The Next Elections will likely occur under a new Election Boundary Map

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East It is well known that every 10 years the federal election map of Canada is updated to reflect growth and shift in the population. The number of seats in the House of Commons is also modified accordingly. As the country moves from 338 electoral districts to 343, new seats are created. Overall, of the existing 338 ridings, 271 will see their boundaries changed. Three of the next electoral map's five new seats are going to be in Alberta. British Columbia is getting one more seat; a seat carved out of southern B.C.'s interior. Ontario gets one more seat but Toronto itself loses a seat, dropping from 25 to 24. It is worth noting that the system of independent provincial commissions re-drawing riding maps has been in place in Canada since 1964. After each decennial census, Elections Canada makes a recommendation on the adjustment of the number of seats to be added to the House of Commons, a recommendation which must be approved by the House of Commons. After that, though, it is up to three-person commissions in each province to re-draw existing maps to account for those new seats or redistribute existing seats based on population shifts. The head of each provincial commission is a judge appointed by the chief justice of each provincial court. The other two members of each provincial commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons and tend to be academics or retired civil servants. So far, at least, the Canadian system of re-drawing electoral districts has avoided the gerrymandering controversies of the United States where state legislatures get to re-draw electoral maps and often do so to obtain a partisan advantage for the party in control of that legislature. The "final reports" of each provincial commission are put forward after public consultations and after an initial report is tabled with a first draft of new riding boundaries. At this stage, the discussion on the boundary changes in many ridings continues in the various provinces and territories, carried on by the respective election commissions with input from the public, parliamentarians and other communities of interest. 'Communities of interest' refers to concerns that are relevant to the people of the particular region. It could be urban versus rural, it could be linguistic minorities, or even racialized minorities. The commissions are supposed to take those factors into account in trying to keep communities together, or at least avoiding the division of their voting power in a way that's harmful to those groups." Trying to keep communities of interest together when re-drawing riding boundaries is a concept that may appear sound, but can be quite tricky to implement. The commissions have to consider all factors and to make many tough choices. It is clear that we will see some changes in the future and the political parties are fully engaged in examining and defending their future election chances. It is a fact that realignment of the electoral boundaries creates new issues for both sitting MPs and future candidates. A new reality is being established. The commissions are expected to make their final decisions in April. By law, the new boundaries would then be in effect for any general election that occurs seven months after the finalization of boundaries. As things slowly develop across the country, it is interesting to see how the Province of Ontario deals with electoral boundary realignment. Not only because we live in Ontario, but because the sheer number of MPs elected in this province, represent a sizable portion of the House of Commons. The Ontario commission had a tendency to make changes in the electoral boundaries based on many factors, but essentially taking into consideration an argument based on urban-rural splits and communities of interest. Proposed changes in the Durham region are especially interesting, and the riding of Pickering Uxbridge, where I was a candidate in the past, stands out in particular. The Ontario commission took the Toronto-area riding of Pickering-Uxbridge and divided it up along urban-rural lines. The southern half of Pickering-Uxbridge, currently held by Liberal Jennifer O'Connell, becomes the riding of Pickering-Brooklin, picking up some polls from the northern part of the riding of Whitby. While those northern Whitby polls tended to vote Conservative, Pickering-Brooklin, because it is now more urban, should be more favourable to O'Connell's chances of re-election. The rest of the former riding of Pickering-Uxbridge, the northern, rural half, moves to a new riding to be called York-Durham that contains a much higher proportion of rural areas than urban or suburban areas and, as a result, would likely lean Conservative based on previous voting patterns. In conclusion, I ask you to follow these changes in the electoral boundaries, especially here in the Durham region. As the situation stands today, the next election will operate based on these new electoral boundaries. Be aware and be informed!

Shorten Your Job Search by Writing a Compelling Value Proposition Letter - Part 1

By Nick Kossovan This is part one of a two-part series on writing a compelling value proposition letter. There are many activities involved in job searching, such as networking, having an active result-oriented LinkedIn profile and resume, applying to jobs, interviewing, etc., to name a few. Aside from these job search activities, have you considered sending an unsolicited value proposition letter to potential employers? What I am proposing is a networking technique that you should find comfortable. It is especially effective if you work in a niche industry (e.g., biofuels, pet insurance, medical tourism, hydroponic farming) where there are few players or if you possess a set of highly sought-after skills (e.g., cloud computing, network security, auditing, fluency in multiple languages). A value proposition letter's objective is to show how your skills and experience can solve, or at least be part of solving, an employer's problem(s) (READ: pain points). "Yes, in next week's column." (Answer to the question you are now asking yourself, "Will I be providing examples of a value proposition letter?") "Yes, actually, several." (Answer to, " Have you ever hired someone who sent you an unsolicited value proposition letter?") In order to write a value proposition letter that will resonate with your target companies, begin by doing some research while asking yourself, "What are some of the possible problems they are facing? How can I be of assistance in solving them?" For example, is it your belief that long delivery times are causing an e-commerce site you visited to lose customers to Amazon? As a supply chain analyst with 15 years of experience, how would you address this issue? Writing a value proposition letter requires using your right brain, where your emotions, intuition, and creativity reside. This is not a fill-in-the-blanks exercise. It is essential that your letter appears human-written, something that is becoming increasingly rare with AI technology becoming more easily available. It is you, not AI technology, who is offering your skills, knowledge, and experience to help an employer address pain points they might be experiencing, according to your best guess. Something to note; your "pain point guess" guess may point out something the company's leadership team has never considered. In my above example, it is possible the company's leadership team may not have thought their long delivery times discourage potential customers from purchasing their products. (Do they look at their cart abandonment rate?) The most common pain points employers face today are: - Keeping and expanding market share. - Enhancing profitability. - Increasing productivity and efficiency. - Keeping up with and implementing technological advancements. - Supply chain issues causing order fulfillment issues. - Managing employee benefits and payroll costs. - Recruiting and retaining qualified employees with the right mindset and attitude. If you have the skills and experience (READ: a proven track record) to address any of the above-mentioned pain points, then most employers will view you as gold. With all the talk about a recession on the horizon, how can your skills and experience help employers weather the predicted economic slump? Once you have identified your targeted employer's potential pain points, you can start crafting your value proposition letter to sell your skills and experience to address those pain points. There are four elements to a pain letter. 1. Hook 2. The employer's pain point, which is either explicit or you believe exists. 3. Persuasively describe how your skills and experience can address the employer's pain point. 4. Closing It is essential to show that you understand the company's goals and values. For instance, not every company is concerned with increasing its market share. Some companies are more focused on becoming environmentally sustainable or being seen as socially conscious. With this understanding, you will be on point explaining, confidently, how your combination of skills, experience, and knowledge can help the company achieve its goals. Also important is being specific! Use numbers to quantify your achievements and results. Your opinion has no place in a value proposition letter. Likewise, your opinion has no place in your job search. At all times, you need to provide a solid, undeniable reason why you would be a value add to an employer, not your opinions of yourself, which is what most job seekers do. Numbers, the language of business, helps employers see your impact in your previous roles. TIP: Throughout your job search, you do not want employers struggling to figure out what value you can add to their organization, hence why they should hire you. Therefore, use quantitative numbers throughout your LinkedIn profile, resume, cover letter and when interviewing… and in your value proposition letter. A compelling value proposition letter convincingly conveys to potential employers how you would be a value add to their company. In my next column, I will provide examples of a value proposition letter, as promised earlier. In the meantime, compile a list of employers you would like to work for (Why not go one step further and find the contact information of those most likely to make hiring decisions, such as managers, directors and C-suite executives?), their possible pain points, and how your skills and experience can ease their pain. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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

What a wonderful world we live in!

