LATEST ARTICLES

Job Seekers: Look to Those Who Are Getting Hired

Troy Media
-
0
Job Seekers: Look to Those Who Are Getting Hired

Nick Kossovan, Troy Media

This past August, I participated in a LinkedIn Live session with career coach Ruth Sternberg, titled Job Search Myths Shattered. In my closing remarks, I mentioned that even in today’s challenging job market, people are getting hired every day.

High inflation, recession fears, and geopolitical posturing, such as tariffs, have many companies and industries operating in a state of fear, prompting them to question whether it’s wise to be hiring. Even if you doubled Canada’s national unemployment rate of 7.1% (August 2025) in order to satisfy those who claim unemployment is higher than reported, it would still show that over 85% of Canadians are employed, a positive data point. Another positive, though not to the extent job seekers would like, is that employers are still hiring.

Regardless of the state of the economy, the job market is constantly churning, creating job openings through promotions, terminations, resignations, retirements, and unexpected events such as deaths. The job market is neither inherently good nor bad. It’s neutral. It’s indifferent. It simply reflects the economics of business, showing where capital is flowing and why.

It’s easy to find “the bad” when you’re always looking for “the bad.”

For quite some time, companies have capitalized on the cost benefits of offshoring their jobs. As automation and artificial intelligence rapidly enhance their capabilities, companies are focusing on investing in technology that will reduce their biggest expense: labour costs. I believe we’re witnessing the beginning of a future with a smaller workforce, where working for a business in the traditional sense will become less common, but let’s wait and see what unfolds. For now, amid efforts to leverage technology to lower the number of employees, hence boosting profits—the core reason a business exists—hiring continues.

When you describe the job market as “bad” because your job search is taking longer than expected and you keep pointing to other job seekers facing the same challenges, you’re signalling that you don’t understand the economics behind business decisions. If you can’t demonstrate that you understand the economic factors influencing business decisions, especially when it comes to hiring, why would a company trust you to help them make or save money?

I get it; pessimistic and inflammatory posts about the job market and employers, which, by the way, discourage employers from contacting you, drive engagement. However, if your ‘likes’ and ‘commenting for reach’ aren’t resulting in employers contacting you—which is probably the case—consider a different approach. Pay attention to what those who are getting hired are doing that you might not be doing or not doing to the same extent.

From what I’ve observed, those who are getting hired focus on a few key areas:

Following instructions

Quality applications stand out.

I’m not a fan of applying to online job postings alongside hundreds or even thousands of other candidates, making your application akin to a lottery ticket. Networking offers better odds; however, applying to jobs where you meet at least 90% of the requirements should still be part of your job search, as you never know when you might hit the jackpot. Therefore, to increase your lottery odds, follow the instructions!

Meticulously following instructions showcases your professionalism and willingness to adhere to directives. Carefully review the job posting. Identify submission requirements, such as document format (e.g., PDF), specific questions to address in a cover letter, or ‘Reference Job ID #H587’ in your email subject line. Your applications will get noticed more if you do what most job seekers don’t: submit a quality application that dots all the ‘I’s and crosses all the ‘T’s.

Submitting 2 – 3 quality applications daily and following up two days later, if necessary, is a much more effective job search strategy than the ‘spraying and praying’ method many job seekers use. Quality over quantity!

Connecting

Deny all you want; you won’t change the fact that networking gives you a significant advantage by uncovering job opportunities that aren’t advertised publicly. Job searching is a people-oriented activity, not something you do by hiding behind your keyboard and naively believing that engaging with people’s posts and comments on LinkedIn will lead to forming meaningful professional relationships. Even in 2025, face-to-face interactions have much more stickiness than digital outreach efforts.

Those who are getting hired are circulating in the real world, grabbing every chance to connect with others; making eye contact, focusing on the person in front of them, and setting aside their ego, asking themselves, “How can I help this person?”

Connecting with others happens when you:

  • Show genuine interest in the other person
  • Are honest and authentic
  • Ask thoughtful, meaningful questions
  • Ensure the other person feels heard

Refusing to be a victim

People with a victim mentality tend to have a longer job search than those who do not. Social media, especially LinkedIn, has become flooded with job seekers feeling sorry for themselves. Those getting hired refuse to see themselves as a victim or feel sorry for themselves.

