People are watching

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE People are watching As Ontario prepares for the next round of Skills Development Fund (SDF) allocations—this time including capital funding—you would think the government would be eager to clean up its act. So far, there is little evidence that it has. The SDF program has already been engulfed in controversy. Applicants that scored poorly on their submissions were nevertheless greenlit for millions of dollars, while legitimate trade schools, unions, and skilled-training institutions were left watching from the sidelines. When a disproportionate share of public funding flows repeatedly to the same politically connected actors, it stops looking like coincidence and starts looking like collusion. Among the names repeatedly tied to these grants are Kory Teneycke, the Premier’s former campaign manager; Nico Fidani Dyker, a former senior staffer in the Premier’s office; and Michael Diamond, the President of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Oversight ultimately rests with the Ministry of Labour, under Minister David Piccini, whose proximity to lobbyists and grant recipients has raised persistent concerns. There are documented reports of front-row Maple Leafs tickets, luxury travel, and privileged access enjoyed by principals of companies that received SDF funding. At the same time, credible training organizations—those actually preparing electricians, welders, millwrights, and heavy-equipment operators—were passed over. This week, a brief investigation revealed that multiple steel companies have independently retained Nico Fidani Dyker’s lobbying firm ahead of the next SDF intake. This mirrors prior behaviour observed during the Greenbelt scandal, where access appeared to matter more than merit. At the same time, the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into irregularities surrounding Keel Digital Solutions remains unresolved, and the RCMP’s Greenbelt investigation continues. Despite this, the same players appear confident that public money will continue to flow. Within government, many Members of Provincial Parliament are privately unhappy with what is unfolding. Fear of political retaliation, withdrawn support, or stalled funding has kept most silent. Meanwhile, Ontario’s skilled trades continue to struggle. Apprenticeships go unfunded. Training facilities age. Labour shortages worsen. If the next round of Skills Development Funds proceeds without reform, transparency, and accountability, it will confirm what many already believe: the program has become less about skills and more about access. People are watching.

A POLITICAL CONVENTION AND A HOST OF NATIONAL ISSUES

A POLITICAL CONVENTION AND A HOST OF NATIONAL ISSUES THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA NATIONAL CONVENTION in Calgary from January 29 to 31 is primarily focused on a leadership review of Pierre Poilievre following the party's 2025 election performance. However, beyond the leadership vote, delegates received over 60 policy and constitutional proposals for debate. This comes at a time in our nation’s history when the sheer number of issues we face appears overwhelming to even the most casual observer. As one might expect in today’s political and economic climate, conversations are taking place on matters of resource development, public safety, bail reform, immigration, and of course, freedom of speech. At the same time, there are a few fundamentals we as Canadians need to face, and this week I will highlight just a few. First, let’s talk about jobs. It’s no secret that Canada’s economy has languished over the past couple of years, with feeble increases in gross domestic product (GDP), outright declines in per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards), sluggish exports, and alarmingly low levels of business investment. Needless to say, this pattern of economic weakness is showing up in the job market. The number of unemployed Canadians averaged 1.5 million in 2025, up from 1.4 million in 2024 and 1.1 million in 2022. The unemployment rate averaged 6.8 per cent in 2025, compared to 6.3 per cent in 2024 and 5.4 per cent the year before. Part of the problem is the continuing post-pandemic trend of ‘outsized’ government-sector job gains versus more muted growth in private-sector employment. Government administration, education, and health care all reported job growth in 2025. Across the entire Canadian public sector, payroll jobs expanded by 1.9 per cent versus a 1.3 per cent increase in the private sector. With Ottawa and many provinces now facing sky-high deficits, it’s doubtful that government-funded employment can keep rising at the brisk pace seen in recent years. If last year was a mediocre one for job creation, 2026 is expected to bring more of the same. Most forecasters see the Canadian economy struggling this year, after a lackluster 2025. This suggests that annual employment growth in 2026 is unlikely to surpass 1 per cent, and that’s anything but positive news. Now let’s turn our attention to one of the most pathetic issues to have surfaced in generations, being that of Ottawa’s mandate for electric vehicle (EV) imports. The new trade deal between Canada and China, which reduces the tariff rate on Chinese EV imports into Canada, recently made headlines. Reality check: Federal EV mandates require more vehicles to plug in, but our electricity grids are not equipped to handle the related surge in electricity demand. Expanding power infrastructure takes decades, and there’s growing doubt among the more astute in this country about the feasibility of meeting EV adoption targets. Since 2023, the federal government has introduced policies to force a shift towards EVs as one element of its “net-zero” emissions by 2050 plan. Looking ahead, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, a federal agency, by 2050 national electricity demand will grow by a projected 135 per cent. This means that in the span of about 25 years, Canada’s electricity demand would more than double to meet EV mandates. Successfully delivering such a massive increase in electricity would require a monumental expansion in our infrastructure for electricity generation, transmission and storage, and points to increased reliance on energy imports from the United States if demand for power grows faster than domestic supply. There’s a self-evident and fundamental challenge - the federal EV mandate strives for rapid acceleration of EV adoption and will lead to a significant increase in electricity, but expanding the supply of electricity has historically proven slow and expensive. Any changes to Ottawa’s EV mandate must confront this disconnect and its consequences for electricity demand. That is something the ‘EV-Cult’ among us simply refuse to acknowledge. The third issue I would like to touch on concerns healthcare wait times here in Ontario – an issue that unquestionably spans the entire country. In a recent news story about the Ford government’s plan to increase the number of private clinics and reduce wait times in Ontario, one Toronto-based doctor told CTV News that Ontario’s health-care system is in “remarkably good shape” however, the data reveal a different story. According to government statistics, nearly one-quarter of children in Ontario wait “too long” for general pediatric care, and all children wait four months on average for “non-urgent” treatment. Keep in mind the fact that this is after they first wait weeks or even months to see a specialist for diagnostics in the first place. The situation isn’t any better for adults, where in many cases between one-fifth and one-quarter of patients in Ontario are not treated within the government’s own target times. The official maximum wait-time target for joint replacement and a broad range of other surgeries is now six months, during which it’s apparently fine for patients to endure pain and potential deterioration. For those in need of non-urgent cataract removal, for example, the government seems to be okay with people stumbling around with limited vision for up to four months. Again, these wait-time targets don’t include the weeks or months of waiting for a specialist appointment or for an MRI or CT scan. In light of these facts, how can anyone say that Ontario’s health-care system is in “remarkably good shape”? The government’s self-ascribed targets are generous while patients languish and deteriorate. Health care in Ontario is only in “good shape” if someone (hopefully, someone else) will wait longer than the government’s idea of how long patients should wait. The Ford government’s plan to increase access through private surgical clinics is a positive step towards solving a very real wait-time problem. Increasing unemployment rates, EV fantasies that border on complete lunacy, and a failing Soviet-style healthcare system are but a few of the issues Canadians need to face up to. There are many more of course, such as weak productivity, high household debt, and massive trade vulnerabilities. If these are left unresolved, you can bet on a continuing decline in our living standards due to preventable economic erosion. Never forget that our economy – that of our ancestors right on up to the present day – will always be heavily reliant on natural resources and trade. Since 2015, the prevailing ideology in Ottawa has been to wage war on the one, while letting the other slip away due to incompetence at the highest level. Things need to change, and perhaps someday soon the average Canadian voter will begin to see the light.

Disgraceful At Best...