As we move into this new year of 2023, we need to reflect on what is going on around us; not much to rejoice about. Let’s start with the war raging in Europe and the endless loss of lives there. It seems to be escalating instead of winding down, after a whole year of fighting. For the moment, it does not affect us directly, so we don’t seem to be taking it very hard here in Canada. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I do hope that cooler heads will prevail and end this nonsense, so close to devastating the start of this brand new century. Another half–laughable, half-serious happening in the world, involves the quite old-fashioned balloons, which rose to worldwide attention, making busy work for politicians, taking sides and pointing fingers. Let’s take a closer look at this new affair, since our esteemed Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, finds himself in the balloon business as well, if not the chief ballooner. It started in the United States, where a balloon that originated in China, flew over US national territory, creating havoc at the highest political level. On their end, there is one thing the White House would like you to know about the unidentified flying objects shot down over the U.S. and Canada this past weekend: aliens probably didn’t send them. “There is no, again, no indication of aliens or extra-terrestrial activity with these recent takedowns,” US press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphatically told a briefing this week. The balloons seem to have created a new subject for eager politicians, possibly to distract them from more serious and more stringent issues such as the welfare of their own citizens. Indeed, it is unclear how NORAD, the joint US - Canada air defence system, set up in 1958 to intercept hypothetical Soviet attacks via the Arctic, did not react to the balloons and did not order their destruction. The balloons seem to have defeated the costly system set up to identified enemy ballistic missiles. The balloon saga started sometime on or before Jan. 31, when Canadian fighter jets began tracking a suspicious Chinese spy or non-spy balloon over the Rocky Mountains. President Joe Biden himself becoming a chief ballooner said it was too dangerous to shoot down over land, for fear of killing or injuring someone on the ground, so the US waited until it drifted off the South Carolina coast to fell it with a missile ordered by the President. (The second missile succeeded). However, The US and Canada have not explained yet why NORAD didn’t shoot the balloon down before it reached populated areas. Was it a deliberate decision in order to study the object, or did they simply fail to detect it until it was too late. Then last week, US fighter jets shot down three more unidentified objects, presumably more balloons, over the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska, the central Yukon wilderness and the waters of Lake Huron. Canadian warplanes were also involved in the pursuit of the second object, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau authorizing the shoot-down. Balloons eh…. Both governments say they don’t know what these last three objects were or who sent them. By these admissions, it seems that these kinds of balloons have been circulating over Canada and the US for a long time without detection. In a briefing last week, NORAD commander General Glen VanHerck said that the system’s radars are usually set to filter out slow-moving objects, presumably to focus on more obvious potential threats, such as planes or missiles. After the detection of the Chinese balloon, NORAD readjusted the radars and started picking up the objects (other balloons) President Biden and PM Trudeau subsequently ordered taken down. “We’ve been able to get a better categorization of radar tracks now. And that’s why I think you’re seeing these overall. Plus, there’s a heightened alert to look for this information,” General VanHerck told reporters. So, the Victorian era balloons defeated a multibillion dollar defence system! To add to the circus people started to speculate about aliens, UFOs and ETs. Asked about this, General VanHerck made the mistake of not answering the question directly. “I haven’t ruled out anything,” he replied. After the internet exploded with variations of “high-ranking general won’t rule out aliens” posts, the White House decided to act proactively and pour cold water on the speculation. At the start of the White House briefing, Ms. Jean-Pierre the US President’s spokesperson; repeatedly made it clear in her way, that there is nothing to suggest that extra-terrestrials sent craft across the galaxy only to see them felled by a species that has never travelled farther than the moon. Returning our attention to our national turf, we see things happening in Toronto the good that are from an outside world. Just re-elected Mayor John Tory suddenly said that he would resign over an intimate extramarital affair with a young staffer in his office. However, he has not resigned officially, and his office has declared that his departure won’t be immediate. “Mayor John Tory will be attending the upcoming budget meeting to ensure the 2023 City of Toronto operating and capital budgets are finalized. The budget makes key investments in housing, transit, and community safety and the Mayor will be working to ensure it is approved,” said a written statement from Taylor Deasley, Tory’s press secretary and issues manager. In the mean time, the crimes on innocent people are skyrocketing in downtown Toronto. What next? Should we be laughing or crying?

COULD THIS BE “A NEW Age of Aquarius

” 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 - Are we on the cusp of moving into the Age of Aquarius, where we are being asked to relinquish the old ways and harness the creative new. The Age of Aquarius—made popular by the 1967 rock musical Hair—is a period of about 2,160 years that is characterized by the passage of the vernal equinox through the air sign Aquarius. Opinions differ about the exact timing of this passage, but it is undisputed that we are now in a transition phase from Pisces to Aquarius. Symbolizing the start of a new era, the characteristics of the sign transiting the vernal equinox dominate earth’s collective energy. This move into the Age of Aquarius stands to impact the ways we make and connect with art to the ways we buy and sell it. Affecting elections much like in the U.S. According to astronomers - This past December 21, we saw the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Aquarius. It was the first time in more than 800 years that this Great Conjunction returned to the air element, and it will remain there for about 200 years. This is critical for the arts, as Aquarius symbolizes a break from previously established traditions, thereby allowing for new and unusual ideas to flow more freely and for new pathways to emerge. Aquarius points to a newfound sense of hope and a strong desire for collective change—some of which we have already experienced in the Covid-19 pandemic and the protests against racial violence in the United States—and, when combined with Jupiter’s energy, encourages us to expand our thoughts. We will see a continued and deeper shift toward a greater awareness of the collective consciousness. This shift in energy will also serve cutting-edge and outside-the-box mediums like digital, video, performance, conceptual art, and similarly experimental forms—all of which will act as a catalyst for inventive change. But we must remember that change takes time. The U.S. department of defense in 2022 made it public that they are dedicating a special unit to look into the ever surging reports of UFO’s. With the threat of COVID slowly falling into the horizon and the war against Russian not having the same impact as it once did. Many are wondering if the new threat to national and personal security may not be in the cosmics. After all it seems that governments of the world thrive during times of chaos and uncertainty. During COVID governments of the world shut down countries and kept citizens under military rule. They went as far as force vaccine injections in the name of national security. Just this past month. The treats of Chinese flying balloons. Short time after that. In northern Canada, three UFO’s shot down of unknown origins. Could this be the era/age that we finally make contact. That we the people of earth find a new enemy and thru this phantom enemy, it unites all countries in the fight of a common interest. Could this be the beginning of one world government in the best interest of Global security. Could through the assistance of the ever surging technology of Artificial Intelligence. We the common folk may become the robots to the doctrine of a world order transcribed and delivered through fear mongering and sophisticated AI technologies. They can see us. They can hear us. Soon they will be able to direct us and even tell us when we can leave our homes. We the people must awaken and take control before it is taken from us. The new age of Aquarius is upon us. Who will come to liberate us? REMEMBER ALWAYS Hope for the Best. PREPARE FOR the worst.

