LATEST ARTICLES

Ottawa’s tariff posturing fuelling inflation, weakening Canada’s food supply

Troy Media
-
0
Ottawa’s tariff posturing fuelling inflation, weakening Canada’s food supply

Ottawa’s performative tariffs aimed at the U.S. are undermining Canada’s food sector

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Canada’s food processing sector is becoming increasingly vulnerable—not merely due to global market volatility but as a direct consequence of Ottawa’s policy decisions.

In choosing to retaliate against U.S. protectionism with formal counter-tariffs, Canada now finds itself aligned with China as one of only two countries to pursue such measures. While these actions may serve domestic political optics, they are inflicting measurable and lasting harm on Canada’s food manufacturing ecosystem.

Ottawa introduced these counter-tariffs in response to U.S. protectionist measures, aiming to pressure Washington while shielding Canadian industries. But for food manufacturers, the policy has backfired.

Tariffs on U.S. food ingredients and critical inputs such as food-grade aluminum and steel are rippling through the supply chain. Large multinational processors often have the ability to absorb or deflect these added costs, passing them on to dominant grocery retailers like Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro. Those grocers, in turn, push the increases to consumers. The result is a persistent layer of food price inflation that is now entrenched across many product categories.

But the deepest strain is being felt by Canada’s smaller, regionally based food manufacturers—the vast network of family-owned processors and local businesses that make up the core of this sector. These firms operate with tighter margins, limited purchasing power and few options for substituting inputs. Many are now facing cost increases of 15 to 25 per cent on specific goods—levels that can jeopardize their viability.

Although Ottawa claims that mechanisms exist to offset these tariff impacts, the design of the system largely excludes the very firms it is meant to protect. Most smaller processors don’t import directly; they purchase ingredients through distributors and brokers, who are registered as the importers of record. Consequently, any rebates or tariff refunds are routed to intermediaries, not the manufacturers actually absorbing the higher costs. Federal guidelines often classify end-users in ways that further disqualify small manufacturers from receiving support. That’s what we’re hearing from food manufacturers.

If a food manufacturer isn’t both the importer of record and the end-user, it’s out of luck, effectively excluding hundreds of food processors across the country.

The policy design here reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how Canada’s food supply chain actually works. Expecting small processors to negotiate retroactive relief from intermediaries, some of whom are foreign-owned, is both impractical and naive. Encouraging them to “source elsewhere” ignores ingredient-specific dependencies that cannot be easily replicated outside the U.S.

The downstream effects are already emerging: reduced innovation, diminished product variety and fewer new entrants in the market. With less competition and more reliance on imports, Canada’s food sovereignty erodes and the system becomes more fragile.

This isn’t about whether Canada should take a stand in trade disputes. It’s about choosing tools that don’t quietly undermine our economic foundation. Trade tensions with the United States—a country that accounts for roughly one-quarter of global GDP—require more than performative gestures. They demand smart, targeted policy informed by rigorous economic analysis.

Prime Minister Mark Carney may view himself as a caretaker of Canada’s economic future in the face of Washington’s unpredictability. But current trade policy tells a different story—one in which political symbolism is prioritized over economic substance. The food economy is paying the price for this disconnect, quietly but surely.

Canada’s independent processors are the backbone of our food manufacturing base. If they are forced out of the market by blunt instruments like counter-tariffs, the cost will be borne not just by business owners but by consumers, through higher prices, fewer choices and a diminished capacity to feed ourselves.

What began as an attempt to defend Canada’s economy has instead left a growing number of food manufacturers exposed to rising costs and shrinking options.

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.

As U.S. politics fractures, Canadians must hold fast to their values

Troy Media
-
0
As U.S. politics fractures, Canadians must hold fast to their values

U.S. polarization shows the dangers of division. Canadians must embrace unity and respect for difference to protect their future

Karim-Aly S. Kassam, Troy Media

As the United States descends into political chaos and misinformation spreads, Canadians must turn to homegrown values that respect personhood and diversity to hold our country together.

The turmoil south of our border is a stark warning: division and distrust can hollow out even the strongest democracies. Canadians today face growing uncertainty, not just from global tensions but from rising misinformation and fractured politics at home. In these existential moments, our values must become the anchors on which we rely.

These values are essential to guide us through challenging times. They come from the land itself and its original peoples—values passed down from generation to generation. They have shaped how we understand personhood and how we engage with difference.

Openness and acceptance are among the reasons why warring Europeans and other immigrants sought sanctuary, hope and a good life on this continent, our homeland.

