Merry Christmas

Merry C

hristmas By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States What times we live in? When it has become offensive to wish someone a ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’. Many walk around almost in shame. Let’s look at what it really means when we wish someone a Merry Christmas. When one is speaking of a happy or merry Christmas, the adjectives are lowercase. Merry Christmas began as a saying in the 1500s. It was recorded in a letter as a wish that God would send the recipient a “merry Christmas”. Brian Earl's Christmas Past: The Fascinating Stories Behind Our Favorite Holiday's Traditions traces the first known instance of “Merry Christmas” to a 16th-century letter from a bishop to England's Chief Minister, in which the religious leader hoped God would bless the politician with a “Merry Christmas.” Deciding whether to say, 'Happy Holidays' or 'Merry Christmas' can be a personal choice. But for employers, government agencies, and schools, holiday activities or public displays must respect freedom of religion; otherwise, they could be held liable for discrimination. What is the real reason for Merry Christmas? Because Christmas is about the birth of God's Son – Jesus. It is about how he came to give us love, hope and joy. That message doesn't change from year to year. When there is so much bad news and devastation in the world, this is good news worth celebrating! Which country first invented Christmas? This is the origin of the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Christ-mass was being celebrated in Rome by 350AD and this is probably the place that the celebration of Christmas originated. Is Merry Christmas religious? Wishing happy holidays or season's greetings is a way of acknowledging the various holidays taking place at the end of the year: Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa. When you wish someone a Merry Christmas, you are saying you wish him or her a happy day of celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas, is a special time across the globe. During world wars. Wars would pause during Christmas in an act of good faith and celebration from opposing forces. This national/global tradition is not about religion or faith per se as it is the basis... or root. Christmas is about celebrating peace, love and all that is innocent and pure. From the nostalgia of a Santa Clause. To baby Jesus. The one time of the year that our hearts feel pure and innocent. Full of love, compassion and giving. The human essence is Christmas. No matter your faith or your God. Peace and joy is always found in communal celebration. From the lights to the trees. From the decorations to the chilling weather. The spirit is all around us. To think some may be offended by such celebration is offensive in itself as it clearly shows their lack of compassion, understanding and appreciation. Merry Christmas.

Recruitment and Retention Crisis

Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention Crisis by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East During this period of daily decay in global security, not strengthening our armed forces adequately has serious implications for our nation’s security, wellbeing and integrity. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis, one that threatens not just Canada’s own security, but its standing with allies like the United States. With approximately 12,000 unfilled positions, which represent 16% of its target strength of 71,500 regular members, the military is struggling to maintain basic operational capacity. This shortfall, compounded by outdated equipment, rising attrition, and a lack of political urgency, reveals deep structural flaws. The stakes are high, and the question is not just what should be done, but whether Canada’s political leaders are willing and able to do it. You may have noted that at this time Canada is spending a lot of defence-targeted money, in the order of billions of dollars, for military support in foreign countries instead of strengthening our own military. The importance of recruiting is paramount for a healthy military, but to assure success a sincere and committed political involvement is needed. Realistically, I do not see any serious actions from either the Liberal government or the Conservative opposition in support of the military. The question of who can fix the CAF’s recruitment and retention crisis is as important as the solutions themselves. Canada’s two major governing political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, offer differing visions for defense policy, but neither has a flawless record of accomplishment. The Liberal Party, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been criticized for its lack of urgency on defense. While the government introduced a defense policy update in 2023 that included $15 billion in new spending commitments, much of this funding remains unallocated or delayed. The Liberals have also struggled with procurement delays, such as the eternal saga of replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets, which has dragged on for over a decade. Efforts to promote diversity within the military are commendable but the Liberals’ approach has been too slow to address the scale of the crisis. The Conservatives position themselves as the party of defense, emphasizing the importance of meeting NATO commitments and strengthening Canada’s military capabilities. Their "Canada First Defence Strategy" includes promises to increase defense spending and streamline procurement, aligning with the urgency of the CAF’s challenges. However, past Conservative governments have also struggled with procurement delays and personnel shortages, raising questions about whether they can deliver on their promises. The CAF’s recruitment and retention issues are a systemic problem, not a passing phase. Recruitment processes are outdated and cumbersome, with timelines that stretch over six to nine months, an eternity for applicants in today’s competitive job market. The quality of military recruiters also leaves a lot to be desired. The quality of recruiters is crucial in the recruiting process, a systemic problem senior military officials continues to ignore. These inefficiencies discourage potential recruits, many of whom turn to private-sector opportunities that offer quicker hiring processes, better pay, and clearer career paths. In 2023, the CAF recruited only 2,800 new members, far short of its annual target of 5,900. The recruitment crisis is compounded by a lack of serious outreach to underrepresented groups. Women, Indigenous communities, and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in the military, despite Canada’s diverse population. Efforts to improve diversity have been sporadic and insufficiently integrated into broader recruitment strategies. Retention poses an equally significant challenge. The CAF’s attrition rate climbed to nearly 8% in 2022, with over 5,000 personnel voluntarily leaving the military. Job dissatisfaction is a major factor, driven by limited career progression and long deployments. Many service members cite frustration with outdated equipment and inadequate infrastructure as contributing to their decision to leave. For instance, the CAF’s barracks and training facilities are widely seen as substandard, and the delays in procuring modern equipment, such as new fighting and engineering military vehicles, fighter jets and naval vessels, have eroded confidence in the military’s ability to meet operational demands. Morale is further undermined by a perception that successive federal governments have not prioritized defense. They have allocated resources only when forced to do so by external pressures or crises. This lack of consistent political support has left service members feeling undervalued, exacerbating retention problems and creating a cycle of dissatisfaction that the CAF has struggled to break. In addition, senior military personnel are more preoccupied with their own promotions than dedicating attention to this endemic problem, which is consuming the military. Beyond being an internal CAF issue, the recruitment and retention crisis has profound implications for Canada’s ability to respond to domestic and international security challenges. Domestically, the shortfall in personnel undermines the CAF’s capacity to respond to emergencies such as natural disasters or threats to Arctic sovereignty. The Arctic, in particular, is an area of growing concern I mentioned several times during my time in Ottawa, but my concerns fell on deaf ears. With the opening of new shipping routes in the Arctic and increasing competition for resources, Canada’s ability to assert its sovereignty in the region is critical. Neglecting the Artic leaves a gap that adversaries like Russia and China could well exploit. When I noted in the House ten years ago that Russia is a potential threat because it was refurbishing its arctic military bases at a phenomenal rate, I was assured that ‘Russia is not a threat at this time’. Internationally, the crisis weakens Canada’s contributions to NATO and its defense partnership with the United States. Canada has consistently failed to meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, a shortfall that has not gone unnoticed by its allies. At present, Canada spends only 1.37% of GDP on defense, placing it near the bottom of NATO member states. This chronic underfunding has strained Canada’s relationships within the alliance as well as the United States, where incoming President Donald Trump has already indicated that he will take some painful actions against Canada unless we ‘ante up’. In fact, the U.S.-Canada defense relationship, exemplified by joint operations in the Arctic and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), is also at risk. With Russia increasing its Arctic presence and China seeking greater influence in the region, the United States needs a strong partner to help secure North American interests. Canada’s inability to maintain a fully operational military not only jeopardizes its own security but places additional strain on U.S. resources and planning. In conclusion, the CAF’s recruitment and retention crisis is a test of Canada’s political will and its ability to meet the demands of a changing security environment. The right solutions must be found quickly and implementing them requires sustained effort, adequate funding, and a commitment to making defense a national priority. Canada’s security and its reputation as a reliable ally depend on decisive action. This is not just about filling vacancies; it is about reaffirming Canada’s role as a credible partner in NATO and a trusted ally of the United States. The time for half-measures is over. Canada must act decisively to fix its military, or risk becoming a nation that cannot defend itself or its allies.