Achieving success in your job search requires focusing on what you can control, such as networking and how you present yourself to employers, rather than dwelling on factors outside your influence, like the economy and others’ behaviour. Although many job seekers didn’t choose to be job searching, everyone can choose where to direct their focus and energy.

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice.

Lab-made food won’t win over Canadian shoppers

Troy Media
-
0
Lab-made food won’t win over Canadian shoppers

Would you eat ice cream made from recycled plastic?

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Producing butter without cows, pastures or crops—using only carbon and hydrogen synthesized in a laboratory—sounds like science fiction. Yet in an era of climate urgency and resource constraints, it is being framed as the next frontier in food innovation. A new wave of philanthropists and investors is betting on disruptive technologies to reimagine how we eat.

One such player is Savor, a Chicago-based company partly backed by Bill Gates, who has become a prominent supporter of climate-focused food startups. The firm says it has created a product indistinguishable from traditional butter.

Unlike margarine, made from plant oils such as soybean or canola, this butter contains no animals or crops. Its fat molecules are built in a lab from carbon dioxide captured from the air and hydrogen drawn from water, processed through heating and oxidation. The result mimics the molecular structure of fats found in beef, cheese or vegetable oils, without a single acre of farmland.

Savor claims its butter would have a far smaller environmental footprint than traditional dairy. Commercially, the company is targeting a market launch within 12 to 18 months, likely at a premium comparable to organic butter. On nutrition, however, the company has said little. That leaves a larger question for consumers: will lab-made foods ease the strain of record grocery bills or simply add another pricey product?

Molecular agriculture, sometimes called synthetic or cellular food production, means building foods molecule by molecule in a lab instead of growing them on farms. It has gained traction across categories from meat to seafood to coffee. These products are marketed as climate saviours, but what really drives consumer choices, labelling, price, taste and nutrition, often comes second.

Sometimes the race for novelty veers into the absurd. In 2023, a UK company claimed it could make ice cream from recycled plastic. One has to wonder how far we are prepared to go in the name of saving the planet. And novelty isn’t the only risk: history shows that even once-celebrated food science can backfire.

Trans fats, for example, were once hailed for improving texture and shelf life, only to be banned after their damage to public health became undeniable.

This points to a deeper cultural and economic tension. Food is not simply about producing calories with minimal resources. It is also an expression of culture, heritage and pride, rooted in centuries-old traditions. According to the Food Sentiment Index published by the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University earlier this year, just nine per cent of consumers cite the environment as their main purchase driver.

Cellular and molecular agriculture has its place, but it must be guided by the right motivations. Efforts that play God or lean on eco-authoritarian narratives risk alienating the very consumers they hope to attract. Credible pathways must integrate the cultural, economic and sensory dimensions of eating. In Canada, this connection is especially strong in dairy and agriculture, which remain both economic pillars and cultural touchstones.

The future of food will not be defined by lab breakthroughs alone. Success will hinge on taste, transparency, affordability and respect for tradition.

In the end, not all of us aspire to eat like Greta Thunberg.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Canada got fatter since the pandemic and pharma cashed in

Troy Media
-
0
Canada got fatter since the pandemic and pharma cashed in

One in three Canadian adults lives with obesity as food prices soar, diets worsen and prescriptions for weight-loss drugs climb

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

A new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) confirms what many suspected: obesity rates in Canada have surged since the pandemic began. Before 2020, the increase was steady but gradual. Since April of that year, the pace has quickened—today, one in three Canadian adults lives with obesity.

The implications are serious. Obesity raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. Medical care remains essential, but so does access to food people can afford and rely on. Without affordable nutrition, even the best public health guidance rings hollow.

More troubling is the demographic shift: women and young adults—groups historically less affected—are now seeing sharper increases.

Pandemic-era stress, disrupted routines and increased sedentary time, combined with a shift toward ultra-processed foods, frequent snacking and fewer structured meals, all contributed. The decline in mental well-being during this period likely compounded the problem, creating a feedback loop of stress-eating and inactivity.

Then came the inflation shock of 2022, driven in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Food prices soared, straining household budgets and pushing nutritious options further out of reach. In some regions, staples like fresh produce and dairy rose by more than 10 per cent. For many, poor dietary choices aren’t neglect—they’re necessity. Across the country, food banks reported record demand, underscoring how economic hardship drives nutritional compromise.