By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers For those that read this column on a regular basis will note that I have been warning of this for the past 15 years. “GM IS LEAVING OSHAWA”. I remember in conversation with Nancy Diamond over this issue. She use to tell me. “Oh don’t worry Joe. They always do that to push the government to give them more funding.” I remember her telling me that even if they were to leave Oshawa. That city council could do nothing to prevent it.... as if council tried to flex muscle. GM through the union would turn it into a huge political issues and that most on council would suffer. So the resolve was to do nothing and allow GM to do as they pleased. As they had done for ever and a day. Meanwhile I use to get calls from GM management workers worried over the job loss. This week an a pathetic attempt to make it look like he cares: Mayor Dan Carter responds to GM Oshawa Assembly Plant transition to two shifts - Jan 29, 2026 With General Motors of Canada’s transition of the Oshawa Assembly Plant back to a two-shift operation as of January 30, Oshawa Mayor Dan Carter has issued the following statement: “On behalf of the City of Oshawa, I want to express our heartfelt compassion and support for the GM employees and their families who are affected by this transition. We understand this is a difficult and challenging time. I have a suggestion for this token Mayor... stop with the empty words and actually show some leadership and stand up to GM on behalf of Oshawa. It is obvious that both of our local MP and MPP have no character and or leadership qualities to do anything about it. He continues... GM’s presence here has brought innovation, investment and thousands of jobs. We’re proud of Oshawa’s automotive legacy that spans more than a century. Oshawa Assembly remains a leader in its award-winning operations, producing both heavy- and light-duty Chevrolet Silverado pickups – GM’s most important market segment in North America. Our talented workforce continues to play a vital role in meeting demand for these vehicles. Oshawa is also home to GM’s advanced research facilities, including the McLaughlin Advanced Technology Track at Oshawa’s Canadian Technical Centre. We will continue to work closely with GM, Unifor and the Provincial and Federal governments to identify new business, partnerships and investments to bring new advanced manufacturing opportunities and pathways to the great City of Oshawa.” What a load of crap.... Words that mean nothing to the person loosing their job. Nothing to the person not affording to pay property tax increases. I can tell you this. That If I had been graced with winning the last election. GM. would have been forced to pay. Pay for the environmental mess they created all across Oshawa. From the North along Grandview dumps to the south of Simcoe at the entrance of Lakeview Park. Not to mention the lands of the old stamping plant just north of the court house. Lands that are so putrid that the court house faced compromises in it’s building. An environmental mess. I would have approached the leadership at GM and made it clear that unless jobs came back to Oshawa that the City would file a class action suit on behalf of all citizens of Oshawa to the tune of 5 Billion dollars. This would also include the fact that GM leaving, has put Oshawa in an economic mess. Look at our downtown.  Look at all those living on the streets. NO EXCUSE. This claim would also include pain and suffering cause to all those 30,000 plus that use to work at GM. Pensions and special packages do not cut it. Tokens for service will not be accepted. We the people have sacrificed a work force that has contributed to the success of GM world wide. We the people have endured and are enduring the affects of GM manufacturing methods. It is time to stop pretending. Stop expecting the Province and Feds to step up. Make them Pay... Then look who is running the show... A token Mayor. 2 Terms that has ruined Oshawa to the core (literately).

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Strategy for the U.S.–Canada Trade War and the Coming CUSMA Test

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Strategy for the U.S.–Canada Trade War and the Coming CUSMA Test by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The renewed trade and tax confrontation between the United States and Canada has stripped away a comfortable illusion: that North American economic integration is permanently insulated from politics. Tariffs, industrial subsidies, and fiscal threats are no longer exceptional tools. They are becoming routine instruments of domestic politics in Washington. For Canada, this is not a passing squall but a new climate. In that context, the vision articulated by Prime Minister Mark Carney offers a sober and increasingly relevant guide—not just for managing the current trade war, but for navigating the high-stakes review and renegotiation of CUSMA now approaching. Carney’s core insight is disarmingly simple: economic stability can no longer be assumed. For much of the post-Cold War era, Canada built prosperity on a rules-based trading system anchored by the United States. That system still exists on paper, but in practice it is being distorted by security claims, domestic political cycles, and a revival of industrial policy. Carney does not romanticize the old order, nor does he propose retreat. Instead, he argues that Canada must adapt to a world where trade friction is structural, not episodic. This matters profoundly for CUSMA. The agreement was designed to provide predictability, yet predictability is precisely what has eroded. Tariffs imposed outside the spirit—if not always the letter—of the agreement, threats of tax retaliation, and the use of national security exemptions have all demonstrated the limits of legal texts when political incentives shift. Carney’s response is not to abandon free trade, but to make it credible again by grounding it in enforcement, resilience, and domestic legitimacy. One pillar of that approach is realism about power. The United States will always have greater leverage in bilateral disputes. Canada’s mistake, historically, has been to oscillate between moral suasion and symbolic retaliation. Carney’s vision rejects both. He insists that Canada’s leverage lies in being indispensable, not indignant. In practice, this means investing at home so that Canadian supply chains, energy systems, and industrial inputs are deeply embedded in North American production. The more disruption hurts the United States as well as Canada, the more restraint returns to policy. This logic should shape Canada’s posture in the coming CUSMA negotiations. Rather than framing talks defensively—as an effort to preserve what already exists—Canada should approach them as a durability exercise. Which parts of the agreement are most vulnerable to political weaponization? Where can clearer standards, stronger compliance mechanisms, and faster dispute resolution reduce the temptation to bypass the rules? Carney’s institutional mindset points toward tightening the agreement where ambiguity invites abuse, even if that requires uncomfortable adjustments at home. A second pillar of Carney’s vision is the integration of economic security into trade policy. Washington has been explicit that trade is now inseparable from security, whether the subject is critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, or energy systems. Canada has often resisted this framing, preferring to defend the purity of free trade. Carney would argue that this is a strategic error. Refusing the language of security does not prevent its use; it simply excludes Canada from shaping how it is applied. In the CUSMA context, this suggests a reframing of Canada’s negotiating stance. Rather than contesting every U.S. security-based measure as illegitimate, Canada should demonstrate where its own capabilities directly advance American security objectives. Reliable electricity grids, trusted mineral supply chains, nuclear expertise, and low-carbon manufacturing capacity are not peripheral assets; they are central to North American resilience. A Canada that can credibly present itself as a security partner is harder to target with blunt trade instruments. Nowhere is Carney’s thinking more distinctive than on environmental and industrial policy. He has long argued that the climate transition is not a cost centre but a competitive strategy. In the context of a U.S.–Canada trade war, this is not an abstract argument. As Washington deploys subsidies and border measures to favour domestic production, Canada faces a choice: treat climate policy as a moral position to be defended, or as an industrial advantage to be leveraged. Carney’s answer is clear. Climate alignment should be woven directly into trade negotiations. Canada should press for North American standards that reward low-carbon production, recognize clean electricity advantages, and integrate energy systems across borders. Done properly, this turns climate policy from a vulnerability into leverage. It also aligns with American industrial priorities, reducing the political appetite for punitive measures against Canadian exports. Another central element of Carney’s vision is credibility. Markets, allies, and even adversaries respond to predictability. Countries that maintain disciplined fiscal policy, independent institutions, and stable regulatory frameworks borrow more cheaply, attract investment more reliably, and negotiate from a position of confidence. In a trade war environment, this matters as much as tariffs or counter-tariffs. For CUSMA, credibility is Canada’s strongest card. A reputation for enforcing rules consistently—whether they favour or constrain domestic interests—strengthens Canada’s hand in disputes. It signals that retaliation, if necessary, will be lawful, proportionate, and sustained. Carney’s approach favours patience over theatre, and law over spectacle. That may be less satisfying politically, but it is more effective strategically. Critically, Carney does not promise an end to trade conflict. His vision assumes volatility will persist. The objective is not to eliminate friction, but to manage it without undermining long-term prosperity. This is a middle-power strategy for a harsher North America: absorb pressure without panic, invest domestically to reduce exposure, and negotiate agreements that are resilient enough to survive political swings. As the CUSMA review approaches, Canada faces a defining choice. It can cling to a nostalgic view of continental trade, hoping that appeals to partnership will override domestic pressures in Washington. Or it can adopt a more disciplined, strategic posture—one that accepts power realities while quietly increasing Canada’s leverage. Mark Carney’s vision points firmly toward the latter. In an age of trade wars and tax threats, a serious, professional approach is itself a form of power. Canada’s task is not to outmuscle the United States, but to make itself too valuable, too reliable, and too embedded to sideline easily. That is not a dramatic strategy. It is, however, the one most likely to endure.