Government Confiscates Guns from Legal Owners: A Controversial Move

Government Confiscates Guns from Legal Owners: A Controversial Move By Dale Jodoin The Canadian federal government has once again announced a plan to confiscate firearms from law-abiding gun owners, sparking outrage and debate across the country. This move, aimed at banning specific firearms, has raised questions about its fairness, effectiveness, and potential consequences. Adding fuel to the fire, reports suggest that some of these confiscated guns may be sent to Ukraine to support their fight against Russia, leaving many Canadians frustrated and concerned about the government's priorities. Under this new plan, a wide range of firearms is now considered illegal to own in Canada. Some of the most notable models include: AR-15: A popular semi-automatic rifle often used in sport shooting. Ruger Mini-14: A rifle commonly used by hunters and farmers. Mossberg 500: A reliable shotgun widely used for hunting and home defense. CZ Scorpion EVO 3: A modern firearm favored by sport shooters. These firearms, along with many others, are on a growing list of prohibited weapons. The government argues that removing these guns from civilian hands will reduce gun violence. However, critics say it unfairly targets people who have followed Canada’s strict rules for gun ownership. One of the most controversial aspects of this program is the idea that some confiscated guns might be sent to Ukraine. While the government has not officially confirmed this plan, rumors are swirling, and Canadians are asking tough questions. If the federal government can no longer afford to purchase guns for Ukraine, does that justify taking firearms from Canadian citizens who legally own them? Critics argue that confiscating property from law-abiding citizens and sending it overseas is not only unethical but also sets a dangerous precedent. "These guns were bought legally, with taxes paid, and owners followed all the rules," said one concerned gun owner. "Now the government is taking them away and possibly giving them to another country. What kind of message does that send?" Legal Gun Owners vs. Illegal Guns Statistics show that legal gun owners are rarely involved in crimes. According to Statistics Canada, more than 70% of guns used in crimes are smuggled into the country illegally, often from the United States. In contrast, legal gun owners are responsible for less than 2% of firearm-related crimes in Canada. These numbers suggest that the real problem lies with illegal gun trafficking, not with people who own firearms legally. Critics believe the government should focus its efforts on cracking down on smuggling and gang activity rather than penalizing responsible gun owners. What Does It Take to Own a Gun in Canada? Canada already has one of the strictest systems in the world for owning firearms. Here’s what Canadians must do to legally own a gun: Background Check: Applicants are screened for criminal records, mental health issues, and domestic violence history. Safety Training: Gun owners must complete a government-approved safety course and pass a test. Licensing: A firearm license is required, which must be renewed regularly. Registration: Many types of firearms must be registered with the government. These measures ensure that only responsible individuals can legally own firearms. Many gun owners feel betrayed by the government’s decision to target them when they’ve followed all the rules. The gun confiscation program is expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The government has promised to compensate gun owners for the firearms they surrender, but critics argue this money could be better spent. Here are some alternative ways the funds could be used: Border Security: Strengthen efforts to stop illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada. Community Programs: Support initiatives to reduce gang violence and help at-risk youth. Mental Health Services: Invest in resources to address the root causes of violence. Critics question why the government is spending so much money on a program that targets law-abiding citizens instead of addressing the real sources of gun violence. Self-Defense and Rural Communities For many Canadians, especially those in rural areas, firearms are more than just tools for hunting or sport. They are also a means of protection. In remote areas, where police response times can be long, a firearm might be the only way to defend oneself or one’s family. By confiscating guns, critics argue that the government is leaving these individuals vulnerable. "If someone breaks into my home, what am I supposed to do?" asked a rural resident. "Call the police and hope they get here in time? That’s not realistic." The gun confiscation plan has deepened the divide between urban and rural Canadians. In cities, some people support stricter gun laws, believing they will make communities safer. In rural areas, where gun ownership is more common, many see this move as an attack on their way of life. Opposition politicians have also weighed in, accusing the government of ignoring the real issues. "This policy does nothing to stop gang violence or illegal gun smuggling," said one MP. "Instead, it punishes law-abiding Canadians who’ve done nothing wrong." The government has set deadlines for gun owners to surrender their prohibited firearms, promising compensation in return. However, many Canadians are resisting, saying they won’t give up their guns without a fight. Advocacy groups like the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) are planning legal challenges to the confiscation program. For Canadians who oppose the policy, here are some steps to take: Contact Your MP: Share your concerns with your Member of Parliament. Support Advocacy Groups: Join organizations that are fighting for gun owners’ rights. Stay Informed: Follow news updates and understand the impact of these policies. The government’s decision to confiscate guns from legal owners is one of the most controversial moves in recent memory. While officials claim it’s about public safety, many Canadians see it as an attack on their rights and freedoms. The added possibility that these guns might be sent to Ukraine has only made the situation more contentious. If the government can no longer afford to buy weapons for Ukraine, should they really be taking them from Canadians who followed the law? This issue raises important questions about fairness, priorities, and the future of gun ownership in Canada. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: this is a story that won’t be going away anytime soon.

Sale preparation on a budget

Sale preparation on a budget By Theresa Grant - Real Estate Columnist When it comes time to sell our home, there is often a laundry list of things that need to be done prior to listing. Some things are well worth the cost of doing the task as well as the time invested in getting it done. While other things may not make good financial sense. When deciding what you will tackle and what you will forgo, it may be worth while to talk to a professional in either design or real estate to get a good idea of what will add value and what may not. A lot of people think that any improvement they make will add value and it actually doesn’t work that way. Another reason to consult with an expert is that you don’t want to over improve and price yourself out of the market. A semi in a less desirable area of a city would not benefit from the same improvements that a million dollar home a great neighbourhood would. The reason being, you could spend thousands of dollars on renovations and fixtures in the former, and at the end of the day it’s still going to be a semi in a less desirable neighbourhood. A professional can help steer you away from making big money missteps. We all know that kitchens and bathrooms are where most people spend their money when it comes to renovations. If you cannot afford to hire professionals to do a complete kitchen or bath, think about just painting the cupboards, putting in new lighting, some new door pulls can really spruce things up. Keep in mind, not everything needs to be new from Home Depot either. Many contractors advertise their excess materials from previous jobs on websites like Marketplace or Kijiji. There are also stores that deal in left over materials. Look to window coverings and see if you could or should replace or update them. Paint is probably the very best investment you can make in decorating. It gives you the most bang for your buck without question and adds real value to your bottom line. Look at painting your front door if it is tired or could use some pizazz. If you cannot afford to hire a stager, there are some great finds in second hand store that will do the job. Take a picture of a staged house with you and set out to find similar items. You’ll be surprised at what you find. First impressions matter so along with a nice front door, anything you can find to enhance the entrance area will benefit you. Think planters, baskets, decorative mailbox that type of thing. Fixing up your property to maximize its value is a delicate balance of smart investments and cost-effective updates. By focusing on areas with the highest return on investment like the kitchen, bathroom and front of your home, you will significantly increase the chances of getting top dollar for your home. With the right approach, you can turn a modest home into a sought-after gem.Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials

Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials By Lisa Robinson In a democracy, elected officials represent the will of the people, shaping policies that reflect the community's priorities. But in Pickering, the real power seems to rest not with your elected representatives, but with the unelected Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and staff. This troubling shift raises serious concerns about who truly governs our city and whether the democratic process is being subverted. The CAO’s role is supposed to be administrative, not political—tasked with implementing the policies set by council. Yet in Pickering, the CAO appears to wield outsized influence, acting less like a public servant and more like the CEO of a private corporation, unaccountable to residents. Take the renovation of council chambers, for example. This multimillion-dollar project was driven almost entirely by staff, with the CAO steering the process. Out of three proposed designs, only one—the staff-preferred option—was presented to council for approval. This wasn’t a collaborative process; it was a blatant rubber-stamping exercise, designed to sideline elected officials while staff pushed their agenda unchecked. But the CAO’s influence extends far beyond renovations. Staff have increasingly dictated how council meetings are conducted, with an alarming number of discussions moved into “in-camera” sessions. These closed-door meetings are justified under the pretense of confidentiality but ultimately erode public trust. When councillors question these practices, they're met with dismissive excuses about "efficiency" or "privacy," leaving both council and residents in the dark. Now, the CAO and staff are pushing a new restructuring of council chambers that is as symbolic as it is concerning. The proposed schematic positions the mayor, the CAO, and the city clerk as the central figures the public directly faces during meetings, relegating elected councillors to the periphery. This setup mimics a courtroom rather than a welcoming community space, exuding an authoritarian “we’re in charge; you must obey” vibe. This change sends a chilling message: elected officials and residents alike are secondary to the unelected power players at City Hall. It doesn’t stop there. Staff appear to resent being challenged or questioned. They prefer motions to be run by them first—essentially seeking their blessing before council can even discuss them. If a councillor dares to question staff’s capabilities, catches them in a lie, or exposes their partial truths, the retaliation is swift and calculated: a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner, thinly veiled as a Code of Conduct breach. These complaints aren’t about maintaining decorum—they’re about silencing dissent and shielding staff from accountability. This growing pattern of staff overreach sends a clear message: it’s the CAO and their team—not elected officials—who are running Pickering. This subversion of roles reduces councillors to figureheads, there only for photo ops, while the bureaucracy tightens its grip on decision-making. It wasn’t long ago, shortly after being elected, that I encountered a moment that opened my eyes to just how tightly controlled and untransparent the leadership of Pickering can be. I had requested a report, paid for with taxpayers’ money, that focused on Durham’s nuclear power plant. This was a report commissioned by consultants—information that I believed should be accessible to both council and the public. The response to my request? A private meeting with the CAO. But when I arrived at her office, it wasn’t just the CAO waiting for me—it was also the city solicitor I believe. They informed me that the report had all of a sudden been “pink-papered,” a term I use that essentially means it was deemed so confidential that even discussing it openly was off the table. When I asked why, I was told because a new study was underway, and they didn’t want the results of this report released to the public. Asking why again, I was told that If the public saw the findings, they might disagree with them and use the information from that report to challenge the conclusions of the new study. Let that sink in. Taxpayer money was used to produce a report, and instead of transparency, they chose to bury it—specifically to control public perception and shield themselves from potential criticism. Need I say more? This is corruption in its purest form: secrecy, manipulation, and a lack of accountability to the people they are supposed to serve. It starts at the top, and I assure you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not just frustrating; it’s undemocratic. Staff are meant to support council, not dictate terms. They are public servants, not policymakers. Yet in Pickering, the balance of power has shifted, leaving residents without the representation they deserve. “It has become nothing more than a game of follow the leader” but I refuse to be a follower. I will stand up for what’s right, even when others blindly go along with the agenda. At the end of the day, Pickering doesn’t belong to the bureaucrats in City Hall—it belongs to its residents. It’s time to stand up and remind everyone who works for whom.

Employers Hire Candidates That Are Best for Them

Employers Hire Candidates That Are Best for Them By Nick Kossovan Employers are human beings; like all humans, they look out for their interests. In other words, companies structure their hiring processes to identify and select candidates who will effectively serve their company's interests. People with meteoric careers often envied, acknowledge, and therefore strategically work with two facts: 1. The employer's interest dictates the workplace. 2. It's not the candidate's place to decide what's in the employer's best interest. "You can get everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar. Most job seekers hold the opinion that employers should select candidates purely based on their skills and qualifications. For the employer, "most qualified" doesn't necessarily equal "best." When recruiting and selecting new employees, employers have the right and responsibility to prioritize their organizational interests. Two harsh truisms: · Companies choose what's best for them. · There's no such thing as a "must-have" candidate. The concept of a great candidate (Yes, a great candidate is a concept.) is highly subjective. No company has gone bankrupt because it failed to hire a supposed "great candidate." Merely labelling yourself as a great candidate or talented without demonstrating your potential to enhance the employer's bottom line isn't a convincing reason to hire you. Unsubstantiated opinions are worthless. For your opinion(s) of yourself to be taken seriously, it must be backed up by credible evidence. During the hiring process, employers protect their interests in the following areas: Prioritizing Relevant Skills and Experience: Employers look for candidates with job-specific skills, knowledge, and experience. They want to ensure the new hire can hit the ground running and be productive immediately. Assessing Cultural Fit: Employers evaluate a candidate's values, working style, and personality to ensure they'll fit into the company's culture. All hiring decisions come down to: Will this candidate fit in? Considering Long-Term Potential: Employers prefer candidates with growth potential who can take on more responsibilities in the future. Avoiding Excessive Costs: Employers strive to hire the best possible candidate while managing their labour costs. (salary, benefits, training requirements) Mitigating Risks: In order to minimize the risk of making a bad hire, employers review a candidate's background and digital footprint, as well as speak to their references beforehand. With all of the above in mind, it's your responsibility as a job seeker to demonstrate to employers why hiring you would be in their best interest. Understand the Employer's Perspective "Your mindset matters more than your skillset." - Shiv Khera, Indian author and activist. Many job seekers struggle with their job search because of their mindset. A person's mindset is everything, especially when looking for work since it influences how they perceive employers and job possibilities. The savvy job searcher knows that it's not about them; it's about the employer. They envision the employer as a potential customer. Employers create jobs and, therefore, paychecks; consequently, they're the customers. As Harry Gordon Selfridge, the founder of Selfridge's department store in London, famously said, "The customer is always right." By empathizing with the employer's perspective, it'll become apparent that employers are making strategic investments in their human capital rather than simply filling open positions. An organization's long-term success requires hiring people who can contribute (read: add measurable value), not those with an extensive resume that doesn't show what measurable value-adds they can contribute to the employer. Employers are responsible for building a workforce that can drive productivity, protect the company's competitive advantages, and mitigate legal/reputation risks. Therefore, think about how you can position your candidacy as an excellent strategic investment. Highlight Your Unique Value Proposition When communicating with employers, you must go beyond simply stating your qualifications and experience. Focus on articulating a unique value proposition—your ability to meet the employer's most pressing needs and objectives—to answer the question in the back of the employer's mind, "Why should I hire this person? What difference will they make to the company?" Do you have a proven track record of boosting productivity and efficiency? Maybe you possess niche technical skills that would give the company a competitive edge. Perhaps you have a book of clients. Most job seekers fail to demonstrate how they'll provide a substantial return on their compensation—the employer's investment. Don't be like most job seekers! If you're asking for a salary of $95,000, be ready to explain quantitatively what the employer will get in return. Demonstrate Your Commitment to Their Success Employers are not just looking for someone to fill a role; they want someone who's passionate about contributing to the company's success. Show them that you're that person. Ultimately, the hiring process is not a charity or a favour employers do for job seekers. It is a strategic business decision that can make or break an organization's ability to thrive. While employers should treat all candidates with respect and fairness, they're well within their rights to design their hiring practices in a way that serves their own best interests. Just because an employer's hiring process doesn't work for the job seeker doesn't mean it doesn't work for the employer. _____________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