The story of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, a Canadian-born Arctic explorer and ethnologist, illustrates this well. Born in Manitoba, he moved to the U.S. and changed his name. From 1908 to 1912, he led an expedition in the western Canadian Arctic, in what is now the Northwest Territories, an Inuvialuit Land Claim region whose peoples he called “Copper Inuit.”

The Inuit had never before encountered someone like Stefansson, who was accompanied by an Inuk from Alaska. As he approached each community, they would ask him to wait at the outskirts. Then, returning with their staple food, muktuk (whale blubber), they would offer it to him and say, “Eat!” When he did, they declared, “You are a person,” and welcomed him into their community with hospitality and shelter. This scene repeated throughout his winter journey across Inuvialuit territory.

This story teaches us that we do not have to agree with each other because we are, by nature, different. But our borders and sovereignty deserve respect. Even so, we can recognize the personhood of our neighbours, friends and even strangers precisely because of their difference. In our towns and cities, we may not always see eye to eye with our neighbours, yet we acknowledge them because they reveal perspectives we might not perceive on our own. In turn, we encourage them to consider new ideas. Together, we grow stronger and wiser.

As Canadians prepare to elect a new federal government in the coming weeks, we must not allow poisonous political leaders to hijack our humanity. In the U.S., divisions have deepened dangerously, and some fear the prospect of violence or even civil war. Extremes dominate public life, with voices from the superficial WOKErati on the left and the shallow MAGA movement on the right drowning out the vast majority of kind, thoughtful and generous Americans. Increasingly, dissenters are threatened, and their homes are attacked. The dignity of the person is no longer respected. Fear now drives society south of our border.

Canadians must resist following this path during the election campaign. A country divided is a country vulnerable to conquest.

Our land defines our personhood. The name Adam in both Arabic and Hebrew refers to the Earth and to humanity itself. Surely, Christians, Jews and Muslims understand this truth from their scriptures.

Similarly, First Nations such as the Gwichʼin, North and South Slavey, Dogrib, Sahtu and others call themselves Dene, meaning “peoples.” They call their homelands Denendeh, meaning “peoples who flow from the Creator’s Spirit through the land.” Similarly, the Inuit call themselves “people,” and Inuvialuit means “real people.” These concepts have shaped our social and ethical fabric. Whether we realize it or not, they continue to inform our children’s understanding of the world.

You can even see this in our national pastime. Differences and personhood come together on the hockey rink. Each player brings unique, valuable qualities to the game. Their personhood shines through in their creativity and is elevated by their teamwork. Canadian hockey personifies how diversity and co-operation create a beautiful game.

As we confront both the existential threat from our belligerent neighbour and the misinformation spread by venomous vested interests, we must draw upon our homegrown values that respect difference and uphold personhood. These values will protect and guide us. They are a defence worthy of our pride, visible not only in our daily lives but also on the rink, every time we rise to a challenge.

Canada’s destiny is in our hands, rooted in the values of our land and its peoples.

Karim-Aly S. Kassam is International Professor of Environmental and Indigenous Studies at Cornell University. The University of Calgary awarded him the Career Achievement Arch Award for International Impact because of his research into the cultural and ecological basis of pluralism.

Carney’s early blunders raise red flags

Troy Media
-
0
Carney’s early blunders raise red flags

Missteps expose the risks of handing power to an untested candidate

Michael Taube, Troy Media

If a political campaign stumbles at the starting gate and voters barely notice, does it matter? That’s the question facing newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney, who called a snap election this past Sunday for April 28—and has already fumbled through the opening days.

You’ve likely heard this thought experiment before: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Its origins remain unclear. Some have suggested it was taken from Anglo-Irish philosopher George Berkeley’s A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. That seems to be a stretch, so it may be a variation on several themes that were gradually tied together.

Theodore L. Flood’s defunct magazine The Chautauquan posed a similar question in its June 1883 issue: “If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings, would there be any sound?” The answer was thought-provoking. “No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion.”

That’s one way to look at it. You could also argue that a tree would still make a sound because the action of falling doesn’t have to be connected to the reaction of a human being hearing it.

Let’s adjust things to fit within the parameters of the federal election. If Carney continues his pattern of stumbling through this campaign, will Canadian voters make a sound?

Carney’s supporters would likely say “no.” They have a valid argument because his party is ahead in many opinion polls. The most recent data (as of this writing) showed the Liberals leading the Conservatives 46 to 38 per cent, according to the Angus Reid Institute on March 24. That’s a healthy advantage.