More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science

More Than an Individual -Understanding the Systems That Shape Us Through Social Science By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every individual is connected through culture, society, and behaviour. We are all a part of a complex social system which influences us in ways we rarely notice. From our diets to our wardrobe to speech patterns, every aspect of our lives are shaped by our environment. Even choices we believe to be solely personal are the result of social expectations, economic conditions, and cultural norms that have surrounded us throughout our entire lives. These aspects are researched through the social sciences, the academic study of our social environment, including human society, relationships, and individual behavior. These sciences ask the question of why regarding everything surrounding human life, from politics to education to the legal system. Some of the most well-known branches include psychology, anthropology, sociology, and political science; however these are just some disciplines among many. Although the importance and academic focus of the social sciences are often debated, at their core they are research-based, systematic, knowledgeable, and ultimately useful, making them sciences as much as biology or chemistry are. The social sciences are deeply embedded in our decision making, understanding, and systems that structure our lives. Each branch investigates our world through a different lens, providing explanations as to why humans are the way they are. Rather than relying on assumption or intuition, as most personal judgements do, the social sciences collect data, identify patterns, and test theories. This allows us to deepen our understanding of society and those around us. Beyond academic study, the social sciences also play a crucial role in challenging the judgements we apply around the world. They encourage us to question what we consider “normal” and to recognize the social norms which we are surrounded by. What we see as normal is a social construct, no more important or pure than others. By developing this understanding, we allow ourselves and societies to grow, adapt, and improve. The judgements, biases, and opinions we carry are unavoidable in our lives. These ideas are engraved into who we are, formed by our childhood, culture, societal norms, and past experiences. They are normal and entirely human, however they cloud our world view and limit our understanding. The social sciences provide a unique, open-minded understanding of our society without the interference of personal judgement. They use numbers to explain why. Why are rates of educational success higher in some districts than others? Why has mental health declined in recent years? Why do cultural ceremonies differ so widely across continents? Rather than offering surface-level opinions, these sciences explore underlying causes such as inequality, historical context, and social structures. There is a term in anthropology, coined by Franz Boas, referred to as cultural relativism. This means to understand cultures on their own terms rather than judging them by external, biased standards. These concepts promote understanding without assigning value or superiority. It’s something which we can all apply to our daily lives, even if we’re not anthropologists. Cultural relativism encourages us to view cultures as sources of meaning and comfort for those within them, even if they differ from our own. Every society is organized to meet the needs of its people, every society is structurally similar and globally understood. Through this lens, we can understand others, and learn from the differences as opposed to criticizing them. When analyzing these systems found within cultures, we realize how influenced we are by the systems themselves. We are never truly alone, as we are always surrounded by our culture, whether that be the music we’re listening to, the technology we’re using, or the tasks we are doing throughout the day. Each individual exists as part of a system, a statistic, a society that connects us to others. It is inescapable, and that’s what makes the social sciences so fascinating. Understanding this connection allows us to recognize our role within society, and what influenced that. It not only helps us understand others, but it is the key to recognizing our own influences and personality. Ultimately, the social sciences shape our entire worldview. They influence how we interpret politics, make judgements and understand personal identity. They teach us empathy, critical thinking, and the importance of evidence within our daily lives. In a world that is connected and forever changing, these skills are essential. Appreciating and applying sociology, anthropology, and psychology to our daily lives are the only way to properly understand our global societies and cultures for what they are; unique, functional, interconnected, and beautiful.

Lois And Clark

Lois And Clark By Wayne and Tamara I am an 18-year-old woman madly infatuated with my boyfriend, 26. We met in an unorthodox way. I’m casually walking around 42nd Street in Manhattan, when he spots me and decides to talk. We clicked instantly, like magic straight out of a fairy story. The rest is history. We were incredibly shocked at each other’s answer to the question “How old are you?” Twenty-six would have been my last guess! Eventually our age gap began to bother him. He hated going somewhere an ID must be shown, always fearing the bouncer wouldn’t let me in and our night would be ruined. I can’t say I blame him. I started to feel a little young around his friends, seeing how they all looked at me sideways. But my boyfriend is like…like…my personal Superman, and our fights never turn as ugly or rowdy as the average New York couple. He treats everyone with respect. The only thing that bothers me is what bothers him, and what bothers him is my lack of years on the planet. Panic surrounds me when I try to find an excuse as to why our ages shouldn’t matter. How do I make my man happy if what causes him stress is something that’s part of me? Rhiannon Rhiannon, your Superman may be faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, but he lacks the power to change you from 18 to 21. Your age is his kryptonite, and as fans of the comic book know, the longer Superman is exposed to kryptonite, the weaker he grows. As he goes to clubs, hangs out with his buds, or meets other women, your age will wear on him. You may find some ways around that, but there are limits to how many times he will want to sit around with you at the movies. In two years he’ll be on the cusp of 30, and you still won’t be able to go into bars with him. Age, like kryptonite, has properties. For the young, a year or two can be a gulf or a canyon; only when we grow older does the gap begin to close. No one can change that, not even Superman. Wayne & Tamara Never Too Old I am in my mid-30s. I recently went out with a man I met at work who is the superintendent in the next building. He seemed very attracted to me. He told me he wasn’t married, and I thought he was in his mid-50s. I found out he is married and a remarkably fit 71. I was so upset. The age thing bothers me, but not as much as being married. If I had kept going out with him who knows what could have happened. Maybe his wife would have called me. I would not have liked to deal with that. I told him what he did was wrong, and I don’t mess around with married people. He suggested we could stay friends, but I told him after what he did I do not want to be his friend. My question is, why do men in their 70s still cheat? Celeste Celeste, a man cheats in his 70s for the same reason he cheats at any other age. He lacks character. When we run into people who lack character, we have a dual role. First, to protect ourselves, which you did, and second, to protect others. There are at least two reasons why he wants to remain friends with you. Staying friends gives him additional time to weaken your defenses, and it makes you less likely to tell others about his deceptions. But if you tell your coworkers, it may protect another woman from being caught in a compromising situation with a 71-year-old married man who wants to see if Viagra works. Wayne & Tamara

An Air Of Excitement

An Air Of Excitement A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist With an election on the horizon, those who follow local politics or are actively involved tend to perk up just a bit. There is an air of excitement, perhaps hope in some cases, that there will be positive change coming. One thing that stands out though, and stands out is an understatement, one glaring fact surrounding our local elections is voter turnout. For some reason we have a bad case of voter apathy here in Oshawa. In the 2022 election for example only 18.4% of eligible voters actually voted! So, out of a population of 175,383, with 121,885 of those people eligible to cast a ballot only 22,456 turned out to do so. That begs the question, what in the world is going on in Oshawa? The 2022 turnout is actually the lowest turnout in Oshawa history. That’s not only sad but a little scary. What can we do to change that number? I would think the first order of business would be to try and ascertain why that number is so low and go from there. Are people just flat out fed up? Do they think their vote doesn’t matter? Is it a case of convenience? Would online voting or voting by phone increase the number of people willing to cast their vote? These are things that truly need to be looked at because the election of our local municipal government is the closest to each one of us personally, and the one that affects our day to day life far more than any other election. Yet, more people tend to turn out for a federal election than their local ones. In 2014 The Town of Ajax introduced online voting and in doing so they saw their voting numbers increase from 25.4% to 30.4% that election year. I admit convenience is important. People are very bust today with several working more than one job, many working split shifts and overtime where they can get it just to stay afloat. I understand that on a tight schedule, getting yourself over to a polling station may not be the easiest thing to fit into a busy day. In Oshawa, the highest voter turnout ever was 1960 with 51.7 % of voters turning up to the polls to have their say. Yes, it was a different time and a different generation but surely the voters of 1960 would have passed down the importance of marking your ballot and having your say to their children. To not vote is to say you don’t care. We must care, this is our city and however good bad or indifferent it is, comes down to the people that make up our city and our attitudes. We can do better people. Let’s do better together!