Being Charismatic Greatly Benefits Your Job Search

By Nick Kossovan We all know someone who walks into a room and instantly turns heads. There is an immediate attraction to them without any apparent effort on their part. Their company makes you feel good. They seem cool, confident, collected, self-assured and comfortable in their own skin. They may not be attractive, wealthy, or intelligent, but they have a certain something-charisma. In my opinion, there is nothing more advantageous for a job seeker than having a magnetic personality-attracting rather than repelling. It is comfortable for job seekers and employees to believe that their education, skills, and experiences are what will lead them to be hired and receive promotions and raises. Such a mindset leads to frustration and disappointment. I firmly believe that the ability to become charismatic is not innate and can be learned. This is an important trait to have, especially when interviewing. Understandably, employers are attracted to candidates who can effortlessly establish friendships, influence people, and collaborate well with coworkers, managers, clients, and others. After all, relationships are the backbone of business. Possessing charisma will make you more desirable, especially when compared to your less motivated competition, and thus give you a competitive advantage. In my last column, Employers Buy Into You Based on Emotion, I mentioned two interview truisms: 1. Being likeable trumps your skills and experience, and 2. Throughout your interview, your interviewer is asking themselves: "Do I like this person?" (Worth repeating: The deciding factor in all hiring is the interviewer asking themselves, "Do I like this person?") Even for a hard-to-fill position, I have yet to know a hiring manager who has ever hired someone they did not like. Since job search and career success rely heavily on your people skills, you should develop your people skills and make yourself a charismatic individual that employers, and your colleagues, will want on their team. According to social psychologists, charisma is made up of three primary qualities: - Presence - Power - Warmth The most effective interviewees know how to engage their interviewer with candid, stimulating conversation, drawing them into their way of thinking through their charisma and confidence. More precisely, charismatic interviewees can persuade their interviewer to open up to them by coming across as authentic, knowledgeable and attuned to their interviewer's and employer's needs. The most effective job seekers employ three communication "tactics" in order to connect with their interviewer and professionals they meet (Networking is effortless when you have a charismatic personality. 1.They listen and maintain consistent eye contact. "One of the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say." - Bryant H. McGill, American author. A charismatic personality is built on attentive listening; therefore, the first step to becoming charismatic is: Be present in the moment! Turn off your smartphone or leave it at home or in your car. During your interview, refrain from staring at the view outside your interviewer's window, scanning their office, looking at the employees walking by, or thinking about what you want for lunch. Give your interviewer your undivided attention throughout the interview. Focus on them, not the surroundings or any of the monkey chatter that may be going on in your head. 2.Rather than avoid possibly making a bad impression, they say what they think. Interviewees do little to impress and connect with their interviewer by answering questions in such a way as attempting to avoid making an unfavourable impression. Cliched answers are unimpressive and forgettable. Charismatic interviewees aim to build a trusting relationship with their interviewer, not fly under the radar. Consequently, they are sincere and upfront about who they are and what they stand for. Due to their desire to be authentic, they are willing to take the risks that come with being upfront. Their self-confidence motivates them to adopt a mindset that if their interviewer cannot accept them as they are, then they are not a fit. 3.They appeal to the traits and ideals their interviewer assigned themselves and their company. This is an aspect of charisma that is tricky. Fundamental to building a relationship is showing respect for how the other person sees themselves. Your interviewer has an image of themselves and their company; whether it is accurate is irrelevant. During your interview, listen carefully to learn what are your interviewer's pride in themselves and their company. A great question to ask: "What is your proudest achievement while working here?" It should not be surprising that most hiring managers view themselves as competent, innovative, and influential, possessing inherent leadership skills. Interviewees with charisma leverage these perceived traits and emphasize that they are interested in the job due to the organization's leadership team, culture, and reputation. The key to being a charismatic interviewee is developing an ability to make your interviewer feel understood and respected, which is an ability you should be using throughout your life to enhance your various relationships. Interviewers (READ: all human beings) crave sincere appreciation and perceived importance from candidates. Therefore, charismatic interviewing involves effectively conveying such a message and feeling. Showing interest in your interviewer is always an effective job search strategy.

NO TO PRIVATE HEALTH CARE

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 - People wake up. Private medical care will never be good for us. It is a cash cow for insurance companies and for doctors. If we can send billions to foreign lands in the form of humanitarian aid. I am sure we can invest billions in our own people. Primarily on the way we dispense health care. Let’s get real. The real problem is not the doctors. It is not the people. It is the government and the Canadian Medical Association. If they don’t graduate more doctors the demand for doctors will always be high. Doctors will complain that they are over worked and under pay. The taxpayers will have to deal with the brunt. Forcing the average person to put pressure on the government to come up with alternatives such a private insurance. THIS IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST. Pay out of pocket does not mean more or quicker care. So stop pushing insurance companies interests and agenda as the solution. The Medical Association has no interest in having more doctors than patients. The Association looses political might. This recent so called problem in Ontario. Is shameful. Doctors blame COVID - and just about everything under the sun. The reality is that doctors and all in the medical profession are under staffed and under paid. This is an administrative problem that the Federal government can fix very easily. First, graduate more doctors. Double the output per year. Second, asssure a minimum guaranteed income for every doctor. Three, make accessible funds for specialty surgery so that our doctors do not end up in other countries. Four, assure that all nurses and subsequent related peripheral services have ample resources to expedite procedures. Five, cut back on hospital administrator perks and wages. Have them be accountable and assure they uphold strick standards of service. One thing that must be taken into account is that as a responsible government we must always assure that our population has the best of everything out there. If we don’t take care of Canada first. Why should we be taking care of the rest of the world. The medical problem is not a problem. It is an example of all that is wrong with our modern society. People playing politics to benefit their own pockets. Can’t blame the doctors. If they are over worked and they get the same pay. It is only human nature to look for ways to compensate for work performed. The Medical Association appears to be in the thought that keeping doctors demand high will achieve them getting more funding. Wrong. Privatization will hurt all Canadians. The only ones to benefit will be insurance companies and the medical profession as they will be in a position to pick and choose based on what they get paid. It is not working in the United States. Why would it work here. For those that tell you that it is working in the U.S. They are probably doctors. It is not about communism/capitalism. It is about being human. It is about being responsible. If we have billions to take care of foreign interest. We have billions to take care of our people. REMEMBER ALWAYS Hope for the Best. PREPARE FOR the worst.

Canada and the Health Care fiasco

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East This is a subject I have touched on in the past, but it has become such a major issue in the lives of Canadians that the time has come to take a serious look at it. It is time to fix the system, but the issues are complicated and I doubt that the ruling political class is able to do anything more than patch it up; apply a temporary fix which will not resolve the problem. Let us see what will emerge from the Canadian Premiers' meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau, regarding this issue. In truth, we probably should not expect it to be much. The traditional microphone-hogging parade of Premiers whining on national television about having the constitutional responsibility of delivering health care without a fully paid-up federal partner will continue. It is an old battered song being replayed like a broken record. That charade will be followed by the Prime Minister declaring his version of a funding fix for a generation, which will probably only buy a few years of quiet time before the bellyaching ramps up and the next health-care crisis begins. So what is the Prime Minister proposing to do with your hard-earned taxpayer's money? In a long-awaited deal aimed at addressing Canada's crumbling health-care systems, the federal government is pledging to increase health funding to Canada's provinces and territories by $196.1 billion over the next 10 years, with $46.2 billion in new funding. This new cross-Canada offer includes both increases to the amount budgeted to flow through Canada Health Transfer (CHT) and federal plans to sign a bilateral deal with each province and territory that will be mindful of each system's unique circumstances. This funding influx is coming with an expectation that in order to access new federal dollars, provincial and territorial governments will maintain their current levels of health care spending and commit to new transparency and accountability requirements around how health information is collected, shared, used, and reported to Canadians. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau presented a proposal this week to his provincial and territorial counterparts at the first in-person meeting of all First Ministers since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, indications are that the offer has not satisfied provinces' demands. This seems to be the usual scenario, often seen before. If we look at the current situation of our Health Care system, we perceive a huge crisis in the making. Without improved home care, you cannot ease pressure on long-term care. If you cannot expand decent long-term care, you just fill up hospitals with people who should not be there. When regular hospital beds are full, patients overflow the emergency wards. That leaves paramedics stuck with patients, some with minor ailments, until an overworked physician finds a corridor bed so the paramedic can return to urgently required ambulances. So the story goes on, a vicious cycle with sick Canadians dying in queue, waiting for better care. Even when staffing resources would be adequate, they are royally wasted. Millions of Canadians are scrambling to find family doctors, for example, but those doctors are forced to spend far too much time on paperwork instead of patients. They work under a compensation schedule, which rewards bringing patients into their office for a paid appointment even when an unpaid text message or email response would suffice. Meanwhile, doctor specialization, which is getting more and more scarce, is rewarded handsomely while family practice and psychiatry are not, despite similar training. A future as a general practitioner in rural Canada, where hours would be long and vacations short, is a hard sell in medical school. Yet the Medical Association turns a deaf ear to the systemic needs and shortages, doing nothing to alleviate the problems. In particular, they ignore or sideline foreign-trained doctors, and limit the number of physicians graduating from Canadian medical schools. So, what have desperate Canadians resorted to doing lately? Those who cannot access an emergency ward and do not have a doctor, must head to a walk-in clinic which is, like most doctors in this country, a private enterprise. If you need a hernia fixed in Ontario, chances are you will join the 7,000 others who go to the privately run Shouldice Hospital every year. In view of these now routine Canadian experiences resorting to privately offered medical care, talking about a certain kind of privatization of medical services should not be treated as a bogeyman. Not only does a government-covered procedure in a private clinic not violate the Canada Health Act, but recent polling shows that the public no longer sees the use of a for-profit provider as the axe coming down on the sacred medicare cow. Therefore, let us hope that the widely touted meeting this week between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of Canada will have some positive outcomes for the future of Health Care in Canada, so it can serve Canadians more efficiently and more effectively. However, it seems that proposed changes intended to radically improve our Health Care system are looking only marginally better than believing in the recent episode of China's balloon thaIt is clearly time for the 50-year-old dream of medicare as a Canadian birth- right to be reformed in order to serve Canadians better. We need to move forward towards new horizons. What do you think?