Carney’s detractors would likely say “yes.” They also have a valid argument because opinion polls are small snapshots of voter intentions. They’re not the be-all and end-all of political analysis. Circumstances can change quickly, and the pendulum can swing in different directions.

Here’s an example. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives led in the polls for over two years. They were ahead by double digits for over a year and by an average of 20 to 25 points in recent months. Many Canadians seemed convinced the Conservatives would run away with the next election. The reality was different. The gap between the Conservatives and Liberals was always going to shrink. Anyone who suggested otherwise was fooling themselves.

It ultimately did, partly because of former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s departure (almost 70 per cent of Canadians wanted him to resign in late December) and largely because of frustrations about U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and Conservative parties and leaders.

Poilievre got ensnared in the latter category. The Liberals have tried to link him to Trump in the past but have largely been unsuccessful. The president’s tariff battle and threats of annexing Canada have changed today’s political temperature. Even though Poilievre’s political ideas, views and policies are vastly different from Trump’s—which the U.S. president has himself acknowledged—some Canadians remain unconvinced.

While Carney’s supporters are likely thrilled that some Canadians have returned to their political camp, there’s no guarantee they’ll stay put. Pollster Nik Nanos recently suggested “this campaign is going to see a lot more volatility than we’ve seen in the other campaigns,” meaning the result could be a “coin toss.” He’s right, and my guess is about 30 to 35 per cent of the electorate could be easily swayed one way or the other.

This puts the politically inexperienced prime minister directly in the hot seat.

Carney has solid credentials, including former head of two central banks (Canada and England), former chair of Brookfield Asset Management, the Financial Stability Board and Bloomberg L.P.’s board of directors, and former special adviser and chair of a Liberal Party task force on economic growth. The fact remains that he’s never led a party, run for a political seat—or worked on an election campaign. It’s not a seamless transition to move from one discipline to another, in spite of what some suggest. Governing a party and country is a completely different kettle of fish, too.

Carney has a reputation for having a “volcanic temper,” according to Larry Elliott, former economics editor of Britain’s left-wing Guardian newspaper. He’s proven himself to be extremely thin-skinned during press scrums. Carney told CBC News Network’s Rosemary Barton to “look inside herself” and “you start from a prior of conflict and ill will” when she expressed doubt about his blind trust (of which few details have been released) and possible conflicts of interest due to his time in the private sector. That’s to say nothing of his gibberish response to a reporter when asked about repaying the costs of his European trip as an unelected official. Carney ignored the question and droned on about tariffs and trade. When the reporter said, “I’ll take that as a no, then,” Carney retorted, “No, you’ll take that as a very comprehensive answer to your question.”

Carney has also been long associated with left-wing views such as increased government intervention, tackling wealth inequality and supporting net-zero emissions. He’s now attempting to shed this image. He removed Trudeau’s hated federal carbon tax, wants to build national trade corridors and called for a middle-class tax cut. Carney is trying to out-Conservative the Conservatives, which is a difficult task for someone who’s never been mistaken for a Conservative.

What’s the answer to this Canadian-based philosophical thought experiment? We’ll find out after the election is over.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

Farmers pay the price for Ottawa’s EV obsession

Troy Media
-
0
Farmers pay the price for Ottawa’s EV obsession

EV gamble leaves farmers to suffer China’s retaliation alone

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Canada has started a trade war with China, yet few in Ottawa seem willing to acknowledge the consequences.

Unlike the United States, which often imposes tariffs as a bargaining chip only to later negotiate, China takes a far more calculated and punitive approach. When Beijing retaliates, it targets industries with both economic and symbolic significance, ensuring maximum pressure on its adversary.

In Canada’s case, that means agricultural exports—particularly canola, known globally as “Canada oil,” and Atlantic lobster, both of which have now become collateral damage in this escalating dispute.

The fallout is already being felt. Starting March 20, Canadian grain farmers, hog producers and seafood harvesters will face 100 per cent tariffs when exporting to China, a critical market for these sectors.

Canola, which generated $3.72 billion in exports in recent years, is now under anti-dumping investigations, while rapeseed oil—a major processed product—is being hit with prohibitive tariffs. Pork exports, once thriving, have dwindled as China tightens import restrictions, and the billion-dollar seafood industry, led by lobster and crab, is now facing similar uncertainty.

This crisis was set in motion by Ottawa’s decision last October to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and batteries, mirroring a move by the United States. Then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sought to align with U.S. President Joe Biden, aiming to shield North American manufacturing from an influx of cheap Chinese imports.