In this context, the usual public health refrain—“eat better, move more”—falls flat. It’s not enough to preach healthy habits when the environment undermines them. We must redesign the system to support healthy choices, not shame those who can’t afford them.

For food companies, the pressure is growing. Many are reformulating products and launching “healthier” lines, while others struggle to keep up.

Legacy brands like Pringles, Cheez-It, Pop-Tarts and Eggo, now part of Kellanova (formerly Kellogg), will need major overhauls to stay relevant. Canadian consumers increasingly demand simpler ingredients, honest marketing and at least some nutritional credibility, even from indulgent snacks.

Kraft Heinz is responding by splitting its portfolio, investing in better-performing brands and shedding those that can’t adapt. The shift toward health isn’t optional anymore—it’s an economic imperative. Companies that ignore this trend risk being left behind by a generation of consumers more aware of what they eat and more vocal about corporate responsibility.

But the problem goes deeper than product content. It’s also about how food is marketed. For decades, companies leaned on flashy packaging and slogans to drive impulse buys. That model is under strain. The CMAJ study links emotion-driven eating to rising obesity. Canadians are signalling a desire to regain control, to plan meals, read labels and make informed choices. That means a pivot from impulse marketing to intent-based marketing—that is, appealing to deliberate, informed decisions rather than emotional reaction.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry is moving to fill the gap. In 2023, about one million Canadians were prescribed GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, a drug developed to treat diabetes but now widely used off-label for weight loss. That number could double by 2030. These drugs aren’t cheap: public plans have already spent more than $660 million on Ozempic alone. This underscores a harsh reality—modern medicine is stepping in where our food system has failed.

This isn’t just a public health crisis. It’s a market signal. If Canada doesn’t rethink how it produces, processes, markets and sells food, pharmacies—not grocery stores—will become our primary source of “dietary intervention.” The human and financial costs will be steep.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Falling home values are bad for some but a lifeline for others

Troy Media
-
0
Falling home values are bad for some but a lifeline for others

As home prices cool, Canadians nearing retirement feel the pinch, but younger and lower-income Canadians may finally get a chance to enter the market

Roslyn Kunin, Troy Media

Falling home prices are often portrayed as bad news—but that depends on who you ask. For millions of Canadians struggling to buy a home or find stable shelter, lower prices offer long-overdue relief. For current homeowners, especially those nearing retirement, a drop in property values threatens financial security.

Canada’s housing debate needs to reckon with both realities.

The affordability crisis is hard to ignore. Young people increasingly can’t afford to buy homes, and even renting an adequate place is out of reach for many. Far too many Canadians are homeless. In a country as wealthy as Canada, this shouldn’t be the case. The need for more affordable housing is urgent and obvious.

Yet much of the media coverage frames the housing market as being in trouble for a different reason: because prices are no longer rising. In fact, average home prices have dipped slightly, by about two per cent. For those priced out of the market, this is welcome news. But for many homeowners, any drop in value sets off alarm bells.

Two-thirds of Canadians live in homes they own, often referred to as “owner-occupied housing,” and more than half of those are mortgage-free, a figure that has held steady over time. For every renting or homeless family, there are two that own property. This includes not only most of those in the top 10 per cent of incomes, but even a quarter of the lowest-income Canadians.

For the country as a whole, real estate represents more than half of household net worth. So even a modest dip in home prices affects many Canadians where it matters most: their financial security. That’s why falling prices feel like bad news to much of the population.

Still, not everyone is affected the same way. For homeowners who don’t plan to sell and are mortgage-free, market prices matter little. They see their property as shelter, not an investment, and have no intention of cashing it out.

But that describes fewer Canadians than we might assume. Most of us see our homes as both a place to live and a store of value. We count on the equity in our homes for a variety of life-stage needs. None is more important than retirement.

Half of Canadians are over 40, and more than a third are over 50, when retirement planning becomes more urgent. For those over 65, the retirement years are already here. And for many, home equity plays a central role in those plans.

Owner-occupied homes can offer rent-free living in retirement, but many older Canadians still carry mortgages. Some plan to downsize, selling their current home, buying something smaller and more manageable, and using the leftover cash to boost their retirement income. Others intend to age in place, relying on reverse mortgages, a financial tool that allows seniors to borrow against the value of their home without selling or making regular payments. If long-term care is needed, selling the home may provide the funds.