Alcohol vs. COVID Vaccination. Alcohol vs. COVID Vaccination. When the Science Does Not Suit Us We Question It

By Nick Kossovan WARNING: My enjoying playing 'devil's advocate' has been pointed out on many occasions-it makes for thought-provoking writing. I assume you are aware of the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) having issued revised alcohol consumption guidelines. The new guidelines, released after a two-year research project funded by Health Canada, are shocking, which the media, not surprisingly, has taken full advantage of. Media coverage of the findings was spun to scare even casual drinkers straight, so it elevates above all the current "news noise" contributing to our constant anxiety. (e.g., runaway inflation, the Russia-Ukraine War, the U.S. hitting its debt ceiling) It is as if all the mainstream media outlets gathered for a brainstorming session and decided, "Hey, it's a new year; why not create a new health crisis?" Nothing keeps the collective angst elevated and everyone addicted to the news, like a continuous flow of health crises. CCSA's 89-page report can be summarized as follows: "We now know even a small amount of alcohol can be damaging to health. Research shows that no amount or kind of alcohol is good for your health." This is a 360-degree change from Canada's former alcohol consumption guidelines, released in 2011. The 2011 guidelines defined as "low risk" up to 10 drinks per week (no more than two per day) for women and up to 15 drinks per week (no more than three per day) for men. At this point, there are two things about me you need to know: 1. I am far from what you would call a teetotaller, especially during my younger days, and 2. My firsthand experience has taught me that people drink primarily for reasons of social interaction (liquid courage), not because it is nutritious. I get it; the CCSA has a duty to provide information that they feel is in the public's best interest when it comes to making informed decisions about one's health. I also understand that media outlets now find themselves in a new world order requiring they dramatically change their business model. Understandably media outlets will do whatever they feel is necessary to keep us habituated to the news-they need our eyeballs for ad revenue. The media's behaviour is not what concerns me. I have come to expect their constant "crisis spins." What concerns me is what I am hearing and not hearing from those around me and seeing on my social media feeds. Those who uncivilly freaked out when anyone questioned the science behind COVID vaccines are questioning the science used by the CCSA to revise Health Canada's alcohol consumption guidelines. This, "I will question, even denounce, any science that does not suit me," hypocrisy is telling of our society where most of us go along to get along. For your reference: In 2020/2021, according to Statistics Canada, liquor authorities sold 3,180 million litres of alcoholic beverages to Canadians of legal drinking age, an equivalent of 9.7 drinks per week per Canadian. In the coming months, it will be interesting to see whether Canadians who followed the government's vaccine guidelines because they believed in the science will now follow Health Canada's new guidelines to limit their alcohol intake to no more than two drinks per week. Will bars become dispensers of club soda and non-alcoholic fruit cocktails? Will liquor stores be shutting their doors and joining the 'For Lease' retail landscape? Will grocery stores be emptying their shelves of alcoholic beverages and stocking the new shelf space with gluten-free offerings? Will the Canadian government see a dramatic decline in alcohol sales, a significant source of government revenue, along with other vices they tax (gambling, cigarettes), forcing them to raise taxes elsewhere to maintain the money flowing into Ottawa's coffers? .. or will Canadians shrug their shoulders and keep raising glasses of beer, wine and hard liquor, saying to themselves, "What does the CCSA know? I bet their studies were commissioned by the Dairy Farmers of Canada." Yes, deciphering the science is difficult, especially when filtered through mainstream media which greatly benefits keeping you and me in a constant state of anxiousness. Nevertheless, because of the science the media reported, most Canadians quickly rolled up their sleeves to get vaccinated and then boosted. Only a small percentage of Canadians questioned the vaccine's science and possible side effects down the road. Those who were, for lack of a better word, brave enough to challenge the science publicly or said they were not comfortable getting vaccinated were pummeled with insults, labelled negatively, had their beliefs and values ridiculed and were ostracized by family and friends and their employer. Civil dialogue never took place. Why are those who are publicly saying they will be ignoring Health Canada's new alcohol consumption guidelines not being publicly burned at the stake? Unvaccinated Canadians and those who went out in public unmasked experienced outrage, which their attackers justified by claiming that their "rebellious" behaviour (READ: Exercising their right to body autonomy.) was burdening hospitals. If the media is to be believed, those who refuse to get vaccinated and/or wear a facemask are bringing Canada's healthcare system to its knees. Many will argue; if a person decides to drink, that is their business. The logic being drinking is not contagious like COVID. Point taken. However, assuming CCSA's science is credible, and therefore alcohol is literally poison, I would expect people to be upset about all the drinking Canadians who are using Canada's taxpayer-funded healthcare system to treat illnesses and diseases that could have been prevented if they had abstained from alcohol, according to the science presented by the CCSA. Where is the outrage against those who continue to smoke in 2023, despite decades of undeniable science that has clearly said smoking kills? It is inevitable that those who smoke end up using Canada's healthcare system more than Canadians who take their health seriously. The non-existent outrage against those who question CCSA's science or dismiss it outright is mind-boggling hypocrisy. No wonder there is so much discourse when hypocrisy has become the norm. Undeniably, most health issues Canadians face and seek treatment for through our healthcare system are preventable. There is no doubt that a person's lifestyle choices have a direct impact on their health. Hence, are not all unhealthy lifestyle choices deserving of outrage, judgment, condemnation, and ostracization? Or is cherry-picking which science to believe-namely, the science that suits us-the new thing? I am curious to see how much alcohol Canadians will consume in 2023. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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

Passing the Torch

Five months ago, I met a guy, 21, and we fell in love. I am 26. I've come to accept that because I look a lot younger, younger guys will always find me attractive. I got some good advice once that if the relationship is good and makes me happy, people around me will learn to accept the person. Being an African doesn't help the situation because relationships between older women and younger men aren't quite accepted yet. However, my boyfriend and I are doing fine, and my friends and his have accepted us. All would be well except a month after I met my boyfriend, my brother died. My brother was the single most important person in my life. He is the reason I am the successful and smart person I am today. As the song says, "he was my everything, the center of my world." Everything I did was so he could be proud of me. I never made a move or important decision without asking his advice. Now that he is gone, I don't see the point in anything anymore. If the reward won't be the proud look on his face, then there is no point in doing it. Sometimes I wonder if I should ask my boyfriend where the relationship is going, or just go with the flow and take things as they come. I know it sounds silly, but to me my brother was right there next to God. Kesi Kesi, wounds take time to heal. But all wounds, to our body or to our spirit, follow a normal pattern of healing. Now is the time to grieve and heal, not the time to decide on the future of your new relationship. When we are young, our reason for achievement and our reason for being depend on other people. As we mature, we understand the real reason for accomplishment grows out of ourselves. It is our nature to express our capacities. To fail to express everything within us is to fail to live. Your brother understood this, and that is why he gave so much to you. He would not want you to withdraw from life, but to become the kind of beacon to others he was to you. Edith Wharton said, "There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it." You were the mirror reflecting your brother's light. Now you can be the candle passing the light on. Perhaps one day you will again see your brother's light, shining from the eyes of your own child. Wayne & Tamara Asking The Wrong Question I am looking for some advice on how to handle heated moments. I try my hardest to remain calm and keep my voice lowered, but my partner ends up waving his arms and using a host of tactics to argue instead of dealing with the issue at hand. Usually I start by saying, "When you do that, it makes me feel like…" His response is usually something like "you're being irrational" or "that's a bit harsh." He says anything to invalidate my feelings. I don't know how to word my feelings so he sees they really are an issue for me. Jenna Jenna, the tactic of saying "when you do x, it makes me feel y" has been around for decades. It can only work when the other person is as earnest and honest about communication as you are. You believe there is a way to word things so your partner will understand and respond to your feelings. But there is another possibility, the principle known as Occam's razor. Sometimes this is interpreted as "the simplest explanation is most likely to be true." The simplest explanation is this. He understands every word you say. He doesn't care about your feelings and is successfully communicating that to you. Wayne & Tamara Wayne & Tamara write: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com Wayne & Tamara are also the authors of Cheating in a Nutshell, What Infidelity Does to the Victim, available from Amazon, Apple and most booksellers.