New Relations on the Horizon for Canada and the United States

New Relations on the Horizon for Canada and the United States by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East There are just a few weeks left before President elect Donald Trump takes office on the 20th of January 2025. In the meantime, there are preparations for the new presidential administration, and the incoming President is putting new ideas forward in order to strengthen his mandate for making “America Great Again”. He is looking to implement a series of his ideas for strengthening the border both North and South of the United States. He is also looking to eliminate waste in government spending and keeping manufacturing jobs in the country. For instance, he has made a promise to impose a 25% tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada, until these countries make the required efforts to secure their borders with the States to curtail illegal immigration and lower the trade deficit. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s declaration that, as one of his first acts upon taking office on January 20th, he will impose a sweeping 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States has sent politicians, policymakers, and business leaders across the continent into a frenzy. The question is how seriously we should take this threat. Secondly, what can Canada do to prevent the North American free trade agreement from becoming a relic of the past? Based on our knowledge of the incoming President, it seems that the threat is very real and should not be taken in an easy and dismissive way. I see commotion in the Canadian Government, which was taken by surprise by the re-election of Donald Trump, and had not taken any steps to cultivate the appropriate relations that would avoid any surprises in bilateral relations. This commotion resulted in a sudden desperate trip of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to have dinner with the incoming President and try to resolve the issue. It should be noted however, that based on previous actions the two men are not on the best of terms, personally .Diplomatically, incoming President Trump affirmed that the meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau was productive. However, if we make deductions from what is publicly known about the meeting, as Canadians, we might well be concerned. According to people at the table who heard the discussion, Trump, while cordial and welcoming, was very direct when it came to what he wants from his counterpart to the North. Paraphrasing the discussion, Trump told Trudeau that Canada has failed the U.S. by allowing large amounts of drugs and people across the border, including illegal immigrants from over 70 different countries. Moreover, Trump became more animated when it came to the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, which he estimated to be more than $100 billion. The President-elect told the Prime Minister that if Canada cannot fix the border issues and trade deficit, he would levy a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods on day one when he returns to office. The reaction from Prime Minister Trudeau was that the President should not levy the tariff because it would kill the Canadian economy completely. Trump replied by asking, “so your country can't survive unless it's ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion?” Trump then suggested to Trudeau that Canada become the 51st state, which caused the Prime Minister and others to laugh nervously. Someone at the table chimed in and advised Trump that Canada would be a very liberal state, which received even more laughter. Trump then suggested that Canada could possibly become two states: a conservative and a liberal one. He told Trudeau that if he cannot handle his list of demands without ripping the United States off in trade, maybe Canada should really become a state or two and Trudeau could become a governor. While sources at the table say the exchange got many laughs, Trump delivered the message that he expected change by January 20. Talking seriously, the impact of a 25% tariff on imported goods from Canada will have a devastating result on the Canadian economy, especially in English Canada. In Ontario, for example, two-way trade makes up 41 percent of the province’s economy, and in Alberta, a major energy supplier to the U.S., it is 42 percent. As a result, a 25% tariff would be highly disruptive, potentially affecting millions of jobs. The threat of a 25% tariffs should not be taken lightly and Canadians need to be prepared for this alternative rather than dismissing it. Our politicians, both governing and in opposition, will need to be prepared for alternatives. We will soon see if they will be capable of doing so. Let me be clear, the incoming Trump administration sees restoring manufacturing production in the United States as a socio-economic imperative. It is at the centre of their vision for being responsive to the voters who elected them and restoring the social equilibrium of deindustrialized America. Through this lens, Trump’s tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico take on a different meaning. He has picked his North American partners first because the supply chains here are the shortest and producers in the two countries will face lower transaction costs for shifting production back into the United States than companies in Europe or elsewhere. The Trump-Vance policy bet is that a 25% tariff to access the U.S. market will represent such a high economic cost that companies will be prepared to absorb the short-term disruption of moving product mandates, production lines, and even entire facilities from Canada and Mexico back to the United States. Considering the disastrous fiscal position the United States finds itself in, a position that has deteriorated markedly not only because of the pandemic but also because of continued government deficit spending at levels normally seen during wartime, new innovative measures need to be taken. At this time, tariffs are considered to be a key part of a larger fiscal agenda for generating hundreds of billions in revenues to fund trillions in tax cuts without pushing up borrowing costs. They are no longer just a bargaining tool. In conclusion, comparing tariff threats in 2025 versus those in 2016, we must understand that the current threats are a fiscal necessity hardwired into Trump’s demand-side theory of stimulating economic growth through large-scale permanent tax expenditures. In view of this and in stark terms, the incoming Trump administration, nervous about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 124 percent, may not have very much choice when it comes to levying large tariffs. If Canadians continue to think that this President, his billionaire donors, and the current GOP are going to forgo tax cuts to forgo tariffs, they suffer from a level of national delusion that even Dracula cannot sort out. Are the politico in Ottawa prepared in their ivory towers? We will soon see