And of course, many hope to leave something behind for the next generation. That’s part of the reason we call it “real estate.”

In today’s market, some are discovering that selling a home is harder than expected. It can take longer and result in less profit than hoped. For homeowners counting on high valuations to fund retirement, this is a real concern. But with cities like Vancouver and Toronto among the world’s most expensive, where average home prices can exceed $1 million, we shouldn’t expect prices to rise forever. More realistic planning, greater savings and even working longer are more dependable ways to prepare for retirement than counting on perpetual home inflation.

And with life expectancy rising, we have more time to earn, save and still enjoy a secure retirement. That longer runway is a financial advantage, not a burden.

A softening housing market isn’t the end of the world. In fact, it could be a lifeline for the millions who have been locked out of homeownership or are living in unstable conditions. Lower prices could give them a chance to find a place of their own—and that’s a kind of good news we shouldn’t ignore.

Dr. Roslyn Kunin is a respected Canadian economist known for her extensive work in economic forecasting, public policy, and labour market analysis. She has held various prominent roles, including serving as the regional director for the federal government’s Department of Employment and Immigration in British Columbia and Yukon and as an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kunin is also recognized for her contributions to economic development, particularly in Western Canada.

Is Bill C-5 nation-building or a power grab?

Troy Media
-
0
Is Bill C-5 nation-building or a power grab?

Nation-building takes trust. Bill C-5 risks breaking it

Faith Wood, Troy Media

Bill C-5 promises faster project approvals but critics warn it bypasses oversight and repeats old mistakes.

That tension between speed and accountability is something I’ve seen before—and it’s why Bill C-5 demands a closer look.

As someone who works with organizations to rebuild trust and navigate miscommunication, I watch policy closely. When legislation promises transformation but skips hard conversations, I take notice. Bill C-5 isn’t just about infrastructure: it’s about how we govern, who we include, and whether we’re still capable of building anything together.

The Carney government promoted Bill C-5 as a way to fast-track major infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, transmission lines and clean energy corridors, by allowing cabinet to designate them as “in the national interest.”

In practice, that means bypassing environmental reviews and consultation. While it’s being framed as bold nation-building, the bill gives the federal cabinet sweeping authority to override existing processes, raising serious concerns about transparency, inclusion and democratic oversight.

Supporters argue that bold measures are needed because the system too often fails to deliver. Canada has a history of stalled developments. Federal ambition frequently collides with regulation, leaving projects in limbo. Bill C-5 promises to break the logjam.

But critics, including Indigenous leaders and provincial premiers, see a bill that centralizes power in Ottawa and risks repeating the very mistakes it claims to fix.

Fast-tracking sounds efficient, but major infrastructure projects in Canada intersect with provincial, Indigenous and environmental jurisdictions. Consultation exists for a reason: to balance competing interests, avoid legal delays and foster long-term buy-in.

Some Indigenous communities support accelerated projects where they hold equity stakes. Others see Bill C-5 as a modern echo of top-down decision-making. A faster process that excludes key voices isn’t progress—it’s regression.

Concern is growing across the political spectrum. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe warns that “optics will not fix a broken system.” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has called for substance over spin. Quebec’s François Legault flatly rejects federal overreach, while British Columbia insists that Indigenous consultation must be meaningful, not token.

Even federal Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre weighed in: “If you have a wall that is blocking everybody, why would you say only a certain group is allowed to go around the wall? Knock down the wall.”

That’s the core problem. Bill C-5 doesn’t remove barriers—it offers selective exemptions.

The real obstacles remain. The Impact Assessment Act, often called the “No More Pipelines Law” by critics, is still largely intact despite a partial Supreme Court ruling. Other restrictive policies, such as the B.C. tanker moratorium and various net-zero mandates, continue to layer complexity.

Rather than reforming these systems, Bill C-5 sidesteps them for cabinet-designated projects. That’s not comprehensive reform. It’s patchwork authority.

Canada is spending heavily on climate adaptation, Indigenous reconciliation, housing, health care and defence, all while managing a rising federal debt. Add energy transition and industrial retooling, and the question becomes urgent: are we building strategically or stretching ourselves thin?