But now, with both leaders gone, Prime Minister Mark Carney has made it clear he has no intention of reversing course.

China’s retaliation follows a familiar pattern. When Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver in 2018 at the request of the U.S., Beijing didn’t retaliate against Washington—it went after Canadian farmers, restricting key agricultural exports.

The same playbook is being used now, yet Ottawa appears either oblivious or unwilling to acknowledge how much damage this is causing to its own producers.

At the core of this conflict is Canada’s high-stakes bet on electric vehicles and battery manufacturing. The federal government has committed nearly $50 billion to develop the sector, funding projects like Stellantis and LG’s battery plant in Windsor, Volkswagen’s gigafactory in St. Thomas, Ont., and Northvolt’s facility in Quebec—despite Northvolt’s financial struggles and reports that its parent company is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Additional billions have gone to Ford and other automakers as part of Canada’s strategy to become a global battery hub.

While these subsidies are intended to create jobs and secure supply chains, they come with immense financial and economic risks. There is no guarantee that Canada’s EV industry will be globally competitive or that these government-backed projects will deliver on their promised returns.

Ottawa has essentially chosen to apply a supply management-style approach to an emerging sector—limiting competition, inflating costs and betting taxpayer money on an industry that is far from proven. As history has shown, when markets are heavily managed, consumers end up with higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices.

In prioritizing Ontario and Quebec’s manufacturing jobs, Ottawa has knowingly sacrificed the interests of Canadian farmers and seafood harvesters. Yet, rather than acknowledging this trade-off or offering support, the federal government has remained largely silent.

The absence of a response from new Agriculture Minister Kody Blois is particularly troubling. With farmers already struggling due to rising costs and declining margins, the imposition of 100 per cent tariffs on critical exports is a major blow.

If Minister Blois does not act swiftly to defend Canada’s agricultural sector, farmers and seafood harvesters will be left to bear the full weight of Ottawa’s geopolitical gamble.

Canada’s handling of this trade war has been reckless. Instead of mitigating risks, the government has gone all in on an industry that remains untested while turning its back on agricultural sectors that have long been pillars of the Canadian economy.

If Minister Blois and the government fail to intervene, the economic consequences for Canadian farmers and seafood producers will be severe. Ottawa may have been willing to make this gamble, but it’s the agricultural sector that will ultimately pay the price.

What a mess.

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.

Carney’s carbon tax rebrand won’t ease food prices. It just hides the pain

Troy Media
-
0
Carney’s carbon tax rebrand won’t ease food prices. It just hides the pain

Mark Carney is just hiding the cost of the carbon tax. Its economic impact on Canadian consumers remains the same

Sylvain Charlebois, Troy Media

Prime Minister Mark Carney has signed an executive order eliminating the so-called “consumer carbon tax,” leading many Canadians to believe they will no longer feel its financial burden. But make no mistake—the most damaging aspect of the carbon tax for our food economy remains intact.

Canada’s carbon tax was introduced to discourage fossil fuel consumption and reduce emissions. The original policy placed a tax on carbon-based fuels, with revenues partially rebated to households to offset higher costs.

Carney’s policy eliminates the direct carbon tax at the consumer level but keeps carbon pricing intact for large industrial emitters—effectively shifting costs away from consumers’ direct fuel purchases but maintaining them at the production and distribution level. While this version of carbon pricing may be less visible to consumers, its economic impact is no different. Most Canadians support strong environmental policies that promote sustainability, but if those policies undermine food affordability and competitiveness, they warrant serious scrutiny.

This shift in taxation is reminiscent of Canada’s old Manufacturer’s Sales Tax (MST), which was replaced by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 1991. The MST was embedded at the manufacturing level, making it a hidden cost that inflated retail prices without consumers realizing they were paying a tax. Similarly, the “shadow” carbon tax quietly accumulates throughout the supply chain, ultimately raising consumer prices in a less transparent way. While the consumer no longer sees a direct carbon tax, industries still absorb these costs and pass them along through higher prices—which effectively amounts to a hidden tax.

At every stage of the food supply chain—transportation, milling, distribution, and retail—the carbon tax compounds, inflating prices before products even reach store shelves. Farmers pay carbon taxes on fuel, fertilizers, and equipment—costs that are further compounded by the GST. Despite government rebates, production costs continue to climb.