THROUGH THOSE EYES…

THROUGH THOSE EYES... By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Nothing brings my heart greater sorrow than to drive down my city downtown and witness the suffering and despair of fellow citizens living on our streets. Thanksgiving comes, remembrance day passes and now Christmas. Times to celebrate with an open heart and generous spirit. A time to rejoice on spirit, faith and appreciation for all that makes Canada. CANADA. My mind happy, proud of our Canada. Yet, so full of sorrow and confusion as how can we celebrate knowing the truths that lurk before us. The realities of those fellow Canadians suffering. As I stop at a light. I look over at a soul staring right through me. Sitting on a cold sidewalk along with all his belongings. Shivering and suffering as the tempest weather pounds him. Surrendered to the realities of his life. He sits there in despair as a scene from some poor third world nation. This is not our Canada. This can’t be our Canada. How can we celebrate anything with the suffering right before us. As I look into his eyes, I can see down deep in his suffering soul. I can feel his pain. Through those eyes, I see me. You, any one of us. His pain becomes mine. As good as we may have it today. Life is a constant evolving change. A loss of job. Illness, death in the family. The realities of life can give great comforts, as it can take. Through those eyes I can feel that he does not want to be on the street. Any more than I would. Any more than any of our family members or friends would. Through those eyes I can see myself at any given time. Without money, food or shelter. No place to call home. Many discard the homeless as being addicts, mental health cases. In reality, they are one of us... with negative life circumstances. By-product of a broken social, political and cultural system. Systems that at one time focused on standards, quality of life and the preservation of culture, customs and Canadian traditions. Today’s we are quick to label people with struggles as suffering from an array of mental health issues. We have failed to be compassionate and understantive. Mental health has many faces and the social stigma in order to justify lack of standards and care is what is crippling our society. Through those eyes - I see the need for our country to go back to what worked. It may not have been pretty. But it worked. Many argue we have had this problem for ever. That due to increase population the problem is more noticeable. I say not. The poor have always been. They had their culture based on their own standards. Always maintaining the integrity of duty to Country. Today those eyes scream out for help. For guidance. We need solid change.

COUNCILLORS DISCUSS INTERNET VOTING FOR 2026 NO GUARANTEE AGAINST “UNDUE INFLUENCE”

COUNCILLORS DISCUSS INTERNET VOTING FOR 2026 NO GUARANTEE AGAINST “UNDUE INFLUENCE” By Dean Hickey A RECENT STAFF REPORT which suggests Oshawa city council endorse the use of internet voting for the 2026 municipal election has given rise to concerns over what some are calling ‘undue influence’ on the integrity of the voting process. But not everyone agrees. For one minute and fourteen seconds – it seemed much longer – members of the Corporate & Finance committee listened as Ward 2 City councillor Jim Lee assured them no foreign country would ever attempt to interfere with a local municipal election should internet voting be established. With apologies to Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth, Jim, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. A man not counted as being among the more erudite members of council, he proceeded to offer a few insights on the staff report that show a remarkable simplicity of thought. “We’re not the first municipality in the province of Ontario or in Canada that is looking at internet voting, or doing internet voting, and on the whole security issue…I’m trying to get my mind around somebody sitting in their basement trying to influence a municipal election here in the city of Oshawa, and I don’t get it. I don’t see different countries wanting to influence a municipal election…” The concept of internet voting does not involve a simple ‘flip of the switch’ and to ignore the security threats of the internet is to push aside the vulnerabilities related to online voting. Councillor Lee, in his further attempts at reassuring his colleagues of the merits of the staff report, suggested a veritable groundswell of support exists within the community for changing the democratic process. “One of the things as a new councillor…and I knocked on thousands of doors…one of the things I heard the most is, when is the City of Oshawa going to move into the 21st century with regard to municipal elections?” Aside from the somewhat dubious suggestion that taxpayers in Ward 2 are mostly concerned with internet voting in the face of high property taxes, rising crime rates, and a homeless problem that threatens to destroy the city’s downtown, no-one should be arguing in favour of such a change simply because some voters like it. A 2016 report that appeared in Municipal World cited a consensus among computer security experts that internet voting, especially as done by commercial vendors, is fundamentally insecure. At that time, several independent computer security experts conducted a study for the City of Toronto, examining three internet voting systems submitted in response to a Toronto RFP (Request for Proposals). The study concluded that “no proposal provides adequate protection against the risks inherent in internet voting.” In a 2022 interview with CBC, Deputy Toronto City Clerk Fiona Murray told reporters that the city's chief technology and information security officers both said they didn't believe online voting was a secure method, and as a result, the city chose not to use it for both security and accessibility reasons. The internet is now a more volatile place than ever before, and yet the report issued by Oshawa’s City Clerk places ‘technical security’ at the bottom of a list of potential risks, with accessibility and cost issues playing a more prominent role. The authors of the report admit to the very real potential for outside interference. “Attackers may attempt to directly alter the election results, impair public trust in City operations, or infiltrate systems to undermine the legitimacy of City administration and Council; however, these risks are inherent to any election utilization strategy.” Well that’s certainly comforting. What is not, is the assertion by staff that the real threat to the democratic process is anyone in the community who suggests an election may have been tampered with in the first place. “The more likely line of attack for local elections are misinformation operations such as posting false claims on social media…” the report says. I see. So electors are to simply keep their mouths shut and put their trust in the bureaucratic machinery at city hall. In her response to questioning by members of the Corporate & Finance committee, the City’s CAO, Tracy Adams confirmed that, as a municipality, staff have not previously felt confident enough in terms of internet security, but she went on to say “Since then, a lot has evolved… There’s been thought-leaders as well as experts in cybersecurity, political science, public policy, election administration, and they have now drafted standards specific to internet voting.” The standards referred to represent a series of recommended best practices only, and regardless of the list of ‘security tools’ contained within the staff report, there is no guarantee the election will not be compromised. As Ward 2 Regional councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri suggested at the committee, “The threat of compromise is real; let’s not kid ourselves.” Ultimately, it was an amendment proposed by Ward 3 City councillor Brad Marks that would leave room for further consideration. Following a 757-word monologue that would see him neither endorse nor fully condemn the staff report as presented, committee members voted in favour of directing staff to investigate internet voting for advance polls, as well as internet voting with paper ballots and vote tabulators for the 2026 municipal and school board elections. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario confirmed in a 2018 report that an increasing number of municipalities are attempting to introduce internet voting, however the statistical data available suggests that, even though there has been some shift from paper ballots to on-line voting, the overall impact on voter turnout has not varied significantly. Data shows Ontario’s participation rate for the 2022 municipal election was approximately 33 per cent, compared with 43.1 per cent in 2014. Oshawa saw its lowest-ever voter turnout during the last municipal election, with just 18.4 per cent of eligible voters casting a ballot. The reasons why are many, and they include lackluster campaigns, the absence of any real visibility, other than a collection of signs competing for space at major intersections, and the closing of printed newspapers that were less resilient or relevant than the Oshawa Central. It is worth noting that in 1982, when residents relied on door-to-door newspaper delivery for local news, statistics show voter turnout to have been much higher, by at least 10 per cent province-wide. That alone is evidence enough to show the electorate as being less involved in their own communities, now that their attention has shifted towards handheld devices. In an age of 24-hour news from around the globe, the significance of local happenings is irrecoverably lost in a tidal wave of information. News of city council debates from another country, or even continent, has somehow become of overwhelming importance to us all. Don’t ask me why.