These aren’t just policy concerns. They go to the heart of how decisions are made—and whether people still feel heard in the process.

Because beyond spending and regulation, there’s a deeper issue at stake: trust.

Our public discourse is fracturing. Debate is increasingly ideological, polarized and unproductive. The political left often champions equity but struggles with execution. The right promotes freedom but oversimplifies complex issues. Most Canadians live in the middle, frustrated with the noise and looking for leadership that builds rather than divides.

We need to stop mistaking consultation for obstruction, or recognition of legitimate opposing voices as a threat to authority. Real nation-building isn’t about speed or volume—it’s about shared effort. It means doing hard things together and ensuring that our largest projects reflect more than just federal ambition. They must reflect shared values and long-term resilience.

Don’t settle for slogans. Ask your member of Parliament what oversight exists in Bill C-5. Pay attention to whose voices are heard and whose are sidelined. Most of all, stay engaged.

Because nation-building doesn’t begin in Ottawa. It begins with citizens who ask better questions and demand better answers.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing.

True leadership is defined by integrity, not authority

Troy Media
-
0
True leadership is defined by integrity, not authority

In times of workplace tension, the true measure of leadership is the ability to act with integrity and prioritize the well-being of others over ego

Faith Wood

Troy Media

Recently, I witnessed something remarkable. A professional—let’s call him M—found himself in a situation that would be all too familiar to many Canadians: a prolonged workplace conflict. What began as a disagreement escalated over time into something more insidious—veiled hostility, exclusion, and an unspoken tension that poisoned team morale.

Despite multiple attempts to resolve things respectfully and privately, his counterpart shut down any opportunity for dialogue, refusing both mediation and conversation. Leadership remained silent. The situation stagnated. And yet, everyone felt it. It was the kind of conflict that simmers quietly but scorches deeply.

What made this situation remarkable wasn’t the conflict itself. It was how M responded. Rather than retaliate, withdraw, or comply with the damaging “just move on” culture that often dominates workplaces, he chose a different path. He documented respectfully. He requested support. And when the silence persisted, he stepped into a leadership void—not because it was easy or politically safe but because it was necessary.

He proposed a professionally facilitated team conversation, not to “call anyone out,” but to bring the group back to its shared purpose, reset expectations, and restore psychological safety. And that, my friends, is what integrity in leadership looks like.

It’s easy to lead when people agree with you, when you hold the title, when you’re backed by authority. But the real test comes when none of those things are present, when you have to lead because no one else will and because doing the right thing matters more than protecting your ego.

Too often, we conflate leadership with control. But true leadership is the capacity to hold discomfort, to act in alignment with values, and to keep the well-being of others in view even when it’s not reciprocated.

M wasn’t looking for credit or confrontation. He was asking: How do we show up for each other better than this? And in doing so, he gave his colleagues a model for integrity under pressure.

In workplaces, especially as we push for more inclusive, respectful environments, leadership is often tested in subtle ways—through conflict, uncomfortable conversations, and moments of ethical tension. Leadership isn’t just about enforcing rules or maintaining power; it’s about navigating these difficult moments with integrity.

Whether you’re leading a department, a household, or a volunteer group, there will be moments when dysfunction creeps in and the people around you either can’t or won’t address it.

The following principles can help you lead through those moments with integrity:

            •           Start with the private conversation
Always begin with direct dialogue. Extend the invitation to connect, repair, and reflect before escalating. You’ll sleep better knowing you tried.

            •           Be measured, not reactive
Document interactions calmly. Stay curious, not combative. Refuse to mirror poor behaviour, even when it feels justified.

            •           Shift the focus from “me vs. you” to “us vs. the issue”
Reframe the conflict as a shared disruption to the group’s values or function to prevent the situation from being reduced to personal drama.

            •           Propose a professional process
A facilitated conversation isn’t a punishment; it’s a tool. It brings structure, neutrality, and safety to difficult dialogue. Leaders who suggest it are choosing repair over resentment.

            •           Do it anyway—even if no one thanks you
Integrity doesn’t guarantee applause. But it guarantees trust, and trust is what teams, families, and communities are built on.

What made M’s actions so powerful wasn’t just that he chose integrity. It’s that he did so knowing full well others might not. He didn’t wait for permission. He didn’t wait for consensus. He simply modelled what it means to take the high road—and in doing so, created the conditions for others to rise as well.