You Cannot Attract What You Resist

You Cannot Attract What You Resist By Nick Kossovan My favourite quote illustrating the futility of resisting reality is by American author Byron Katie: "When you argue with reality, you lose, but only 100% of the time." A few years ago, I read Rhonda Byrne's The Secret to better understand the Law of Attraction. According to Byrne, one aspect of the Law of Attraction is that "what you resist, persists," because, theoretically, you're giving energy to what you don't want, keeping it alive in your mind. Resistance is feeling-based. Resistance involves telling yourself false stories to create excuses for why you're not getting what you want. Resistance is refusing to read the room, such as AI being more cost-effective than hiring junior employees, lean teams looking great on earnings calls, and "let's wait and see" becoming a corporate strategy. Resistance is the refusal to accept the reality you find yourself in. As detrimental as it is to their job search—by now it's common knowledge that employers will check your digital footprint to determine whether you're interview-worthy—I see job seekers ad nauseam take to LinkedIn to voice their "resistance" to hiring practices, which, in turn, explains their lengthy job search. Employers avoid hiring candidates who lack emotional regulation. Every day, I see the same pattern: job seekers unwilling to adapt to the new paradigm for finding work. Applying with an opinion resume, as if it's 2005. Telling the same unsubstantiated career stories. When nothing happens, they get angry at recruiters, hiring managers, the enigmatic ATS, and the non-existent "hiring system." (For a "system" to exist, all hiring managers and recruiters would need to assess candidates similarly, which isn't the case.) Every day, we try to avoid or escape the realities that don't suit us. The two predominant ways we do so are by: 1. Judging our reality (employers) 2. Arguing with our reality (employers) If your job search isn't progressing as you'd like, public outbursts, which signal to employers that you can't control your emotions, aren't the answer. The answer is to stop resisting what you can't control or change and to adapt; to become okay with what's not okay. When it comes to job search success, job seekers would be much better off understanding and accepting that employers design their hiring processes to protect their business and reduce hiring risk. Hiring the wrong person can be costly in terms of training, severance, and lost productivity. Successful job seekers don't resist an employer's hiring process; they recognize that employers are risk-averse and therefore hire as they do, and they adapt. They don't entertain the limiting belief that investing in an employer's hiring process may be wasted effort. For example, as a job seeker, you've likely noticed that many employers ask candidates to complete an assignment to verify their skills. Those who resist think, "Assignments are free labour." They're judging an employer's request without considering that employers are navigating a job market full of bad actors who make exaggerated claims about their skills and experience. This is the reality employers face, and job seekers need to deal with it too. Also, arguing against (read: resisting) doing an assignment won't change the reasons employers ask candidates to do one. Having resistance to how employers hire isn't doing you any favours. The more you can let go of that resistance—softening it—the smoother your job search will be. Stoic philosopher Epictetus said: "Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not." The way an employer designs their hiring process and evaluates candidates is outside a job seeker's control. While I understand it may feel counterintuitive, you need to trust that going with the flow regarding how employers hire and believing it'll lead to employment can be the most beneficial mindset shift for your job search. When it comes to job searching, the single best advantage you can give yourself is to learn to navigate the job market's currents, understand and accept why employers are hiring the way they are, why ghosting has become common (liability issues are real), why feedback isn't given (again, liability issues), and why employers are more risk-averse than ever, rather than exhausting yourself by resisting what you have no influence over changing. Let employers be employers! A utopian solution to ease the frustration and anger, stemming from their resistance to the realities of today's job market and not wanting to understand why employers are trying everything in their power to reduce hiring risks, would be to tape Alcoholics Anonymous's Serenity Prayer, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference," to every job seeker's laptop, monitor, wall, fridge, and anywhere they'll see it repeatedly. Stop fighting what you don't know, can't manage, or don't like, or what's not going your way. The universe doesn't give you what you ask for. It gives you what you're being. By resisting employers' hiring processes and candidate assessment methods, you not only waste mental energy you could be using for your job search, you're also prolonging it.

Canada Was Told We Were Safer Than the United States. We Were Told to Trust That

Canada Was Told We Were Safer Than the United States. We Were Told to Trust That By Dale Jodoin Columnist At what point did Canada give up freedom? Was it one law passed quietly? One emergency measure that never fully ended. Or was it slower than that. More like a long conversation where Canadians were gently reassured, again and again, that everything was under control. For years, Canadians were told something very specific. We were told we were not like the United States. We were told Americans had to worry about health care, crime, and instability because their government did not protect them. Canada was different. Our government would step in. Our system would take care of us. We did not need to be suspicious. We did not need to push back. That message worked. It became part of our identity. When concerns came up, the response was always calm and confident. Trust the system. Trust the experts. Trust Ottawa. We are not like them. People once read 1984 and said it was an American style fear story. They watched V for Vendetta and dismissed it as exaggerated fiction. That could never happen here. We had safeguards. We had institutions. We had a government that would protect us. So here is the first real question. If our government was protecting us, what exactly was it preparing for? And just as important, what was it choosing not to prepare for? For more than fifteen years, the federal government knew Canada was going to grow quickly. Millions of people were coming. This was not secret. It was public policy. It was announced and celebrated. We were told it was good for the economy and good for the future. Once again, we were told not to worry. This is not the United States. Our system can handle it. But growth requires planning. Planning is not speeches. Planning is hospitals, doctors, nurses, police, courts, and jails. Planning is boring, expensive, and unglamorous. Planning is where governments prove whether promises are real. Canada has been in a health care crisis for years. Emergency rooms overflow. People wait hours to be seen. Some wait days. Family doctors are harder to find each year. Nurses are burned out and leaving the profession. Doctors retire and are not replaced. While the population grew, the system fell behind. Provinces were not given the funding needed to expand hospitals and train staff. In some cases, funding was reduced. Yet Canadians were told not to panic. This is not the United States. Our system will protect you. Here is the quiet truth. A system cannot protect people if it is stretched beyond its limits. Good intentions do not replace doctors. Pride does not shorten wait times. Saying we are better than someone else does not fix a broken schedule in an emergency room. Immigration itself is not the problem. Growth without support is. When systems crack, everyone feels it. Newcomers struggle. Long time Canadians struggle. Front line workers carry the weight. The federal government knew the pressure was coming and chose not to prepare provinces properly. That decision has consequences. Crime followed the same pattern. Criminals became younger and more organized. Guns flowed in from the United States. That should have been the focus. Borders. Smuggling networks. Organized crime. Instead, Canadians were told again that we are not like the United States. We do not need tough enforcement. We need compassion. Law abiding gun owners were targeted while repeat offenders were released again and again. Police arrest the same individuals so often it becomes routine. Courts are clogged. Jail space has not grown with the population. This was sold as fairness and progress. But crime does not respond to slogans. A shop owner closing early does not feel safer because of a press conference. A senior afraid to walk home does not care how a policy is branded. So here is another honest question. If one police officer arrests the same criminal twenty times, does hiring another officer solve the problem. Or does the system itself need repair. The answer is uncomfortable, but it is not complicated. Again, Canadians were reassured. We are not like the United States. We do not overreact. We do not lock people up. Our way is better. Yet people feel less safe. Communities feel tense. Victims feel invisible. Then came division. Real racism exists in Canada. No serious person denies that. But it was presented as if it was everywhere and in everything. Every disagreement became a moral crisis. Every question became suspect. People were told to be careful what they say. Speech became risky. Religion became something to manage. Asking questions became dangerous. That should concern anyone who believes freedom includes disagreement. A country that cannot talk openly cannot think clearly. Once again, Canadians were told not to worry. This is not the United States. We are protecting you from harm. We are protecting you from hate. Trust us. So here is the larger question. If protection requires silence, control, and fear of saying the wrong thing, what exactly is being protected. And who is being protected from whom. Some say this is poor management. Others believe it is deliberate. Stretch systems until people accept more control just to feel stable again. Other countries like Britain and Australia are facing the same pressures. More rules. Less freedom. Always described as temporary. Somehow permanent. I do not claim to have all the answers. Journalists should not pretend to. Sometimes the job is to lay out the facts and let people think. But patterns matter. Ignoring them does not make them disappear. If the population grows, services must grow. If crime grows, systems must respond. If leaders fail to plan, they must be held accountable. That is not extreme thinking. That is basic responsibility. Canadians were told we were different from the United States because our government would protect us. The hard truth is that protection without planning is just a story. Stories do not keep hospitals open. They do not keep streets safe. They do not preserve freedom. So here is the final question. How much freedom are Canadians willing to give up for reassurance that no longer matches reality. The quiet answer may be that we trusted that promise for too long. Freedom does not vanish all at once. It slips away while people are told everything is fine. The danger is not losing it loudly. The danger is realizing too late that it is already gone.