Community Newspapers: Connecting and Supporting Local Communities

Community Newspapers: Connecting and Supporting Local Communities By Dale Jodoin Community newspapers are a vital part of neighborhoods and towns, delivering local news to millions of Canadians every week. They serve more than just an informational role; they are key in connecting people, supporting local groups, and fostering collaboration. Across Canada, nearly 14 million copies of community newspapers are distributed weekly, often free of charge, making them an essential resource for many. Community newspapers provide straightforward news, helping readers stay informed about events and issues in their area. They act as a watchdog for local governance, holding politicians accountable by ensuring transparency in reporting. This role is critical to maintaining trust and credibility, as unbiased reporting empowers communities and encourages informed decision-making. However, concerns about political influence over some media outlets have sparked discussions about the importance of journalistic independence. Readers expect community newspapers to provide accurate, impartial news rather than being swayed by political agendas. Independence ensures newspapers can continue their role as a reliable source of truth and a platform for public accountability. Beyond reporting, community newspapers play an essential role in supporting local nonprofit organizations and community groups. These groups often rely on newspapers to raise awareness about their work, promote events, and recruit volunteers. Local food banks, for example, use newspapers to inform the public about distribution times and how to donate. Environmental groups share sustainability tips and event details, while other organizations highlight community resources, such as free educational programs or mental health services. Affordable advertising and feature stories in community newspapers allow nonprofits to reach a wide audience without straining their budgets. Public service announcements and advocacy pieces also provide these groups with a platform to communicate their mission and needs effectively. Community newspapers are a hub for building connections between local groups, businesses, and individuals. They encourage collaboration by sharing success stories of partnerships that benefit the community. For instance, a story about a local grocery store teaming up with a food bank to provide meals for families not only informs the public but also inspires similar initiatives. Additionally, newspapers help bridge gaps between local authorities and residents by sharing essential guidelines and updates. They educate readers about rules, such as food bank eligibility criteria, recycling practices, and safety protocols for community events. This information simplifies processes and ensures that people know how to access the help and resources they need. Community newspapers often serve as a platform for highlighting important local issues. Coverage of topics such as homelessness, public safety, or environmental challenges brings these issues to the forefront, encouraging community involvement. By reporting on these matters, newspapers motivate individuals and groups to take action and seek solutions. For example, stories about cleanup efforts in parks or volunteer recruitment for local shelters show the impact of collective action. These stories also provide recognition to those working tirelessly to improve their communities. Community newspapers are more than just a source of news. They act as a cornerstone for local engagement, bringing people together and supporting those in need. Their commitment to unbiased reporting, community support, and advocacy ensures they remain a valuable resource for towns and neighborhoods across Canada. By connecting people and sharing stories of positive change, community newspapers continue to strengthen the fabric of society, ensuring local voices are heard and local challenges are addressed.

The Baby Boomer Generation: Facing Loss and Finding Meaning Life and Loss: Navigating Grief and Finding Purpose

The Baby Boomer Generation: Facing Loss and Finding Meaning Life and Loss: Navigating Grief and Finding Purpose By Dale Jodoin As the Baby Boomer generation enters its later years, loss has become an inescapable part of life. The passing of parents, siblings, spouses, and friends forces us to face the fragility of life. These losses don’t just mark the end of relationships—they prompt deep reflection on our own mortality and the impact we’ve had on those around us. Loss is universal, yet it feels deeply personal when it happens to us. For Baby Boomers, saying goodbye to aging parents is often a poignant milestone. It’s a moment that shifts the family dynamic, leaving many to step into the role of the eldest generation. This shift often comes with a profound sense of vulnerability, as the people who once protected and guided us are no longer there. But losing a sibling or close friend carries a different kind of weight. These are the people who shared our lives, our secrets, and our memories. Their absence reminds us that time is fleeting and that even the strongest bonds can be broken by death. The loss of a spouse, however, is perhaps the most life-altering experience. A partner represents a shared life, a co-writer of your story. When they’re gone, the world feels quieter, emptier. Tasks that once seemed mundane, like preparing meals or watching TV, now highlight the void left behind. As death approaches, many people find themselves turning inward. For some, this means reaching out to faith or spirituality. Even those who’ve spent decades away from religion often find themselves praying or seeking forgiveness at the end of life. The prospect of leaving unfinished business—whether with loved ones or a higher power—can weigh heavily on the mind. Forgiveness becomes a recurring theme in these moments. Old grudges, once seen as insurmountable, suddenly seem trivial in the face of mortality. Yet, the desire for reconciliation often comes late, leaving little time to rebuild the connections that were lost. It’s a reminder to settle disputes and mend relationships while there’s still time. Whether through heartfelt conversations or simple gestures, letting go of resentment can bring peace not only to the dying but also to those left behind. For parents, the loss of a child is a grief that defies explanation. It goes against the natural order of life and leaves a wound that never fully heals. The sense of helplessness is overwhelming, as there’s no way to shield a child from the inevitability of death. This type of loss carries a ripple effect through families. It’s a grief that unites, yet isolates. Support from others who’ve experienced similar pain can be invaluable, as only they can truly understand the depth of this heartbreak. As death touches those around us, it also forces us to examine our own lives. What legacy are we leaving behind? How will we be remembered? These are questions many Baby Boomers are asking as they approach their later years. For some, the answers lie in revisiting faith or seeking a deeper connection with the world around them. A quiet moment in nature, a visit to a place of worship, or simply spending time with loved ones can provide clarity. Others focus on practical matters, like organizing their finances or writing a will. These steps, though sometimes uncomfortable, can ease the burden on those left behind. They’re acts of love that show consideration for the future. Grieving is a deeply personal process, and no two people experience it the same way. For some, the pain is overwhelming, making it difficult to move forward. In these moments, reaching out for help is essential. Support groups, whether in person or online, offer a safe space to share stories and emotions. They remind us that grief is a shared experience and that there’s strength in leaning on others. Friends and family can also provide comfort, even if it’s just through their presence. It’s important to remember that grief doesn’t have a timeline. Healing is not about forgetting—it’s about learning to live with the loss and finding ways to honor the memory of those who’ve passed. Despite the inevitability of death, life remains a gift to be cherished. Each day offers an opportunity to create new memories, strengthen relationships, and find joy in the small moments. Whether it’s laughing with grandchildren, exploring a new hobby, or simply enjoying a sunrise, these moments remind us of the beauty that still exists. At the same time, it’s crucial to address the practical aspects of life’s end. Writing down wishes, resolving conflicts, and communicating openly with loved ones can provide a sense of closure. It ensures that when the time comes, you can leave with fewer regrets and a clearer conscience. Grief is a reflection of love. The pain we feel when someone dies is a testament to the bond we shared with them. While the loss is devastating, it’s also a reminder of the impact they had on our lives. As we navigate this journey, it’s important to remember that we’re not alone. Others have walked this path before us and will walk it after us. Together, we can find strength in our shared humanity, creating a legacy of love and compassion for those who will carry on after us. Live fully. Love deeply. And when the end comes, face it with grace and gratitude for the life you’ve lived.