We often tell our kids to be the “bigger person.” We challenge our teams to “take the high road.” But those words only carry weight if we’re willing to live them when it’s hardest, when we feel alone, misunderstood, or unsupported. That’s when leadership becomes real. And that’s when communities, whether inside hospitals, homes, or city halls, become stronger.

In Canada, we’re increasingly valuing these kinds of leadership traits, whether in the workplace, in political settings, or within local communities. Integrity, transparency, and the courage to stand for what’s right—especially when it’s uncomfortable—are what allow us to build better, more resilient environments for all.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing.

Still not getting job interviews? Here’s what you’re doing wrong

Troy Media
-
0
Still not getting job interviews? Here’s what you’re doing wrong

Most job seekers talk about what they want. Employers don’t care. Here’s how to flip the script to make sure you stand out

Nick Kossovan, Troy Media

Want to land a job faster? Stop thinking about what you want. Start thinking about what the employer needs, and show exactly how you can deliver it. That mindset shift is the most overlooked job search advantage, and it’s what separates memorable candidates from everyone else.

Whether you’re job hunting, trying to climb the corporate ladder or looking to build professional relationships, one principle remains constant: people are drawn to those who take a genuine interest in them. In interviews, showing authentic interest in the interviewer and the company immediately sets you apart. It’s a simple but powerful way to create a connection and build trust.

In today’s competitive Canadian job market, employers are flooded with applications. Standing out means showing them, right away, why hiring you helps them.

The fastest way to show interest? Focus your communication on how you can contribute to their success. That alone makes you stand out in a job market full of applicants focused only on what they want. Employers don’t hire based on neediness or entitlement. They hire based on value.

Lead with: What can I do for you? A hiring manager’s top concern is performance: Can you help the business make or save money? Most candidates are too “me-focused”—they talk about what they want or vaguely list duties. You’ll stand out by clearly demonstrating the value you’ve delivered in past roles and how you’ll do it again.

Can you answer this key question: “Tell me how you brought value to your most recent position”?

            •           “I led a software implementation project that finished on time and came in $35,000 under budget.”

            •           “By reactivating over 200 dormant accounts with a time-sensitive offer, I generated $850,000 in revenue.”

            •           “To beat my sales quota, I made 40 per cent of my calls outside traditional hours when decision-makers were more likely to pick up. That strategy helped me exceed quota 34 months in a row.”

These examples are memorable because they’re specific, quantifiable and focused on results.

Want to stand out? Be different, not just qualified. Stop trying to be “the best-qualified candidate.” Instead, be the one they remember. That means crafting a results-oriented résumé, writing a tailored cover letter that sells you as the solution to their problem (skipping the cover letter screams laziness), and sending a strong follow-up note after the interview. These basics, done well, put you ahead of most applicants.

As psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini puts it, “To be persuasive, you need to be unique.” Don’t just list your experience—prove your impact. Show them you understand their business and that you’ve solved similar challenges before.

Trust is everything, and social proof builds it. Hiring managers are essentially asked to trust strangers. One way to build that trust is by using social proof—evidence that others have trusted and valued your work.

LinkedIn is the obvious tool, especially in Canada, where it’s increasingly being used by recruiters and hiring managers to vet candidates before interviews. Use it to:

            •           Share screenshots of achievements

            •           Highlight recommendations from former managers or clients

            •           Post success stories tied to real outcomes

            •           Mention recognizable brands you’ve worked with

Professor Catherine Sanderson of Amherst College says it plainly: “People are influenced by what others think.” Use that to your advantage. A strong online presence that backs up your claims builds instant credibility.

Scarcity creates urgency. If you’re worried this approach feels boastful, don’t be. Demonstrating your value doesn’t mean bragging—it means helping employers make informed decisions. Framing your accomplishments as contributions to team or business goals keeps the tone confident but collaborative.

When employers think they might lose you to someone else, they act faster. This isn’t arrogance—it’s smart positioning. Subtly communicate that you’re in demand, even if you’re just in early talks with other companies.

Try: “I’m currently exploring several strong opportunities.” That line signals value without sounding boastful or desperate.

Used carefully, FOMO (fear of missing out) can speed up the hiring decision in your favour.