The Promise of 3D Printing in Healthcare

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones In healthcare, it’s the elusive breakthrough to a cure for diseases like cancer that has us all hoping. But sometimes it’s the bit-by-bit advancements, rarely getting headings, that make for greater impact. An example is the field of 3D printing, not even a medical technology by inception, but now a major disruptive force in the healthcare industry. Also known as additive manufacturing, 3D printing allows the construction of physical objects based on three-dimensional digital models. A futuristic notion until recently, such printers are now commonly found in high schools, university libraries and labs, and also in a fabulous array of high-tech companies producing medical devices, and yes, body parts of all kinds. Hearing aid manufacturers were early adopters of 3D printing technology. From a silicone mold of the ear canal, a 3D scanner creates a digital model, a 3D printer produces it, then hearing aid components are inserted. The entire process takes less than a day. Sounds impressive? That’s just the start. Here are a few of the truly amazing stories of 3D printing in medicine. In 2012, a 20-month-old baby received the surgical implant of a 3D-printed biodegradable windpipe to resolve a rare condition of weak and collapsing airway walls. Use of the technology to repair damage to the skull is remarkable enough. But in 2014, a 22-year-old woman in the Netherlands suffering from a bone disorder had the entire top part of her skull replaced with a 3D-printed implant. Three months after the 23-hour surgery, she was symptom free and back to work! Not just for the young, an 83-year-old woman with a chronic jaw infection was the recipient of the first titanium 3D-printed jaw. Using reconstructive surgery would have taken 20 hours and entailed too many risks at her age. But her doctors needed only four hours to conduct the implant and reported that she was able to speak and swallow normally the day after surgery and to go home after four days. Treatments for heart defects and heart disease are on the horizon. Using precise bioprinting technology, customized heart valves are a medical marvel. Printing entire organs is not a wild dream. Nearly ten years ago, they became a reality when the first livers and kidneys were produced. To date, these devices are only used for testing purposes. But an important step towards fully functional organs is the production of 3D-printed viable blood vessels, and these have now been produced and successfully implanted in animals. Given the long lists of people waiting for organ transplants and the ethical issues of animal testing, advancements cannot come fast enough. In other areas of medicine, amazing innovations are in the works. For example, 3D-printed skin tissue infused with stem cells is a possible new treatment for severe burns. Among the tiniest of printed innovations, researchers have created microscopic objects that can be tracked as they travel in blood vessels, the gut biome, or reproductive systems, helping advance the field of drug delivery, for instance. It won’t be long before we see 3D printers spitting out exact replicas of teeth, leaving drills and fillings to the history books. 3D printing is even getting stylish. Building prosthetic limbs used to be about delivering functionality to someone who has lost an arm or leg. Now a digital model can replicate the exact shape of the lost limb. How long until the mechanics can be embedded in a natural-looking casing with the touch and sensory characteristics of skin? 3D printing is not a cure for cancer, but the technology is a reminder that solutions sometimes come from unexpected places. 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

ARE YOU RUNNING AGAIN?

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 - The other day in conversation I was asked.... Are you going to be running again in 2026? It caught me off guard. At first I said, “well it is to early to tell.” Then I went to explain... why should I run again. This time around I was beaten out by a bar room hussie and a former homeless/drug addict. On the first, she is a clerk at a local electrical contractors. She beat me out by one thousand votes. A woman that has been seen in more bars with more men then one cares to count. A woman that has no community recognition and was only place by one of the political parties to draw on the female vote. Like really this is democracy. Then I lost to a former homeless and drug addict. A man that by his own admission is illiterate and suffering from a learning disability. One the one hand great for him for his achievements and the way he can play society to his advantage. This brings to question the standards we should have. Standards for future generations to follow. If the population at large reward former drug addicts and homeless. Then why should the rest of us give a care and just stop being productive members of society. Let’s sit back and depend on government hand outs. On social services and on popular charity. Then most are left wondering how it is that their property taxes went up 5%. How the region tax went up 5%. It is an out of control train that we are all going to have to pay. In other words. Your choices for leaders is going to cost you. But it could always be worst. If the clerk from the electrical contractor had won. It could have been a lot worst. Imagine this. Here we take someone with little or no business practice. No real local image in the community. All of a sudden she is to run the city. First and foremost. Staff would have eaten her up. Second the unions would have had carte blanche on negotiations. Now to council. Council would have ruled the city. Wait is this not what they are doing with the current Mayor. How has our lives changed for the better in the last 10 years? It has not. Yet only 18% of you turned out to vote. The 82% surrendered their right to be heard. Now you are left with the bill to pay for their mistakes. The City claims that the increase is needed to pay for fire trucks and staff. I say malarkey... The trucks could have been purchased by the developers raping our farm lands. Training could have been supplied by the College and University. Staffing could have been incorporated by cutting waste and expense. No. Instead the City can waste 20 million dollars on the Ed Broadbent park. They can waste millions on litigation and challenges. Yet your safety and your concerns are used to dig further in your pocket. Now to the original question. Will I run again in 2026? Only if the 82% wake up. Will you awaken? REMEMBER ALWAYS Hope for the Best. PREPARE FOR the worst.

Canadian parliament returns to work

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The Canadian Parliament is back after a six-week break. As usual the Liberal government of the day will be facing aggressive questions from the opposition bench about various issues such as a number of ethical missteps and the sorry state of Canada's health-care system; two issues that are poised to dominate this spring sitting. Even if there's no election this year, the parties are busy positioning themselves for one as they try to have the best shot in the upcoming electoral process. This year should still be a consequential preparatory year and it will start with the legislation that was still in progress when MPs and senators broke for the winter holidays. There are some old issues with controversial legislation proposals, which will take life again. You may remember that before the break, the government's newest firearms legislation (C-21) was stuck at the public safety committee as critics accused it of overreach. In the face of that criticism, Liberals said they were willing to consider feedback; it remains to be seen what kind of changes will be necessary to move the bill forward. Also, Bill C-11, the government's contested attempt to bring major Internet platforms under Canadian broadcast regulations, was still in the Senate in December. The upper chamber seems poised to send it back to the House with amendments - the Senate committee that studied the bill recommended a dozen changes. There are other legislations in the works, at various stages in Parliament; legislations that might be interesting to see how it develops. For example, Bill C-35 sets out how and under what conditions the federal government would fund childcare and early learning programs at the provincial level. In effect, it would put into law what the Liberal government started when it negotiated a series of bilateral childcare funding agreements with each province. If C-35 passes Parliament, it will make it much harder for some future government to abandon the program. It is also , focexpected that the Liberal government will propose new legislation in view of continuing its agenda on the energy file; on reducing the dependency of the economy on fossil fuels. In the next several weeks Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is expected to table: the government's "just transition" (or "sustainable jobs") legislation. We will have to see how this is dealt with, in view of the deep controversies surrounding this subject. The official opposition party, the Conservatives, lead at this time by a fiery focused and shrewd leader, will certainly do an excellent job of keeping the Liberal government responsible to the Canadian public. With each of the bills, the Liberals will be putting pressure on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to either support the government's agenda or explain what he would do differently. The Conservatives will also have their own moves to make, particularly in various House committees. The government operations committee was already investigating the creation of the Government's ArriveCan app and it will begin hearings soon, on the federal government's excessive use of private contractors and consultants like McKinsey. The issue of the contracts for the consulting firm McKinsey seems to raise some political storm. The Liberal government seems to have funnelled a huge number of pricy contracts to McKinsey, a consulting firm that has received tens of millions of dollars in government contracts over the past seven years. The U.S.-based McKinsey, with some financial controversies, was once run by Dominic Barton, the man tapped by Trudeau to be Canada's ambassador to China. McKinsey has provided advice to the federal bureaucracy also on immigration issues, among other matters. Poilievre has said that it's not clear that the government got good value for its money. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is grappling with a backlog of some 2.2 million cases as it works to review applications. While many Canadians are struggling with a shaky economy and sky-high inflation, Poilievre said "the people Trudeau surrounds himself with - like the high-priced consultants at McKinsey - are doing better than ever." Then there are several conflict of interest issues surrounding ministers such as Housing Minister Ahmed Hussen and Trade Minister Mary Ng, that Conservative members of the ethics committee will certainly pursue. An interesting report by Justice Paul Rouleau, to be tabled soon, is also worth mentioning, as it is bound to raise some political dust. He has until February 6 to present cabinet with a final report from the public commission probing the government's use of the Emergencies Act to end the convoy protests that snarled downtown Ottawa and multiple border crossings a year ago. (Cabinet will then have until February 20 to release that report.) In conclusion, with the international situation worsening, the World Economic Foundation (WEF) doing its utmost to make the world into their globalist haven, and the world economy in a downward spiral, I am certain that the spring session of the Parliament will be an interesting one. Follow it and Enjoy!