Ward 2 oshawa the forgotten people…

ward 2 oshawa the forgotten people... By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States For those that read my column on a regular basis. will know that I am a believer in the democratic process when it comes to electing government officials. In the same breath. You, also know where I stand with the quality of the candidates that we elect in office. The quality of living in the City of Oshawa keeps getting worst. Taxes keep going up. One would have thought that at the 2022 municipal election the electorate would have voted for change. Almost a reset button on Oshawa’s quality of life. NO - instead the electorate kept all the councillor and the incumbent Mayor and only changed one. I still can’t believe the results and the outcome. To vote back in a Mayor that has turned downtown Oshawa into Durham’s capital for the homeless, drug use, drug trade and prostitution. I am beyond words. Only to strengthen my position on how the electorate votes. Take for example the only change in the municipal roster. Ward 2, City Councillor, Jim Lee. At first I was excited. I thought finally someone with some credentials and a some what proven work history. I had hope for the ward with an under used airport. With a ward that has no representation. At the region, Regional and City councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri has had numerous terms as the ward 2 rep. How has the ward benefitted? Anyone’s guess. As for Lee. He has shown respect and visited my office once since elected. I appreciated that.... as Tito in his God knows how many terms... maybe visited his local city newspaper once or twice out of the many years he has been elected. Lee, in my opinion. Has become institutionalized. The do nothing and say even less, gets you elected time and time again appears. Lee instead of taking this golden opportunity to make a name for himself. He has opted to cushion his pension and play by the municipal coalitions rules. Say nothing, support what the coalition supports and support corporate prejudice and political vindication against anyone that challenges the status quo at the City of Oshawa offices. If I am wrong. I will be the first to apologize. One question. What has Lee done for ward 2 in his half term. The City position on doing business with the 30 serving newspaper is ignored due to political vendetta. They claim they support local small businesses. We are living proof of their bias, prejudice and lack of support for local small businesses. This is in part why there are so many vacancies in our core. NO SUPPORT. The City of Oshawa is not inclusive but selective.

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

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

Canada –an independent nation

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

Resume Trickery Never Works

Resume Trickery Never Works By Nick Kossovan There was a time when "white fonting," using white text to hide keywords in your resume, was suggested to circumvent an employer's ATS. Many still use this resume trickery, which is considered unethical by many, even though ATS systems can detect white-font text and disregard it, and recruiters can check for. The latest resume trickery self-professed career coaches are advising job seekers who feel their age is an obstacle to leaving dates off their resume. It's worth noting that it's in a career coach's best interest to have you believe ageism is widespread since this narrative helps them sell their "services." Does ageism exist? Of course, it does, irrespective of age, along with countless other biases, albeit not to the extent promoted by career coaches and the media, whose self-interest is best served by keeping us anxious and addicted to the news. Career coach's business model: Create a false narrative about a supposed job seeker's "obstacle" and offer a solution. Leaving dates off your resume or LinkedIn profile is lying by omission—intentionally leaving out critical information to create a misleading impression—constitutes an unethical attempt to influence the reader by misrepresenting yourself. Furthermore, since dates of employment and graduation are standard on a resume, omitting dates raises a glaring red flag that you're hiding something. Hiring managers and recruiters read the same job search advice you do. When they read a resume without dates, they know why the candidate hasn't included them. Putting aside the ethical question, assuming leaving off dates does get you an interview, once face-to-face, your age will be apparent; what then? If the hiring manager is an ageist, once seated, your age takes centre stage. They'll look for ways to confirm any biases they have of the age group and generation you belong to, such as: · you won't be a cultural fit · you'll soon retire · you have age-related health issues · you'll be entitled and easily offended and, therefore, hard to manage (especially younger candidates) · you'll be more likely to engage in activism · lack of experience · too much experience (overqualified, will be expensive) The range of assumptions, the foundation on which biases are formed, covers all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, etc. Hiring is a human judgement activity—maybe AI will change this one day—therefore, biases are inherent in the hiring process. You have biases; I have biases. Social norms and legislation cover up but don't eradicate biases, turning them into "subtle undertones." Presuming skills, competencies, and experience are relatively equal, which candidate would you lean toward: Candidate A: As you're engaging in small talk, which they initiated, they mentioned they're Seattle Kraken fans; you also happen to be a fan. Candidate B: Doesn't initiate small talk, and when you ask if they watched last night's Seattle Kraken vs. New York Islanders game, they say they don't like sports. Candidate A: Attended MacEwan University (Class of 2002), as did you (Class of 1997). Candidate B: Attended Boatwright University (Class of 1993). Generally, our biases aren't malicious. I'm of the opinion that, for the most part, "bias" is merely choosing whether an employee, friend, spouse, mechanic, doctor, or financial advisor is someone you feel comfortable with, and commonalities go a long way in making this decision. Your interviewer, especially if they're the person you'll be reporting to, is asking themselves: · Can I work with this person? · Will the team accept this person? Another reason lying by omission is futile is the Internet, which experts conveniently fail to mention. The Internet has made hiding your age and other details about yourself a futile endeavour. It's a given that your LinkedIn profile will be read, and you'll be Googled to determine if you're interview-worthy. If a hiring manager wants to know your age or anything else about you, they can use Google and find: · the years you graduated · the years you played minor league hockey · the picture your daughter, who tagged you, posted on Facebook in August 2004 of you dropping her off at university · the whitepaper, Advancing European Markets Are Undermining Globalization, you wrote back in 1998 for the brokerage firm you were working at · your tweet announcing your 25th wedding anniversary The point I'm making is it's better to be transparent about your age or [whatever]. At some point in the hiring process, especially since employers usually conduct four to six interviews, the employer will find out what you're trying to hide. Therefore, if the hiring manager is an ageist, you'll be eliminated when they Google you and determine your age, and off-chance should you get an interview, it'll be awkward. It's better to beeliminated upfront than to spend time preparing for and conducting an interview only to be rejected because of an "ism." I believe ageism or any other "ism" can be overcome by self-empowerment (read: respecting yourself) that comes from being proud of who you are and all you've accomplished rather than contorting yourself trying to be accepted. Look for an employer who values the experience of a 'seasoned' candidate—they do exist. Self-respect begets respect. I don't know a hiring manager who hires candidates they don't respect. _____________________________________________________________________ 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