Give value first, and they’ll remember you. Confucius taught that reciprocity—treating others as you’d like to be treated—is a guiding principle for life. In a job search, that means adding value before you’re asked. Share useful insights in your industry. Comment thoughtfully on hiring managers’ posts. Offer help without expectation.

Doing this boosts your visibility and shows you’re not just competent—you’re generous, engaged and worth paying attention to.

Be valuable. Be credible. Be remembered. That’s how you get hired.

Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job.

Our dairy addiction is turning Canada into a trade pariah

Troy Media
-
0
Our dairy addiction is turning Canada into a trade pariah

A new bill shielding dairy, poultry and eggs from trade negotiations sends the wrong message to global partners and punishes Canadian consumers

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Last week, the House of Commons unanimously approved Bill C-202, a law that would prohibit Canada from making any trade concessions involving its supply-managed sectors, including dairy, poultry and eggs.

The bill now moves to the Senate for final approval. With unanimous support, the House is reinforcing a decades-old protectionist system just as Canada faces mounting pressure to modernize its economy and re-establish credibility as a global trading partner.

Introduced initially as Bill C-282 by the Bloc Québécois in the last Parliament, Bill C-202 grants blanket immunity to supply-managed sectors, most notably dairy, regardless of the negotiating partner or economic context. With its approval in the House, Parliament has already sent a clear signal: this system is off-limits, no matter the cost.

Canada’s approach to supply management and trade keeps circling back to the same policy mistakes—protecting an outdated system whose relevance is increasingly hard to justify.

Supply management, a system that controls domestic production through quotas, guarantees prices for farmers and restricts imports with high tariffs, especially in dairy, poultry and eggs, was introduced decades ago to stabilize farm incomes and ensure domestic supply. But today, it’s more about shielding entrenched interests than serving consumers or the broader economy.

During the federal election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated in a Radio-Canada interview that no legislation was necessary to protect the dairy industry. It appears he has since changed his mind, or someone changed it for him.

While the prime minister’s shift signals executive backing, not everyone is convinced. The Senate may still push back, as some senators have raised concerns about the bill’s long-term economic consequences. But the political momentum is unmistakable: protectionism is once again being presented as national interest.

In Ottawa, few MPs from any party challenge one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country: the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Their influence is formidable, both federally and provincially. Despite this outsized influence, it’s worth asking: what exactly are we protecting?

Canada has the highest industrial milk prices in the G7. A litre of milk in Canada can cost up to twice as much as it does in the U.S.—an added burden for families already struggling with inflation and rising grocery bills.

These elevated prices don’t drive innovation or reinvestment. Many producers are content to maintain the status quo, insulated from competition. The result? Consumers pay more while the industry resists efficiency and change.

Defenders of supply management often point to food safety. It’s true that bovine growth hormones are banned here. That’s commendable.

But other practices deserve more scrutiny. A 2022 study published in Trends in Food Science and Technology found that palm oil derivatives are permitted in feed for Canadian dairy cows. This may help explain the firmer, less spreadable butter observed at room temperature—a phenomenon dubbed “Buttergate,” which was initially dismissed by dairy farmers despite growing evidence.

More recently, a peer-reviewed study co-authored by researchers at McGill and Dalhousie universities estimated that Canada discards between 600 million and one billion litres of milk annually. The dairy lobby rejected the findings but has yet to present alternative data.

The reality is simple: cows don’t stop producing milk when demand dips, so waste is inevitable.

Rather than engage critics or offer transparency, the dairy sector leans on silence and self-congratulation. Reform is taboo. This unwillingness to confront hard truths at home has international consequences.

Looking ahead, Canada will need to renegotiate trade deals with the United States, Mexico and other partners.

Trade negotiations with countries like the U.S., our largest trading partner, require flexibility and credibility. Shielding entire sectors from negotiation signals that we are unwilling to deal in good faith.

Two choices await: we either pay billions in compensation to dairy farmers every time we offer concessions, a practice that borders on economic racketeering, or we forfeit our standing as a credible trade partner.

What message does this send to the world at a time when Canada urgently needs to diversify its economy?