Punishing the Law-Abiding Won’t Make Canada Safer

Punishing the Law-Abiding Won’t Make Canada Safer Let’s talk about the federal government’s so-called gun “buyback,” because Canadians deserve honesty — and this policy is anything but honest. This program does not target criminals. It targets the most law-abiding citizens in the country. People who followed the rules. People who took safety courses. People who passed background checks. People who registered their firearms. People who did everything the government asked of them. And now they’re being punished for it. Meanwhile, the people actually committing gun crimes are untouched by this policy. They don’t have licenses. They don’t register firearms. They don’t take safety courses. And they certainly aren’t lining up to hand anything over to the government. They are criminals — and this policy does absolutely nothing to stop them. That’s why this so-called gun grab is a complete waste of time, a complete waste of money, and a complete distraction from what actually keeps communities safe. If someone commits a violent crime with a firearm, there should be real consequences — not catch-and-release bail, not revolving-door justice, not political theatre. That is where public safety lives. That is where bail reform matters. That is where government should be focused. And this isn’t just opinion — it’s been stated plainly by police leadership. Even here in Durham Region, our own police have acknowledged that gun crime entering our community is not being committed by legal gun owners. That fact alone destroys the justification for this policy. So when politicians claim this is about safety, Canadians should understand what they’re really being sold: optics, control, and the targeting of the easiest group — not the most dangerous one. Several police services across Ontario have already made their position clear. The Toronto Police Service and the Barrie Police Service have publicly stated that they will not participate in the collection of legally owned firearms, citing resource constraints and the need to focus on real crime, not political programs. That reality makes it even more important for residents to know where their own police services stand. That is why I have formally written to Durham Regional Police Chief Peter Moreira requesting confirmation on whether DRPS will participate in the federal program, whether police resources will be diverted away from real crime, and whether DRPS has communicated any position to Ottawa. I am currently awaiting a response, and I will share that response publicly when it is received — because transparency matters. Across Canada, Premiers including Doug Ford and others are now pushing back against this policy, recognizing what Canadians already know: this will not stop crime, and it will not make communities safer. History also tells us what happens when governments disarm the law-abiding while ignoring criminals. Across countries and across generations, the pattern is the same. Governments disarm those who obey the law first. They promise safety. They promise order. They promise the power will never be abused. And then power is centralized — and when things go wrong, the people have no protection left. We’ve seen this story before: in 1930s Germany, the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia, Venezuela. Different nations. Different leaders. Same outcome. Canadians should be especially alarmed because we have already seen our own government turn state power on peaceful citizens. During the convoy protests, police were used against ordinary Canadians under the Emergencies Act — and a court later ruled that action unlawful. So don’t tell Canadians this could never happen here. It already did. And once a government crosses a line, it becomes easier to cross the next one — and the next — and the next. History doesn’t repeat because people are blind. It repeats because they’re told, “This time is different.” It never is.

Cold Enough for You?

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Cold Enough for You? Maybe not as cold as the shoulder President Trump is currently giving the Prime Minister following the China meetings and the push toward what many are calling a new world economic order. Protectionism and economic nationalism are nothing new to President Trump. It’s where he cut his teeth politically. Tearing up NAFTA, repatriating auto and manufacturing jobs, and using tariffs as leverage have all been central to his strategy. There’s no question these policies have hurt Canada—and Ontario in particular. Here at home, the Ontario Premier has expressed outrage over the federal government’s decision to remove tariffs on Chinese EVs, even going so far as to encourage a boycott of Chinese electric vehicles. At the same time, he has followed through on his promise to keep Crown Royal off LCBO shelves. When you look closely, Ontario’s actions mirror the very protectionism being criticized south of the border. Keeping Crown Royal off shelves is framed as a protest over the closure of its Ontario plant. Yet the company maintains significant operations—and its head office—in Manitoba and Quebec. You can’t parade as “Captain Canada” while selectively protecting only Ontario jobs. That said, I voted for Doug Ford to look after Ontario. That’s his lane. Protecting Canada as a whole is the Prime Minister’s job. The deal Mark Carney is attempting to strike with China and other so-called “friendly” EU nations is clearly an effort to counterbalance our reliance on a superpower neighbour that holds most of the cards. Doing business with China—given its ability to manufacture goods at costs Canada simply cannot match—may reduce inflation. But let’s not kid ourselves: it will almost certainly come at the expense of domestic employment. We are living through a period of aggressive attacks on globalization. I’m not convinced that’s entirely a bad thing, but the consequences will be real. Canadians should brace themselves for changes in the cost of goods, inflation, and employment levels. What we do need, however, is political discipline. The legislative framework is clear: the Prime Minister speaks for Canada; premiers speak for their provinces. Staying in your lane matters. As for Ontario, stay tuned for this week’s Mr. X Files. I’ll be digging into the Ryan Amato emails. Amato, the former Chief of Staff to the Minister of Municipal Affairs during the Greenbelt scandal, has refused to release emails sent through his personal account and is now before the courts. There are only two reasons not to release those emails: they incriminate him, or they incriminate others—either within government or among developers. Amato has a decision to make. Honesty has never been a defining trait of his modus operandi, but the very real prospect of jail time—and the reality that he likely wouldn’t fare well on the range—may yet be enough to convince him to release the emails. Because when they do come out, Canadians will finally see who the real criminals in the Greenbelt scandal were.