Employers Buy Into You Based on Emotion

By Nick Kossovan "Emotions have no place in business unless you do business with them." - Friedrich Durrenmatt, Swiss author. You may have heard the saying, "People buy on emotion and rationalize with logic." This consumerism adage is also true for how employers hire. Hence, there is an unspoken hiring truism you need to navigate when job hunting, which is all hiring decisions hinge on a single factor: Gut feeling. (aka intuition) Typically, 'gut feeling' during the hiring process refers to the hiring manager's judgement of the candidates' characteristics, such as their interests, motivation, attitude, work ethic, and self-presentation during face-to-face interviews. However, 'gut feeling' also applies to your resume (e.g., typos, grammar mistakes, font style), your LinkedIn profile and your digital footprint. From the moment your application is read to when you get an offer letter, you will be judged, usually by several people involved in the hiring process. Much of that judgment will be based on 'gut feeling.' Research has repeatedly shown that psychological factors, such as emotions and feelings, greatly influence hiring decisions. Emotions dominate human behaviour more than logic. In addition, it is also human nature to like people similar to us. (I drive a Mustang. The candidate drives a Mustang. Therefore, I like the candidate.) For better or worse, emotions guide every decision you make. Thus, in every interview, emotions and feelings are omnipresent. I will admit my 'gut feeling' is a significant factor when deciding whether to hire a candidate. If something about a candidate does not feel right, I will go with my feeling and pass on them. On a related note, listen to your feelings if you feel something is not right about the employer. As a job seeker, you can only control your emotions, not those of your interviewer. Therefore, let us look at how a candidate's emotions can influence the outcome of an interview. You are about to interview for your dream job. Understandably you are excited and enthusiastic, but you hit traffic unexpectedly. Even though you are not late for the interview, you walk into the boardroom, agitated and angry. The answers you give are abrupt, almost rude-like. How do you think your interviewer will assess your character? How will they assess your ability to interact with your colleagues? What do you think your interviewer's gut is telling them about you? Obviously, you are not angry with your interviewer or the job. However, the emotions you express, irrespective of what sparked them, will profoundly impact how your interviewer perceives you and how they assess your suitability. Truism: People have little imagination when it comes to other people. What you show them is the only thing they will know. Do not think your social skills are not being assessed to determine if you will get along with coworkers and be able to build relationships with clients. Now suppose you walked into that interview with a huge smile, radiating confidence and happiness. Your handshake is firm. It is evident from your body language and mannerisms that you are grateful to have been invited for an interview. What happens to the mood of the room, then? Well, for one thing, we all like being around happy people, thus your interviewer will lean into you. However, more than that happens; you influence your interviewer's mood. Happiness, enthusiasm, passion and excitement are "yawning" emotions. In other words, when you the person you are interacting with is displaying a particular emotion, you tend to mirror it. (All emotions are contagious.) Therefore, when you exude positive emotions, your interviewer will "most likely"-human psychology is not an exact science; therefore, there are no guarantees how someone will respond to the emotions you display-respond positively. The excitement you demonstrate when discussing how you landed a 6-figure sale for your last employer will "most likely" translate into your interviewer having positive emotions about you, hence they are "more likely" to subconsciously see you as a fit. I have said it before, throughout your interview, your interviewer is asking themselves one question: "Do I like this person?" In one form or another, I often get asked the following question: What is most likely to get you hired, emotional restraint or exuberance? What is the relationship between enthusiasm intensity and perceived job suitability? The importance of positive communication cues in forming a positive first impression cannot be overstated. Is it possible to be over-enthusiastic? Yes! A fine line exists between genuine enthusiasm and sounding too eager, which often comes across as desperate and is unattractive. Then there are emotional displays you should never display, such as anger or crying. (Believe it or not, tough interview questions can make some people cry.) Employers tend not to hire candidates who cannot control their emotions. On the other hand, I believe "raw" emotional expression demonstrates authenticity and genuineness, but that is just me. In my next column, I will discuss developing a charismatic personality trait, thereby increasing your likeability. (Remember, your interviewer is asking themselves, "Do I like this person?") As I have mentioned in a previous column, being likeable trumps your skills and experience. _______________________________________________________ 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

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

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 - Have we become so warped in modern society that we surrendered our ability to think rationally and accepted rationalized insanity as prescribed by social norms? Have we stretched compassion to the point that has become a mental illness of it’s own category. Are the inmates finally running the institution we call society? Read this news heading: ‘Youth may be buying opioids from B.C. drug vending machines, recovery centre warns The MySafe machines dispense hydromorphone, a medical-grade opioid, providing people with addiction a lifesaving alternative to the toxic drugs circulating on the street.’ Really--- vending machines!!! You got to be kidding. “PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH ADDICTION A LIFESAVING ALTERNATIVE”. Really!!! Are you kidding me? How did they ever get this past the government? Is the B.C. government heavily taxing? Probably not. Then who in the B.C. government got paid off to actually implement these machines as life saving? Life saving? Now entertain my insanity as I would probably be labeled by some for not conforming to their confusion and delusional thought that having vending machines with drugs saves lives. Picture this. You have an addict. He is walking our streets. They are a little off touch with reality because they need their fix. They may be a threat to everyone around them as they are not mentally sound. Then all of a sudden there is the almighty dispensing life saver making hydromorphone available to them. They consume it on the spot and now they are in the realm of unicorns and rainbows. Which one is the bigger risk to society at large? Now don’t get me wrong. If you have a drug problem. Don’t make it mine by expecting for me to accommodate to you. Don’t expect me to change my way of life so that you can continue to feed your psychological compromise. I think when it comes to drugs in this country. We have taken the wrong approach. Don’t get me wrong. I am compassionate towards those addicts. But, we must stop the transfer or responsibility from them to us the non users. These vending machines are not life saving. These machines are our way of saying, it is ok for you not to get real help... and please here take the drugs and don’t kill us. NO, no more. Lets get tough on this issue. Anyone walking our streets under the influence of drugs. Must undergo a 4 month rehab problem or same time in jail. Put the responsibility where it should be on the addicts. No more excuses or special provisions. We as a civil society should be proud of our civil responsibility and duty. No instead we reward failure and allow compromised to accommodate all kinds of psychological and psychiatric conditions. Just because the numbers have increased it does not make behavior acceptable. Time for change. REMEMBER ALWAYS Hope for the Best. PREPARE FOR the worst.

