, allow into the mind those things that sooth the soul. These days, that means turning off the evening news and turning instead to a good book. 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

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RECENT RECOUNT

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. I have a question of concern over the recent municipal elections. Am I to believe that the people of Oshawa are happy with the quality of life in Oshawa? With the open use of drugs on our streets. With people living on our streets. With the increase in petty crime? Just recently a recount took place in ward 1. The original count was Theresa Ann Corless 1,094. Rosemary McConkey (incumbent) 1,107. Ahmad Rashed Formuly 208. The recount numbers came back Theresa Ann Corless 1,093. Rosemary McConkey 1,101 and Ahmad Rashed Formuly 208. First point of concern. How is it that Corless lost one vote. Rosemary 6 and Formuly stayed at 208? Does it not sound like something is wrong in Oshawa. Formuly the same. The other two lost votes. Out of the 11 positions on council. Only one was changed. Could it be that the 18% that turned out are the same 20% minus death of those voting? Where did the other 82% go to vote. Well obviously they did not vote. This is not only not good for Oshawa but for democracy. Think about it. 82% surrendered their voice. They voided their opportunity to be heard. We as a society can we be so docile. So uncaring? So unaware of the danger of our inactions? We the modern people of society are doomed to be lead without voice. They talk about the ‘BIG RESET’. We by our own action or in this case inaction are becoming a number in a global bingo game. We are not a person. But a number that may be manipulated and controlled. By our actions we surrendered our individuality and our voice. This compounded with the sea of misinformation and high tech tabulation of studies, polls and elections. We as a people, as a civilization are an easy picking for a new world order to take over and control our every aspect of life. In all past civilization the more the general population feared the state. The more power. Fear has many faces. In the past fear was brought about out of ignorance. The church promoted scripture in order to entice compliance to church and state norms and laws. The more sophisticated the society became the elaborate the schemes of enticing fear have become. It seems we are in conflict at all times. War on drugs, sex, and so on. In today’s world. We are confused by the overwhelming amount of data that we must process. Our minds become polluted and easily manipulated to believe things and ideologies that we truly do not understand. Our fear mongering to compliance comes as the applications that drive such machines base their premise on basic instinct of survival. It not any more a foreign enemy or a God. Instead it is about self preservation. Take the shot and save lives. Wear a mask and stop the transmission, cut risk. It appears it never ends. Viruses keep jumping at us in order for us to comply. Locally this past week with this re-count has shown that the manipulation is bigger and stronger than that of which we can control.

The Canadian puppet show

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As there is nothing more important to do for the nation, a show is being put on in the usually dull capital city of Ottawa. The actors are many and the audience is the nation. It takes the form of another taxpayer funded commission of inquiry, this time, into the invocation of the Emergency Act, in response to the truckers' Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. The Public Order Emergency Commission is in its sixth and final week of public hearings, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expected to testify on the last day of the proceedings. A final report is expected to be delivered to Parliament by early next year. The cover up is astonishing, with different definitions of 'threat to national security' emanating from the Canadian Security Agency Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Justice Department. Earlier this week, the commission heard that while CSIS Director David Vigneault didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security as defined by the CSIS Act, he did support invoking the Emergencies Act. He testified that he sought a legal interpretation from the Department of Justice and that it was his understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of a "threat to the security of Canada" was broader than the one in the CSIS Act. Do you find this interesting, or even reassuring, that the nation is well protected? At his end, the Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Sujit Choudhry argued, that the solicitor-client privilege shielding on the legal opinion should be lifted. "In fairness to the commission's process, the federal government should waive solicitor-client privilege and publicly release this opinion," he said in a media statement last week. A spokesperson for the Justice Minister David Lametti told CBC that the principle of solicitor-client secrecy is vital to the judicial system and the minister doesn't have the authority to waive it in this case. How nice! Is this how justice is being served? "Minister Lametti is committed to transparency and assisting the inquiry led by Commissioner Justice Rouleau in their work," the spokesperson said in an email. "[But] he is unable to speak on matters that are covered by solicitor-client privilege without violating his obligations to the government as his client and affecting ongoing legal proceedings." It seems the Minister is both client and solicitor, but the show goes on. The legal interpretation of the Emergencies Act has become a key point as the commission works to determine whether the federal government was justified in invoking the law. Under the Emergencies Act, the federal cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists - which the act defines as one that "arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency." For the record: CSIS's definition : Service?means the Canadian Security Intelligence Service established by subsection 3(1);?(Service) Threats to the security of Canada?means (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).?(menaces envers la sécurité du Canada) The act then points back to such a threat - which cites serious violence against people or property "for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective," espionage, foreign interference or the intent to overthrow the government by violence, which, let's be serious, is difficult to point to in the convoy protest, especially in Ottawa. It is true that citizens of Ottawa might have been disturbed, but hey, this is the Capital of Canada for the moment, and people have the right to protest. By the way, with the woke culture in vogue in Canada, perhaps the time has come to move the Capital of Canada to a more suitable location in the centre of the nation. Such moves have been accomplished in other nations, such as Australia and Brazil. Do not forget that Ottawa was established as the Capital of Canada by Queen Victoria. As she has become less popular in some strata of the population lately, witness the toppling of her statue in front of the Winnipeg legislature without judicial consequence for the perpetrators, this move might prove popular, at least with the Liberal Party. Beside the Minister of Justice, let's look at the less than brainy performance of the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Bill Blair. This is the same Bill Blair who, as Chief of Police in Toronto, made a mess in the city during the G20 summit. His record shows his inability to deal with protests, even less demanding ones. But the crowning glory of incompetence, awarded for his arrogant and contradictory actions and statements regarding the protest in Ottawa, belongs to the Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino. He received intelligence from both the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, that there was no serious threat to Canada from a badly organized protest that offered no tangible plots of violence nor had any ideologically motivated violent extremist groups in attendance. Instead of acting on that intelligence, he pursued his own feelings, like a Moses on the Holly Mountain. At one point, commission counsel asked what prompted his concerns that the protest could spiral and overwhelm police services across the country. "It came from observation," he said, a classic example of marshalling evidence to confirm predetermined convictions and dismissing evidence that contradicts them. Considered a seasoned and competent lawyer, the legal profession must be proud of Mendicino's specious justification for his actions - that CSIS's mandate is confined to espionage and foreign interference threats, not an illegal, national protest. What a unique interpretation. Well done. No wonder he is famous for his arrogance in action and inaction. This is the man in Canadian government, who stated, among many other pompous and misleading declarations, that a NATO allied nation is guilty of genocide. So the puppet show goes on, and we wait for the chief puppeteer to close it. Yours to watch and rate the show.