A 'REALITY CHECK' IN RESPONSE TO THE PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH AT DAVOS

OUR PRIME MINISTER DELIVERED A SPEECH at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, entitled "Principled and Pragmatic: Canada's Path" which centered upon what he called the “rupture” of our post-Cold War international order. The speech included a declaration that the traditional U.S.-led, rules-based international system is over, and "not coming back" and it urged middle powers like Canada, Australia, and Mexico, to form issues-based coalitions. One of his main tenets was that countries should build “strength at home” and diversify their partnerships to avoid being subordinated by larger powers. While he did not name U.S. President Donald Trump directly, his speech was widely interpreted as a response to aggressive U.S. trade wars and threats to acquire Greenland. He received a rare standing ovation at Davos but sparked a major diplomatic rift. President Trump subsequently revoked his invitation for our Prime Minister to participate on the Board of Peace, an international organization established by the U.S. President to promote global peacekeeping. This was a major blow to the standing of our country on the international stage, and one that rests with the Prime Minister himself. The leader of Canada’s Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, released a statement – a sort of ‘reality check’ in response to the Davos speech – and below are the main points included in that statement. What stood out probably the most was when our Prime Minister pointed out “the gaps between rhetoric and reality.” That is especially true here at home. If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on earth. Unfortunately, after a decade of promises and grand speeches, Liberals have made our economy more costly and dependent than ever before. In the last 12 months, things have only gotten worse in Canada: the deficit has doubled, food inflation is double that in the U.S., housing costs are the worst in the G7, and no pipelines for our natural resources have been approved. The military has massive recruiting and equipment shortfalls, and there is still no free trade between provinces, no crime laws passed, and the Prime Minister’s signature promise of negotiating a “win” with the U.S. is unfulfilled. These unkept promises – which all followed grand speeches and announcements – make us especially vulnerable to the world’s dangers. The last five years have shown we can’t count on others. Our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States, struck us with tariffs and questioned our sovereignty, however, we can’t control what they do. It’s tempting to say our relationship with America is over forever, but here is the reality: We still live next door to the biggest economy and military the world has ever seen. We sell 20 times more to the U.S. than to China. One in 10 Canadian jobs rely directly and indirectly on trade with America. We must remember that our trade and security partnership with the United States is centuries-old and will outlast a single President. All the same, as we hope for the best, it would be naive to assume that things will go back to exactly the way they were, as tariffs may be here to stay for the foreseeable future. None of that is an excuse for letting our guard down and repeating past mistakes by leaving Canada vulnerable to aggressive powers like China, which the Prime Minister himself called our “greatest threat” only months ago. My, how things have changed. It was with irony that the Prime Minister quoted Vaclav Havel, one of the great heroes of the 20th century fight against totalitarian communism, less than a week after launching a ‘strategic partnership for a new world order’ with the Chinese communist regime – a partnership that includes ‘plans to deepen engagement on national security issues at senior levels.’ We cannot throw caution to the wind with a regime that kidnaps our citizens, steals our technology, interferes with our elections, and has a history of using trade as a tool of diplomatic warfare against us. If this is what the Prime Minister meant when he told the Davos crowd that he “is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values,” then we should seriously question his values - and, frankly, his judgment. We must focus on expanding our network of trade deals with more like-minded middle-power countries. In fact, we already have free trade deals with most middle powers, after the previous Conservative government negotiated agreements with a record 46 countries. Given that we have these agreements already in place, what stops us from growing our trade with them now is not the trade barriers they impose on us, but the trade barriers we impose on ourselves. Legislation has made it impossible to approve projects or ship energy off our coasts. It takes 19 years to approve a mine. The Liberals created these laws and obstacles, and almost a year after taking office, the Prime Minister hasn’t removed a single law or bureaucracy, or approved a single pipeline. The Prime Minister told the crowd in Davos that “a country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” So, why can’t we? Just this week, Canada was declared the food inflation capital of the G7. Last year, Canadians who can’t feed themselves made a record 2 million visits to food banks every month – more than double the number from just 7 years ago – in a country with almost endless farming potential. On the issue of Canadian sovereignty, we need a strong national defence. We don’t need anyone’s permission to have a strong, state-of-the-art military and defend ourselves. But can we even defend ourselves right now? The Prime Minister has talked a big game about building up our armed forces, but after nearly a year in office, he hasn’t even begun to deliver. It’s just more promises pushed down the road, and smoke and mirror budgets pushed out into the future. We currently have 300 full-time members of the military stationed in the Arctic, in a territory that is larger than most countries. We have the largest coastline in the world, and yet we have a regular naval force of just 8,400 personnel. A sovereign country must be able to defend its people and its territory. So far, our Prime Minister is lucky to have been judged mostly by his rhetoric and his stated intentions, by the number of his trips and his meetings overseas - because nearly a year into his term, the rhetoric has changed, but reality has not. There is an illusion of purpose, but no results to back it up. We need to do things, not just say them. ‘Canada Strong’ can no longer be a slogan, nor ‘True North Strong and Free’ just a motto. To paraphrase William Ernest Henley, we are the masters of our fate. We are the captains of our souls. It’s time we finally take the wheel – and steer Canada forward with purpose and resolve.”

CHINESE WET DREAM!!!

CHINESE WET DREAM!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers Not only is our country falling apart, being invaded through our ridiculous immigration policy. But now, it appears that our new Prime Minister is about to give us away to China. Carney could not negotiate with the long time neighbors to the south. So he thinks he is going to gain any leverage against the U.S. by elbowing it up with the Chinese. PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON OUR CITY STREETS. FOOD BANKS DEPENDENCY ARE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH. We in Canada have no real politics. The NDP have run aground. The PC can’t even win their wards but expect to be voted Prime Minister. And the Liberals.... well they are finishing us off. Personally, the best thing that could happen to Canada is to become the 51st. The real threat is that if in the U.S. the democrats come back in power. Then the American empire will fall. This week the news reports read: Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Doha on Saturday as part of a push to attract foreign investment and deepen Canada’s economic partnerships beyond its traditional allies. Carney’s visit comes on the heels of his visit to China and follows the recent presentation of a new federal investment budget aimed at positioning Canada as a stable, attractive destination for global capital. Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that he has found “much alignment” with Chinese President Xi Jinping in their views on Greenland, which some experts say is a signal of a new pragmatism in Canadian foreign policy while facing what Carney called a “new world order.” This is our leader folks... The Chinese are not only laughing at us... but I am sure that they feel as if they won the ultimate lotery... Imagine, inviting the Chinese to take over Canada. It has been in the works for years. “I had discussions with President Xi about the situation in Greenland, about our sovereignty in the Arctic, about the sovereignty of the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark. And I found much alignment of views in that regard,” Carney told reporters after his meeting with Xi. The possibility of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is raising many unprecedented questions — including how Canada, the European Union and NATO could respond or even retaliate against an ostensible ally. Here’s what that could entail. EU trade, tech disruptions? Experts agree the biggest pressure points that can be used in the U.S. surround trade and technology. The European Parliament’s trade committee is currently debating whether to postpone implementing the trade deal signed between Trump and the EU last summer to protest the threats against Greenland. An even bolder move would be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — known as the “trade bazooka” — that would allow the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, trade restrictions, foreign investment bans, and other penalties if that country is found to be using coercive economic measures. The likeliest — and potentially least harmful — scenario for retaliation in the event of an attack on Greenland, would be fines or bans against U.S. tech companies like Google, Meta and X operating in Europe. NATO response? A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would mean the “end” of the NATO alliance, experts and European leaders have said. In other words. They are not going to do a single thing. As “NO” NATO means that Europe is exposed. It means, China, Russia and anyone with ambitions to go on a war rampage. I think people need to look at what is going on in the world. Look at what took part in Venezuela. They went in. They flexed muscle and they got the job done. A historical beacon. The world may or may not be a better place. One thing. There is clear marker on who rules and those that are so into the financial rat race that has corrupted it’s integrity and committment to the millions of people you reprent. I think the key to our success as a civilization is to rule with the best interest of the people. We have to start here at home. Put an end to those homeless...

Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel

Canada’s Economic Revival Requires Breaking the Provincial Regulatory Cartel by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada likes to describe itself as a single national economy. In reality, it operates more like a loose confederation of protected markets, each guarded by provincially self-regulated bodies whose original public-interest purpose has quietly morphed into something else: gatekeeping. In an era of slowing productivity, labour shortages, and intensifying global competition, this model has become obsolete. Worse, it has turned into a bureaucratic brake on economic revival. This regulatory paralysis is most visible—and most damaging—in the treatment of foreign-trained professionals, one of Canada’s most underutilized economic assets. Every year, Canada deliberately selects and admits tens of thousands of internationally educated engineers, doctors, nurses, architects, and skilled tradespeople under immigration programs explicitly designed to address labour shortages. Yet upon arrival, many discover that the real barrier was never immigration policy, but provincial regulatory bodies that treat foreign credentials with reflexive suspicion and procedural inertia. The result is a quiet national scandal. Highly qualified professionals drive taxis, work survival jobs, or abandon their fields altogether while Canada continues to claim—often in the same breath—that it faces critical skills shortages. This is not anecdotal. Statistics Canada and multiple provincial auditors have documented persistent underemployment and earnings gaps among internationally trained professionals, even years after arrival. The problem is not a lack of competence; it is a lack of regulatory adaptability. Provincial self-regulatory bodies insist they are protecting public safety. In practice, many operate on a presumption of incompetence unless applicants can reproduce, at great cost and delay, credentials they already hold—sometimes from jurisdictions with standards equal to or higher than Canada’s. Experience gained abroad is discounted. Exams are duplicated. “Canadian experience” requirements still linger despite repeated political promises to abolish them. Appeals processes are opaque, timelines stretch into years, and outcomes vary arbitrarily by province. This dysfunction carries a double economic cost. First, Canada wastes human capital it has already screened, selected, and welcomed. Second, it actively discourages future talent. Global labour markets are competitive and informed. When internationally trained professionals learn that recognition in Canada is slow, unpredictable, and fragmented by province, they choose Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States instead. At a moment when advanced economies are competing aggressively for skilled workers, Canada signals hesitation and distrust. However, the problem does not stop with immigrants. The same regulatory rigidity that blocks an engineer trained in Germany or a nurse trained in the Philippines also obstructs mobility between Ontario and Alberta, or Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Protectionism, once normalized, rarely confines itself to one group. Foreign-trained professionals merely expose a deeper structural flaw in Canada’s regulatory architecture. For decades, Canada tolerated this fragmentation because growth masked inefficiency. That era is over. Productivity has stagnated for more than ten years. Business investment per worker lags well behind peer countries. Major projects—housing, infrastructure, energy—are delayed not by lack of capital or demand, but by regulatory complexity layered across provincial boundaries. At the centre of this dysfunction sits a uniquely Canadian phenomenon: provincially self-regulated professional and occupational regimes. Self-regulation was originally justified on sound principles. Professions such as engineering, medicine, and law require technical expertise and ethical standards best maintained by peers rather than politicians. However, over time, many of these bodies drifted from public protection toward institutional self-preservation. Entry barriers hardened. Credential recognition slowed. Interprovincial mobility became an administrative maze. What was once oversight now functions as an economic toll booth. The economic cost is no longer theoretical. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Canada’s internal trade barriers impose an economic penalty equivalent to a four per cent tariff we levy on ourselves. This is not the work of foreign competitors, but of Canadian governments and delegated regulators constraining other Canadians. No serious country seeking growth would tolerate such a self-inflicted handicap. Labour mobility illustrates the absurdity. Canada faces acute shortages in construction, health care, engineering, and advanced manufacturing. Yet a professional licensed and competent in one province often cannot work seamlessly in another without months of paperwork, duplicative fees, and discretionary approval. Defenders of the status quo argue that standards differ and public safety is at risk. That argument collapses under scrutiny. Canadian provinces educate professionals to broadly similar national benchmarks, and accreditation bodies already operate at national or international levels. If a professional is competent in one province, the presumption should be competence everywhere in Canada—subject only to narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Housing provides a stark example. Canada’s housing shortage is now a national emergency. Governments promise faster construction, yet skilled trades and professionals remain trapped behind provincial certification walls. Red Seal programs exist, but implementation is uneven. Municipal approvals vary wildly. Engineers, planners, and inspectors face province-specific rules layered on top of local ones. The result is predictable: delays, cost overruns, and fewer homes built. Energy and infrastructure face similar constraints. Canada speaks confidently about electrification, clean growth, and industrial renewal, yet struggles to mobilize talent across provinces to deliver projects on time. Regulatory inertia is no longer a technical issue; it is a strategic vulnerability. Other federations have confronted this challenge. Australia moved decisively toward mutual recognition of occupational credentials decades ago. The European Union, despite its complexity, has made professional mobility a core economic principle across sovereign states. Canada, by contrast, still tolerates internal barriers that would be unthinkable at an international negotiating table. The irony is striking. Canadian governments celebrate trade diversification abroad while tolerating protectionism at home. We negotiate for years to reduce tariffs with Europe or Asia, then quietly allow domestic regulators to block Canadian workers and firms at provincial borders. This is not federalism at its best; it is fragmentation disguised as autonomy. The solution is not to abolish standards or politicize professions. It is to modernize governance. Provinces should be required—by federal legislation if necessary—to adopt automatic mutual recognition for licensed professionals and trades. Self-regulatory bodies should retain authority over ethics and discipline, but not over interprovincial or international market access. Economic mobility is a national interest. Ottawa already has constitutional tools it is reluctant to use. The federal government can attach conditions to funding, harmonize national frameworks, and enforce the spirit of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. What it lacks is political resolve. Provinces, for their part, must recognize that regulatory sovereignty without economic growth is an empty victory. Canada does not suffer from a lack of talent, capital, or ambition. It suffers from institutional inertia. Every month a skilled worker waits for recognition, every project stalled by duplicative rules, every firm deterred by regulatory uncertainty compounds our productivity problem. If Canada is serious about economic revival, it must confront an uncomfortable truth: the era of provincially self-regulated silos is over. What once protected the public now too often protects incumbents. Reform will provoke resistance—from regulators, associations, and political actors invested in the status quo. So let us understand that resistance for what it is: not a defence of safety or quality, but a defence of control. Economic renewal requires mobility, speed, and scale. Do you think Canada can afford to keep regulating itself into irrelevance?

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars. Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable. But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense. That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades. And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again. After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical. We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears. When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”? A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks? Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working. There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend. Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now? Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second. These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous. The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it. So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.” The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting. If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment. The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger. I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents. In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.

Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention

Today, the Courts Drew a Line — and Every Canadian Should Pay Attention Today, January 16, 2026, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal confirmed something that will go down in Canadian History: the federal government overstepped its authority when it invoked the Emergencies Act, and it has now lost its appeal. Two courts have now reached the same conclusion. The legal threshold for declaring a national emergency was not met. Existing laws were already available. And the extraordinary powers used by the federal government were not justified under Canadian law. This decision is not symbolic, academic, or merely historical. It goes to the heart of how much power a government can claim over the lives of its citizens — their money, their mobility, and their fundamental rights — when it decides dissent has gone too far. I write this not just as an observer of the courts, but as someone who stood on Parliament Hill during the convoy protests. I watched rows of faceless, nameless, hired force advance — not against criminals or terrorists — but against citizens. Ordinary people. Truck drivers. Families. Protesters. It was terrifying. Not because of chaos in the streets, but because of what it revealed: how quickly a government can turn the very institutions meant to protect the rule of law into instruments of enforcement against its own people. This was not policing under ordinary law. It was authority emboldened by emergency powers — powers that bypassed normal safeguards, accountability, and restraint. And it was not just force. It was language. Canadians were openly demeaned by their own government. They were labeled a “small fringe.” They were described as “unacceptable.” The country was asked, publicly, whether we should “tolerate” them. That moment should chill anyone who values a free society. When a government stops speaking about its people as citizens and starts speaking about them as a problem to be managed, the next steps are rarely gentle. This was not leadership under pressure. It was moral distancing — and it made what followed easier to justify. What followed was exclusion. Canadians were told where they could and could not go. They were barred from boarding planes and trains. They were turned away from restaurants, workplaces, and public spaces. They were separated from family, from livelihoods, and from normal life — not because they had committed crimes, but because they did not comply. Mobility, participation, and basic freedoms were transformed into conditional privileges. All of it was framed as temporary. All of it was described as necessary. All of it was enforced with certainty and zero tolerance for dissent. The Emergencies Act allowed the government to freeze bank accounts without warrants, pressure financial institutions into acting as enforcement arms, and collapse the line between lawful protest and punishable dissent. Canadians were told there was no alternative. They were also told, repeatedly and unequivocally, to “get the shot to protect others,” that it would “stop with you,” that it was “safe and effective,” with no room for discussion, no acknowledgment of uncertainty, and no tolerance for questioning. These assurances were delivered with moral certainty and enforced with social, professional, and financial consequences. Over time, many of those claims were softened, revised, or quietly walked back. But the damage had already been done. Trust was broken — not because people asked questions, but because they were punished for asking them. The courts have now said what many Canadians felt instinctively: the legal justification for this level of state power simply was not there. The situation did not meet the definition of a national emergency, and the government crossed a constitutional line. This ruling matters to every Canadian, regardless of where they stood on the convoy. Because if governments can declare emergencies when faced with disruption, political pressure, or inconvenience, then none of our rights are as secure as we assume. Financial security becomes conditional. Protest becomes permission-based. And the rule of law becomes selectively applied. And this pattern does not stop at the federal level. We are seeing the same logic take hold in municipalities across the country. When an elected councillor steps out of line, asks uncomfortable questions, or challenges spending and decisions, the response is increasingly punitive rather than democratic. Dissent is not debated — it is disciplined. Pay is suspended. Sanctions are imposed. Integrity commissioners, meant to safeguard ethical governance, are increasingly weaponized as enforcement tools rather than impartial arbiters. The message is unmistakable: comply, or be punished. Fall in line, or be silenced — financially, professionally, and reputationally. This is not accountability. It is control by process. And it mirrors, at a smaller scale, the same impulse that drove the misuse of emergency powers at the federal level. The federal government appealed this ruling because it wanted the courts to defer — to accept its judgment without meaningful scrutiny. The court refused. That refusal matters. It reaffirmed a core democratic principle: governments do not get to be the final judge of their own power. This case is not about liking or disliking a protest. It is about whether Canadians live under laws — or under emergency declarations invoked when authority feels challenged. I stood on Parliament Hill and saw how quickly that line can blur. Today, the courts reminded the government that it does not sit above the law. And that matters more than ever.

Financial Strategy Maximize Your RRSP Return Through Asset Location

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Do you know the real rate of return on your investments? Generally, Canadians measure the success of their investments based only on the rate of return. While it provides a good snapshot of whether an investment is doing well or not, it is not the only criterion for a true picture of success. A good portfolio is based not only on the return, but also by the tax implications of the investments. Investors can improve their real rate of return by using effective asset location strategies to reduce tax exposure. Carefully dividing your investments between registered and non-registered portfolios will help to maximize your overall return. Keep in mind, investments inside your RRSP are tax deferred and a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) is not taxable. But everything outside of these investments will have a tax implication. Understanding how your investments are taxed goes a long way in deciding where to invest your money. Investment income has three main types. Each has different tax levels when held outside your registered investments. · Interest income has the highest tax rate of the three regardless of your income. Whether you receive the interest or decide to reinvest it, it is fully taxable and gained annually. · Income from Canadian dividends is taxed more favourably than interest income but it is important to remember that there are exclusions in the form of income from rent, royalties and foreign dividends which are taxed at the same rate of interest income. · Capital gains income is taxed on only 50 percent of the total and the gains are included in your income when the gains are realized. Although every province varies, an Ontario resident who sits at the highest marginal income tax bracket would pay over 53 percent* tax on interest income, over 39 percent* on eligible dividends and over 26 percent* on capital gains if these investments are in a non-registered account. If these three incomes are within a registered portfolio such as RRSP or RRIF (Registered Retirement Income Fund), the taxes are deferred until you begin to make withdrawals. The withdrawals are then considered income’ and the entire amount is taxed at your marginal rate of tax. It would be great to funnel your entire portfolio into an RRSP or TFSA, but each carries certain limits of contribution. If your portfolio includes fixed income securities, you should take maximum advantage of keeping these within an RRSP or TFSA for tax shelter purposes. If you have reached the limits of your tax-sheltered investments, any equity investments that produce ‘tax-preferred’ income (capital gains and dividends) would be suitable to include in a non-registered account. Don’t let the tax implications be your sole motivating factor when choosing your investments. Try to gear your investments such that they are suitable for your specific situation and risk profile. Once you have done this, you can then focus on the best tax efficiency.

One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is

One More Year to Grow - How Rushed the High School System Really Is By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist The Ontario high school system is simple; attend school for four years, earn thirty credits, and graduate. However, it’s a system which comes with constant stressors, especially as the years come to an end and students are forced to choose what’s next. The decision between college, university, and the workforce can be stressful, in addition to choosing a specific school, program, and career to focus on. It’s overwhelming, and unavoidable as a teen in modern day. However, there used to be a solution engraved directly into the school system. There used to be a thirteenth grade. From 1984 to 2003, Ontario high schools offered Ontario Academic Courses, (OLC), an academic year for students attending a University in the upcoming years. It focused on advanced coursework, university-level expectations, and post-secondary requirements. In the early 2000s, it was phased out due to budget cuts, other provincial education systems, and the emerging credit-based graduation model. With the end of grade 13 came the start of our new education system; a system of less time, less preparation, and less options. Although the one additional year may seem insignificant, it can make or break a student's future. Additional time to prepare can change the schools a study applies to, or the field of study they pursue. An extra year allows space to reflect, explore, and grow before making decisions that can shape an entire life path. I am a student who constantly overthinks and attempts to plan for the future, despite my confusion regarding my path. Every time I reflect upon it, I leave with a different plan for myself. A year ago, I wanted to pursue law, and six months ago I wanted to be a journalist. Now, I’m stuck with indefinite ideas revolving around social sciences and government, with no clear direction. In another year, I may want to teach, perform, or even enter the sciences. As I experience new things, my goals shift, leaving final decisions worrisome. I worry about choosing the wrong path, spending time and money on something completely useless. I know I am not the only teenager who is petrified by the thought of making a definite decision. It seems almost silly to ask students as young as sixteen to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Many students simply do not have the time, maturity, or exposure to make such permanent choices with confidence. Most unprepared students choose whichever path appears most convenient, rushed by the urgency of the system. When unsatisfied, individuals may leave programs or attempt to change their plans again, wasting money, time, and certainty in the future. Within the current education system, it is difficult to fit all required courses for post-secondary pathways, let alone those I wish to take for my own learning. An extra year would provide the opportunity to take additional academic, practical, or exploratory courses. These classes could prepare students for real-world essentials such as finances, parenting, or civics. It’s what is necessary to prepare students for both post-secondary education and post-secondary life, for both academic and personal development. While it is still possible for students to take an extra year of high school, doing so often comes with unwanted stigma and judgment. Terms such as “super senior” or “victory lap” are looked down upon, viewed as a waste of time and resources. Teens are turned away from this solution, which is why a structured system is so important. It wouldn’t come with stigma, but with understanding and support otherwise inaccessible. Reintroducing a thirteenth grade, or the Ontario Academic Courses, would address these issues and more. It would reduce judgement, last-minute decisions, and unprepared students leaving high school. It would significantly decrease personal stress for students, and leave families confident they made the right choice. It would lead to less students switching educational programs or drop out of post-secondary education altogether. It would be one more year for students to grow, and that year would make all the difference.