By clinging to a politically convenient system, our elected officials are rewarding complacency and institutionalizing inefficiency, all under the guise of defending national interests.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

No, you’re not losing your mind. You’re just middle-aged

Troy Media
-
0
No, you’re not losing your mind. You’re just middle-aged

Forgetfulness and distraction are normal at this stage of life. Your brain is still working just fine

Faith Wood, Troy Media

If you’ve ever worried that your forgetfulness might mean something serious, you’re not alone—and the good news is, it probably doesn’t.

You have a great idea as you are getting dressed in the morning. “Aha,” you think, “I’ll do something about that right away.” But by the time you reach the kitchen for your first cup of coffee, the thought has vanished. You try to retrace your mental steps, but it’s gone. Later, you turn on the dishwasher, only to realize the dishes are still dirty because you forgot the soap. You head to the store for one item and return with a full bag—minus the one thing you needed.

Sound familiar?

If you’re in your 40s, 50s or early 60s, welcome to middle age, where these mental hiccups are common. But here’s the reassuring part: you’re not losing your mind. In fact, you’re adapting.

These kinds of lapses—walking into a room and forgetting why, misplacing names or items—often stem from distraction or overload, not cognitive decline. The information is still in your brain; it’s just taking a little longer to retrieve. And these slips are a far cry from the warning signs of dementia, which involve serious disorientation or trouble completing familiar tasks.

You might also find that multitasking is harder than it used to be. You start sorting laundry, the phone rings, and hours later the clothes are still on the bedroom floor. “Oh, right, that’s what I started doing this morning.”

But aging brings its advantages. At this stage of life, you’re likely more empathetic and emotionally intelligent. Your reasoning skills are sharper, and your problem-solving is faster because it draws from years of accumulated experience. You may not remember what you had for breakfast, but you can navigate life’s curveballs with skill and perspective.

And here’s more good news: you’re not losing brain cells at the rate once believed. The old notion that we shed 30 per cent of our brain cells with age has been debunked. In fact, we now know the brain can generate new cells—especially in the hippocampus, which is responsible for memory—when stimulated by learning and physical activity.

Studies have also shown that treadmill workouts and other aerobic exercises can improve both short- and long-term memory. So that afternoon walk isn’t just good for your body—it’s good for your mind, too.

So if you’re middle-aged, take heart. Your brain remains flexible, capable and resilient. You’re more grounded, more equipped to handle challenges, and more optimistic than ever.

And that memory thing? Don’t freak out; just laugh at life’s little quirks. A friend of mine has learned to compensate by using sticky notes all over his office and kitchen … just to remind him who he is, where he is and what he is supposed to be doing that day (hour, minute). He also plans to fund his retirement by buying stocks in the company that makes Post-it notes.

So keep moving, stay curious, write things down—and don’t be too hard on yourself. Your brain is doing more than you think.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing.

Daily Herald editor is right

Daily Herald Contributor
-
0
Daily Herald editor is right

Dear Editor,

There were two contrasting columns about the federal election in the April 30th Daily Herald. The one from Troy Media evolved into a scathing attack on Mark Carney (“arrogant behaviour, massive ego and aloof personality”) and a veritable love-in with Poilievre (“outside the box ideas”, “stellar”). 

It was another example of how right-wing zealots get paid to sneak their way into the media, including our own Daily Herald. The author, Michael Taube, is a former speechwriter for Stephen Harper.

The other column was by our own Jason Kerr, and I appreciate the unbiased question that he raises: “Where does the NDP go from here?” 

Without forming government, the NDP have used their electoral power to make life better for Canadians, most notably with public health care in 1968, but also with dental care, child care and pharmacare in this past session.

But this was unlike any election I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t about policy; it was about our sovereignty as a nation. With some of Trump’s rhetoric being echoed by Poilievre and with a poll indicating that 21% of Conservatives favor union with the U.S., many NDPers put “country before party” and voted Liberal. As in “I loaned the Liberals my vote.”

The new Liberal government now has the mandate to deal with Trump and, with only seven members, the NDP will again hold the balance of power. It can “call in the loan” that many New Democrats made in this election. And rebuild, as it always has in the past. 

Jason is right. A 2-party system is not good for Canada. If we had proportional representation, like many countries in the world, even this election would have resulted in 21 NDP MPs and 5 Greens. Parties would have to fight less and compromise more. I think we’d all vote for that.

–Lon Borgerson, MacDowall

123...28Page 1 of 28