Asking for Feedback is Pointless. Instead Ask for Advice

By Nick Kossovan If a candidate I did not hire wants to make me uncomfortable, they only need to ask for feedback. (I will revisit this.) Self-proclaiming job search experts and career coaches commonly advise asking for feedback when you do not get the job you have interviewed for. The thinking-as if all hiring managers assess candidates in the same way-is that you will learn "tips" on improving your interview performance. Employers own their hiring process, to which job seekers are not entitled transparency to. Nor do employers owe candidates an explanation of how they select candidates. Consequently, job seekers have no idea whether their application or resume has been reviewed and discarded or gone into a black hole. Even if someone looks at your resume and LinkedIn profile, you will not know why you were not selected for an interview. Likewise, if you were interviewed, you will not know why you did not get the job. There are infinite reasons why you did not get selected, the most probable: - An internal candidate got the job. - There was a candidate who interviewed better than you and was a better fit. (It is possible.). - None of the candidates the employer has interviewed has met their criteria, so they are still looking. - The employer has decided not to fill the job at this time. (This is common, given the talk of a looming recession.) - A candidate networked themselves into being hired. (It is no secret that most highly desirable jobs are filled through referrals.) So, besides being a regular reader of this column, how do you improve your job search skills, particularly when interviewing, if you don't ask for feedback? By asking for advice rather than feedback. As I mentioned, being asked to give feedback makes me uncomfortable. The last thing I want to do is hurt a candidate's feelings. There is also the possibility that my feedback might be twisted to create a narrative for legal issues. This is the prevailing reason why I, and almost all hiring managers, avoid giving feedback. ("We had numerous applicants…") However, when someone asks me for my advice, I become a chatterbox. Asking for feedback is asking, "How did I do?" Asking for advice is asking, "What can I do?" Advice has a very different tone. If you have built a bond with your interviewer, which you should have to some extent, you should feel comfortable asking for advice. Think about the last time someone asked you for advice. I am sure you were flattered. How does this feel? "While I'm disappointed I wasn't selected, thank you for interviewing me and assessing my skills and experience. As you know, I am seeking a senior analyst position with a mid-size IT firm. Do you have any advice for someone with my background searching for such an opportunity?" Tell me this does not feel very different from asking for feedback, which, to be honest, is essentially asking, "Why did you not hire me?" Feedback is pointless because, as the name implies, it is backward-looking. Feedback is an "evaluation" of past performance. On the other hand, when you ask someone for advice, they are more likely to think critically and specifically about how you can improve to succeed in the future. Here are two tips to help you get advice you can use in your job search. - Be specific in the advice you seek. If you need help in a specific area (e.g., your resume, cover letter, networking, interviewing, LinkedIn profile), specifying where you need help will make the advice you are given relevant. For example, do you need help crafting STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) stories to answer behavioural interview questions more compellingly? "When you ask me to tell you about a time when I handled a challenging situation, I felt my response, the story I told, wasn't resonating enough. What advice can you give me on improving my response to this question which I'm sure I'll be asked in future interviews?" You will receive more specific and actionable advice if you ask people to think about what you feel will help you in the future. "Can you offer me any advice on improving my presentation skills so I can deliver a more powerful presentation than I did with you and Carminia?" or "What suggestions would you have for making my slides more eye-catching?" - Give a little nudge. Do not end the conversation if you are given a vague answer like "You did great. However, there was a candidate whose background was a better match," which is probably true. Probe further. "In what ways can I improve how I present my background, so my next interviewer will clearly see how my background meets their needs?" Good advice can transform your job search. Lastly, your interviewer does not owe you advice or feedback. Be respectful of their hiring decision. They know what they need in their next employee. Insisting on being given advice or feedback-aggressive behaviour-will be remembered should you and your interviewer cross paths down the road, which is more common than you think. _______________________________________________________ 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

Millennials Opting Out of Having Children

W. Gifford-Jones, M.D. and Diana Gifford-Jones A Moroccan proverb claims, “If a man leaves little children behind him, it is as if he did not die.” A Sanskrit saying translates as, “A house without children is only a cemetery.” Having children may be central to sustained human life. But over the past several years, there has been a crescendo of voices arguing for restraint. The most fervent views are expressed by women concerned about climate change. We know some couples decide on a childless marriage in exchange for personal freedom. Others worry about the risk of a difficult child or the effect of a child on an unhappy marriage. And there are other reasons people opt out of parenthood. As Napoleon Bonaparte concluded while in exile on the island of St. Helena, “Children are always ungrateful.” The BirthStrike Movement is an activist group choosing to forgo having children to protect them from worsening social, economic, and environmental conditions. They may be right that deciding not to have children is possibly one of the most effective way individuals can cut their own carbon emissions. According to analysts at Morgan Stanley, “Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do.” There does seem to be a trend among Millennials away from having children. But aside from the activists, do young people have a generalized concern about the consequences of climate change, enough to change the urge for children? Or has something else happened? It is undoubtedly a great injustice to subject innocent children to the hazards of a polluted, poisonous planet. Can you blame would-be parents for opting out when scientists raise alarms that their children will encounter more floods, droughts, fires, tornadoes, and famine, fight wars over water, land and other resources, and that economic crises will lead to social chaos? There are other considerations that affect fertility rates. For instance, having a child can send a woman’s career into the abyss. A study from the University of Massachusetts examining data from 1979 to 2006 found that, on average, men earn 6 percent more when they had children (and lived with them), while women earn 4 percent less for every child. More recent studies show the same. In 2019, a study using data from the US census found mothers earned 71 cents for every dollar earned by fathers. Women have a justified right to complain. Friendships can also take a hit. A survey of 1000 parents revealed almost half of moms and dads had fewer friends after children were born. In addition, there was less marital satisfaction. CivicScience, a polling platform, adds another depressing note. They analyzed one million responses and concluded that non-parents lead healthier lifestyles, sleep longer, exercise more, drink less coffee, smoke less, avoid fast food restaurants, and were less overweight. But what about the health benefits of parenthood. There is good news for women, including decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Breastfeeding lowers the chance of type 2 diabetes. And a University of California study reports that for children born to mothers over age 25, there’s an 11 percent greater chance of living to 90. Finally, does having children mean parents are happier and less lonely later in life? Researchers in Germany found that parents tend to be happier than non-parents in old age, but this only holds if their kids have moved out! Older people without children get similar rewards to those having children, it seems, by maintaining any close social connections that share their issues and concerns. 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

Ontario and the carbon tax on industry

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East It is worth mentioning that Ford and his government have been opposed to all forms of carbon pricing since taking office in 2018. Nice and good but…… However, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the federal carbon pricing law, so the provinces faced a choice: either put a price on emissions (and collect the revenue) or Ottawa imposes a carbon price anyway (and the feds get to collect the revenue). The latter is what happens with the carbon tax that has drawn the most public attention: on fuel at the pumps. The Trudeau government has collected that revenue in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, handing it back to taxpayers in those provinces through income tax rebates. While that isn't changing in Ontario, the province is taking over collecting fees for CO2 emissions from large industrial producers, at prices set by Ottawa: $65 per tonne for this year, climbing by $15 each year, to reach $170 per tonne in 2030. Ontario's industrial carbon pricing system applies to the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including auto manufacturers, steel mills, cement makers, chemical plants and oil refineries. In conclusion, Ontario is supposed to collect $2.2B from industrial emitters over the next 8 years, as new reliable estimates show. However, the three biggest industrial emitters of CO2 in Ontario are a trio steel plants. The province's steel industry is aiming for a dramatic reduction in its pollutant gas emissions by converting to lower-carbon sources of energy, funded in part by nearly $2 billion from provincial and federal taxpayers. Let's think a little: 2 billion from taxpayers money and 2 billion will be collected by the province from them. The province led by Ford and his finance minister still hasn't said what it will do with the revenue. That has everyone from corporate lobbyists to environmental groups calling on the province to clarify its plans for this new source of income. The question is why this revenue should not be spent in favour of taxpayers, who have already forked out a lot of money to improve the industry by reducing their pollutant emissions. So Ontario is poised to start collecting what it calls "compliance payments" from the biggest industrial producers of greenhouse gas emissions, including auto manufacturers, steel mills, cement makers, chemical plants and oil refineries. This marks the transition from the federal program for industrial carbon pricing that has been in place since 2019, imposed by Ottawa when the Ford government scrapped Ontario's cap-and-trade system. In an announcement, saying nothing, so typical of the public service, Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, wrote the following in an email to CBC News: "We are developing an approach for the use of proceeds collected under the program," As usual, there is a lot of advice given to the province by different interest groups, but all the advice is centered around only one subject; the eternal climate change hysteria and nothing else. For example Dennis Darby, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, says the government should put the money back into the industries that pay the fees in ways that help them reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "I think Ontario's got a great opportunity," said Darby in an interview. "If they do it right, this can be net beneficial to industry, but also of course net beneficial to the environment." For industries to decarbonize, Darby says governments need not only to show them the stick of carbon pricing but also the carrot of funding for technologies that reduce emissions. "I think we have an opportunity right now to do this in a way that will ultimately lead to the outcome we want, which is helping companies improve their GHG performance," he said. Jason Wang, senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, said the government should look at investing in new or emerging technologies, such as low-emission production of cement. "Revenue from carbon pricing should be spent on clean economy initiatives," said Wang in an interview. Lana Goldberg, Ontario climate program manager at Environmental Defence, said she supports the province providing clean-technology funding to help companies electrify their operations, but opposes any funding for fossil-fuel companies. "The best use of the funds would be to invest in renewable energy projects like wind and solar to ensure that Ontario is replacing the many gas plants that are currently being used to generate electricity." Noticeably, all these people are concerned solely with their own narrow self interests. None of them is concerned with spending taxpayers' money for the benefit of the community; in health care for example, which is a disaster in this province. You can judge for yourself how taxpayers' money is being wasted, or is to be wasted again, on nirvana projects, rather than the immediate needs of the community. I sincerely hope that the Ontario government will do the right thing, but I have my doubts, especially in view of how Ontario finances are managed.