Steps I Would Take if I Were Beginning a Job Search

By Nick Kossovan M. DeFalco of Winnipeg, MB, emailed me this question: How would you start searching for a job today? Many factors influence a job search, such as the job seeker's age, location, profession, level of experience, digital footprint, expected starting salary, and if they cultivated a professional network. In addition, there's the ongoing carnage in the job market, especially in the tech sector, and an economy rapidly heading south. Nowadays, the job market is hostile, which job seekers must tame. If you had asked me when I was in my 20s what my dream job looked like, I'd have answered: - A well-known company, preferably a household name (e.g., GE, Bell, GM, Ontario Hydro). - A title that bolsters my professional image and resume. - High pay, with plenty of benefits and perks. - A wide range of internal career paths I could pursue. - the opportunity to work on creative projects. - Gaining career-advancing experience. If you ask me now: - Company stability, both financially and in terms of industry. - Believing in the company's mission. - Alignment of the company's values with my own. - A harmonious working relationship with my boss and coworkers. - Having a direct, measurable, and visible impact on the company's success. - Having autonomy. If I were starting a job search tomorrow, the four steps I'd take are: Step 1: Make an announcement. My first step would be to heed the adage: A closed mouth doesn't get fed. I'd inform, via phone calls, everyone I know-family, friends, my entire professional network-that I'm looking for a new job. I wouldn't simply say, "I'm looking for a job." I'd specify the type of job I'm seeking (industry, title, location). For example, "Unfortunately, I was part of Ponsonbys downsizing, which you may have heard about in the news. I'm now seeking a digital marketing position with a mid-size fashion house, ideally based in mid-Toronto." The more people are aware of my situation, the greater the likelihood of opportunities being presented to me. In addition to my announcement, I'd activate LinkedIn's 'Open To Work' feature. Activating this feature will display a green banner (#OPENTOWORK) on my profile picture, indicating that I'm interested in new employment opportunities. Step 2: List the benefits of hiring me. Today businesses are focused on keeping their workforce pared down to business-critical functions only. Having overhired and an expected recession are the reasons for most of the layoffs and hiring freezes so far this year, which I believe will continue throughout next year. Companies are cutting jobs that are distracting from the company's profitability. Keeping in mind today's businesses have a lean mentality, I'd list all the benefits of hiring me. In other words, what would an employer gain by hiring me? - My extensive industry experience, including being well-connected within my industry and profession? - My expertise as a subject matter expert (SME) in a particular area of my profession? - My having a proven and measurable track record? - My being bilingual? I'd list all my skills (hard and soft) along with my experience using my skills, which is worth paying for. Step 3: Update my LinkedIn profile and resume. Employers hire for results. Therefore, I'd edit, where necessary, my LinkedIn profile to be results-oriented. Instead of using non-quantifiable statements that seem like opinions, I want my profile to be filled with quantifiable sentences-sentences with numbers that quantify. Using quantifiable sentences will make my work structure, productivity, and results tangible. - Unquantified: Improved staff performance across all divisions, resulting in increased profits. - Quantified: Led a staff of 20 employees with innovative policies that yielded a 27% increase in profits over the previous year. - Unquantified: Answered calls. - Quantified: Handled 80-100 inbound customer calls per day. I'd reflect on my past 10 years and ask myself where and how I: - Increased revenue, profit, or generated sales. (The more you can speak to this, the better.) - Increased (or reduced) X by Y%. - Saved time. - Improved a process, thus saving money and/or time. I'd also think about what accuracy I've achieved, the quantity of work I did and the amount I processed. Very few job-related tasks can't be quantified in some way. Once my LinkedIn profile reads as I want it to, including having filled out all the sections (e.g., education, licenses & certifications, skills, languages, volunteer experience), I'd update my resume, so it too was result oriented. NOTE: Studies have shown that complete and optimized profiles increase the likelihood of being found and receiving opportunities by 40 times. Step 4: Lastly, before officially kicking off my job search, which'll mostly involve my reaching out to hiring managers and recruiters to tap into the hidden job market, I'd reflect on what I want my next job and employer to look like and, most importantly, where I see myself fitting in. As I've mentioned in previous columns, making finding where you belong a priority is the best compass a job seeker can use. Therefore, my job search won't be the traditional "I'm looking for a job." Instead, I'll be looking for where I'll be accepted. Hence, I won't be looking for a job; I'll be looking for my tribe." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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