NAVIGATING THE NARRATIVE WAR

NAVIGATING THE NARRATIVE WAR By Carla Grace Skinner The Information Age, also called the Digital Age or the New Media Age, can be difficult to navigate. Establishment Media is quickly becoming irrelevant. The simplicity of turning on our television and tuning into the news to stay informed is a thing of the past. Ratings are in decline due to lack of public trust and as a result, competing platforms have emerged. How we source information has evolved and the demand for journalistic integrity has increased. With so many information sources including mainstream media (“MSN”), government funded media, digital media, print media, social media etc., how do we know who to trust and how do we know what is factually true? Prior to the pandemic, I paid very little attention to news or politics. Tuning into cable news to stay up to date on the spread of the virus was a real eye opener for me. Because I had no preformed biases or political affiliations, I was consuming the news from all MSN Outlets, without prejudice. I realized very quickly that there were two completely different narratives being reported to the public. I began to see highly credentialed experts being censored; that some narratives were 100% fabricated as well as MSN warnings of misinformation, disinformation and warnings to stay away from social media. It was clear to me that this was a tactic used to attempt to control the narrative. I began to see citizen journalists being silenced for reporting evidence-based information; breaking stories with zero mainstream coverage; fellow citizens labeled and shamed for having a differing opinion; a divide forming within the collective psyche. As a result, I became fully committed to learning how to navigate this evolving media landscape in the search for accurate information. I committed to listening to content creators from both mainstream and independent media sources focusing on which side gave the most supporting evidence. Despite whether I agreed and aligned with every belief of the content creator, I concerned myself only with the quality of information being provided and their knowledge of the topic. Navigating the Narrative requires us to understand all sides and to carefully analyze the facts and supporting evidence, whether the sources are mainstream or independent. Seeking out the stories that MSN fails to report on can provide a wealth of information. Listen to what several experts have to say about an issue, especially those being censored and shadow banned. Social Media is home to many quality content creators and should therefore be judged based on their content rather than the platform they use to deliver their message. Always do your own fact checking and seek understanding vs confirming whatever supports your current beliefs. We believe what we believe based on what we’re told. Remember, history is written by the victors, therefore, questioning your sources makes good common sense!

How Crime Affect Home Values Theresa Grant

How Crime Affect Home Values Theresa Grant By Theresa Grant - Real Estate Columnist We all want to live in a beautiful neighbourhood where the streets are lined with mature trees, the neighbours all know each other, and the sounds of children playing echo through the air. Often, through the years, I have heard people say that when they grew up, they never had to lock their doors. In fact, I remember myself, growing up in Toronto. We lived on a side street in the Yonge and Eglinton area. It was a very nice area. Very quiet at the time. There were two schools in the area so you either went to the Catholic school or the Public school. Although the kids attended the different schools, there were all neighbours and so we played together every day and on weekends. Our summers were spent together, exploring our neighbourhood. For the most part, the parents knew each other, at least to say hello. I know that our front door was rarely locked. That was the 70’s mind you. Things have changed quite a bit since then. I remember driving with my family to visit my Aunt and Uncle who lived in Oshawa. The lived-on St. Lawrence St. around Mill and Simcoe. There was a Kentucky Fried Chicken on the corner of Mill and Simcoe, and as soon as we would pull off of the 401, we could see the giant bucket turning atop its pole. It was so exciting for us kids. We always had Kentucky Fried Chicken for dinner when we visited our Oshawa relatives. Many times I would here one of my cousins announce that they were heading uptown. I always wondered why they called it uptown, In Toronto, we would always say downtown. All of the neighbours on St. Lawrence knew each other and they knew us as well. Very friendly people, they were. We never heard any talk of crime or violence to any degree. We played freely without a care in the world. Today things are very different, and our society has changed so drastically. Once lovely neighbourhoods have fallen into disrepair. Drugs, violence, and homelessness have taken root in some of the oldest and most well-established areas of our city. While local Council scrambles to keep up with the growing issues that plague our city, homeowners have to do what they can to protect themselves and their property. As well as protecting their property, their property values are actually affected by crime rates. If you live in a high crime area, the value of your home will be less than the same home in a low crime area of the city. People want to feel safe, especially at home. Some areas of the city tend to see more crime than others. Unfortunately, an area that has experienced a high crime rate will often be painted with a stigma long after things have started to get better in the neighbourhood. Whether purchasing or renting, it’s always a good idea to thoroughly research the area that you are planning to move into and call home. Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

I'll Be Home For Christmas

I'll Be Home For Christmas from Wayne & Tamara I have been married 25 years. We come from completely different backgrounds. I grew up in a large family in a small town, and we were poor. My husband is an only child, privileged, and he was given everything by his parents. This continued throughout all our married life. The house we moved into, against my wishes, is theirs. It was "given" to us when they retired and built a home in a warmer climate. However, the deed remained in his parents' name, and they came back every summer for a visit. For me it was a nightmare. I work full-time but arranged time off to get everything in immaculate order for Abigail, my mother-in-law. It was never good enough. It was always a white glove inspection with her rubbing her hands across my kitchen counter and glancing at her fingertips. She even poked her head up inside the fireplace. She would say, "Oh, honey, you need to clean your mirrors," or "I rewaxed your floors because I didn't think they were clean enough." When she asked how I liked my house, I would say I didn't really think it was mine. She would smile at me and say, "No, it's not, is it?" One year after they arrived and we were having dinner, I made a grammatical error. I said "me and Linda" instead of "Linda and I." Abigail rapped her spoon on the tabletop screeching, "Honey, Honey, Honey! It is not me and Linda! It is Linda and I! Linda and I! Linda and I!" I was so stunned and embarrassed I excused myself from the table. My husband and my father-in-law just dropped their heads. As usual, what Abigail did was "for my own good." The following year she brought me a grammar book. I adored my father-in-law. He made me feel special. He would put his arms around me and tell me how much he appreciated me putting up with them. My husband would say, "That's just my mom." So I quit trying to fight her for the sake of my father-in-law and husband and to keep the peace. Three years ago when my father-in-law died, something happened inside me. I felt so much anger at Abigail I wanted to stay away from her. Last Christmas I didn't want to go see her. Abigail went berserk saying, "How will this look to my friends?" So I went. Within 24 hours she started in on me, as always, after my husband left the room. This time I called my husband back. It shocked my husband to see his sweet mom screaming, but when she saw she wasn't going to get away with it, she switched like a light bulb. She hugged me and told me how much she loved me. The rest of our visit she was as nice as pie. It is Christmas again, and we are scheduled to return to her house. I've asked my husband to go alone, which he thinks is a horrible idea. I am on antidepressants and scheduled for therapy after the first of the year. Am I being selfish? Melanie Melanie, the Greek playwright Aristophanes said, "The wise learn many things from their foes." Last Christmas you learned two things from Abigail. You learned she would be embarrassed if you refuse to visit, and you learned she will not confront you in front of her son. If you can stay home without doing serious damage to your marriage, that is one possible course of action. But there is another answer. Can you distance yourself from the situation? Can you decide in a perfectly calm, cool manner that you will go, but if your mother-in-law is not nice as pie, you will confront her in front of her son? Abigail has shown you that you can alter her behavior by standing up to her. The power has shifted. Wayne & Tamara SEND LETTERS TO: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com Wayne & Tamara are the authors of Cheating in a Nutshell and The Young Woman’s Guide to Older Men—available from Amazon, Apple, and booksellers everywhere.