4.98

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 - For the 82% that surrendered their right to a municipal voice in 2022. Now open your wallets and pay. You have no voice. You have no reason to complain. I may be sounding harsh and hard but it is the reality of your irresponsible actions and lack of civic duty. In 2022 only 18% of you came out to vote. 18% of you are deemed the majority in our City. It is beyond shameful. It is beyond words to think that no one would care enough. Today your lack of civic responsibility is going to cost you and it is going to cost you dearly. As for the 18% that voted the same incompetent municipal government back in with the exception of one. Hope you can afford the increase during one of Canada’s worst economic downfall. Some news reports on the increase have councillor Brian Nicholson Safety & Facilities Services Chair puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his government and specifically Bill 23, which limits the ability of municipal governments to collect development charges to pay for growth. He was quoted as ““We have been pretty good at keeping our tax increases under two per cent in the past but that’s not possible anymore,” he said. “We have a Premier who is like a boy in short pants with no understanding about municipal government.” This is the same guy that in my opinion has no real life qualifications to make budgetary desicions. Here we have a councillor that has no real life business experience. A careered politician that instead of leading looks for ways to pass off the responsibility and or the buck. He points his fingers at Ford. When Nicholson only real source of income is that the government gives him. Really, Brian. Your envy is showing. I put it on his shoulder and that of Carter that this economic hardship of 4.98% increase could have been averted. Clearly council does not care about the average tax payer. It is after the election and common sense is no place to be found. How dare they borrow against a reserve fund.... A reserve fund!!! Do you hear that. They have RESERVE FUNDS. What does this mean to you.... That the City has numerous ‘RESERVE FUNDS’. That we already paid into. Meaning that the City is profiting by claiming loss. I never graduated from Harvard business. But I surely am not a Brian Nicholson nor a Dan Carter. Business sense would have told you that the key to being economically responsible during this tough economic time. CUT WASTE... CUT EXPENSES... FREEZE WAGES. You want to buy new trucks. No problem. Bill 23 has limit the amount you can charge. Fine. This does not mean that the City can’t pass by-laws mandating that developers enter in partnerships to better the community. The saving from the Bill 23 mandates would be offset on the partnerships. A good business sense to abide by the legislation and yet get what you want. No instead Carter and his council of incompetents take the easy way out. Borrow and dig further into the tax payers well. Our city is being run by incompetents without the ability to use common sense. This is not a budget. This is a rip off at the hands of incompetents. REMEMBER ALWAYS Hope for the Best. PREPARE FOR the worst.

Turbocharge Your LinkedIn Profile to Generate Job Opportunities

By Nick Kossovan "The power of visibility can never be underestimated." - Margaret Cho (American comedian) Welcome to 2023! I hope this is the year you find an employer where you feel accepted and at home. A job seeker's best compass is to prioritize finding where they belong. Think: "I'm not looking for a job; I'm looking for my tribe!" Imagine how much more efficient (NOTE: I didn't say "easier") your job search would be if employers were contacting you about their open positions-asking if you'd like to join their tribe. (Throughout the hiring process, you can determine whether you'll fit in well with the employer and feel welcomed.) Your LinkedIn profile plays a crucial role in achieving this aforementioned efficiency. It's common knowledge that a well-thought-out, complete LinkedIn profile attracts attention. Truism: Visibility is essential to success. Ask yourself: "Am I missing out on opportunities because I'm not visible enough?" Odds are the answer is "Yes." Here's how to turbocharge your LinkedIn profile to generate job leads. 1. Upgrade your profile picture. Fair or unfair, your profile picture forms the first impressions of you. Hence, make it a good one! - Upload your profile picture to Photofeeler.com. - Analyze the feedback. -Based on the data, reshoot/edit your picture. Not having a LinkedIn profile photo is "damaging" and will likely prolong your job search and hinder your employment prospects. Lack of a LinkedIn profile photo can result in the following adverse effects: - It'll seem you lack a basic understanding of how LinkedIn works. There's even a possibility some viewers will presume you're incapable of uploading a photo. - Fake LinkedIn profiles abound. Most people will assume, rightfully so, a profile without a photo is fake. - Your profile is incomplete without a photo. In search results, complete profiles appear higher. According to LinkedIn Help: "Members with profile photos can receive up to 21 times more profile views than those without profile photos." - When a LinkedIn profile doesn't have a profile picture, it suggests that the person isn't committed to professional networking. If you're going to a networking event, you can't hide your face, so why are you hiding it on LinkedIn? 2. Take advantage of keywords. Recruiters and employers use keywords to find candidates. By using the right keywords, you'll appear in more searches. You can find keywords that'll help you appear in searches by following these steps: - Find 10+ job descriptions for target roles. - Paste them into Cultivated Culture's job description scanner. - Save the top 15 skills. (These are your keywords.) - Integrate these skills (keywords) throughout your profile. 3. Create a compelling headline. Your LinkedIn headline is a public one-sentence resume that tells the viewer who you are, what you do, and what you bring to the table. Using the following formula, you can write a compelling headline: [Keywords] | [Skills] | [Results-Focused Value Proposition] For example, a medical device salesperson's LinkedIn headline might look like this: Medical Device Salesperson | B2B, Cold Calling, Capital Equipment | I cultivate high-value prospective clients, thus having increased my territory's sales by 28% 4. Write an 'About' section that makes the reader say, "I must meet this person!" A great 'About' section has three parts: 1. A short paragraph that speaks to your job, years of experience, and value proposition. (Include your keywords!) 2. Five bullets that showcase specific (READ: qualified, measurable) achievements. 3. Your email address so the reader can contact you. 5. Leverage your 'Featured' section. It's hard to convey your value on a resume or LinkedIn profile, thus why LinkedIn provides a 'Featured' section where you can upload your work and demonstrate your expertise. Showing your work to employers is the best way to convey your worth. Hence in your 'Featured' section, share examples of your work, upload certificates, awards, links to your content etc. Speaking of content, create it! Content (e.g., articles, eBooks, videos, polls, charts and infographics, memes, podcasts) is networking en masse. It's possible to reach more people through one post than through your entire network of connections. Posting content, instead of simply uploading it to your 'Featured' section, illustrates what you can offer employers and your communication style and personality. Yes, it's uncomfortable and frightening to put yourself out there, which is why only 2 to 5% of people do it. However, when done strategically, the return on creating and posting is substantial. 6. Skills have an impact. LinkedIn uses a profile's 'Skills' section to rank profiles. Boost your ranking by: - Add every keyword from your Cultivated Culture scan. - Pick the five most relevant skills. - Ask colleagues, friends, family, & classmates for endorsements regarding your five most relevant skills. 7. Support and engage. The more comments you leave, the more views you get! Try this: - Find ten thought leaders in your area of focus. - Bookmark their post feed. - Every day, check their feeds. - Leave a supportive, insightful comment on new posts. If you need an additional reason why you should give your LinkedIn profile lots of love, besides turbocharging it to attract job opportunities, keep in mind that employers will review your LinkedIn profile to determine whether you're interview-worthy. _______________________________________________________ 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