The impact doesn’t stop there. A trucking company transporting wheat to a mill pays carbon taxes on fuel, which gets passed on through shipping fees. The mill incurs additional costs for electricity and operations, which are then built into the price of flour. As the flour moves through distribution, into bakeries, and onto grocery store shelves, each step adds another layer of carbon tax. By the time a loaf of bread reaches the consumer, multiple hidden costs have accumulated, increasing the final retail price.

Farmers paying carbon taxes on fuel and other inputs see their production costs rise, a burden that trickles down through wholesalers, grocers, and, ultimately, consumers. While politicians highlight the removal of the direct carbon tax at checkout, the real financial strain builds throughout the supply chain—something Carney’s policy does little to change.

The burden isn’t just theoretical—it is already driving significant shifts in Canada’s food industry. The impact of the carbon tax on food prices is even more evident when analyzing the growing disconnect between wholesale and retail food prices. Since the carbon tax was introduced at $20 per metric tonne in 2019, Canada’s agri-food sector has struggled with declining competitiveness. The narrowing gap between wholesale and retail prices suggests that grocers are increasingly forced to import food from abroad to mitigate costs.

Since 2022, the effects of the annual carbon tax hike have become even more pronounced. Wholesale food prices temporarily outpaced retail prices, forcing grocers to absorb additional costs. This year, another $15 increase is scheduled for April 1, further amplifying cost pressures that will inevitably trickle down to consumers.

Despite years of rising costs for farmers and consumers, Ottawa has yet to produce a single study proving that the carbon tax has improved environmental outcomes. Worse still, no assessment has been conducted on its impact on food affordability—a glaring oversight for a policy with such wide-reaching economic consequences. Many academics have called it a blind-sided policy—one that weakens our economy and erodes competitiveness without measurable proof that it effectively addresses climate change.

While carbon pricing aims to address climate change, economic policies must balance environmental objectives with economic stability. Without an alternative strategy, simply shifting the tax burden onto industries could still raise costs for consumers in indirect ways.

With a new prime minister in office and potentially a new government on the horizon, it is time for Ottawa to facilitate a real, evidence-based debate on how best to tackle climate change without compromising food security and affordability. There are better solutions than the carbon tax—or its “shadow” equivalent—regardless of what Prime Minister Carney chooses to call it.

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.

Valentine’s Day isn’t just for romance

Troy Media
-
0
Valentine’s Day isn’t just for romance

Strengthen bonds with colleagues, friends, and loved ones by understanding and applying love languages every day

Faith Wood, Troy Media

Valentine’s Day immerses us in conversations about love. Its origins trace back to ancient Roman festivals like Lupercalia, a mid-February celebration that honoured fertility and marked the transition to spring.

Over time, Lupercalia was adapted into a Christian feast day dedicated to St. Valentine, a martyred priest known for performing secret marriages during Roman persecution. Officially recognized in 496 AD by Pope Gelasius I, it evolved over centuries into a celebration of romance, particularly during the Middle Ages when poets like Geoffrey Chaucer linked it to expressions of love—how to express it, nurture it, and, for some, how to repair it.

While the focus is often on romantic relationships, the principles that sustain strong, healthy partnerships are just as essential in our workplaces, friendships, and communities. Love, at its core, is about connection, and connection thrives when people feel seen, heard, and valued. In my work as a conflict and communication specialist, I see firsthand how relationships—both personal and professional—succeed or suffer based on the quality of communication.

One of the most common issues in both romantic and workplace relationships is assuming we already know what the other person wants or needs. Assumptions are rarely accurate. Whether with a spouse, a friend, or a colleague, we often give the type of love, appreciation, or feedback we would like to receive rather than what the other person actually values.

The concept of “love languages” (coined by Dr. Gary Chapman, a marriage counsellor and author of “The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts”) extends beautifully to all areas of life. People need appreciation in different ways—some through words of affirmation, others through quality time, acts of service, gifts, or even a simple pat on the back. Understanding these differences can transform how we relate to one another.

We may not call it “love,” but feeling valued is essential in professional settings. Leaders who struggle to retain talent or build cohesive teams often overlook the power of appreciation. Employees who feel unseen or unrecognized quickly disengage. A thoughtful thank-you or acknowledgment of effort can have as much impact in the boardroom as it does at the dinner table.

As you reflect on your personal relationships during the coming week, think about your professional ones. Are you making those around you feel valued? Do you acknowledge contributions in a way that resonates with the individual?

Valentine’s Day isn’t just for grand gestures—it’s also a moment for reflection. Have you been neglecting a relationship that matters to you? Whether it’s a spouse, a friend, or a co-worker, it’s never too late to rebuild trust and connection.

Here’s a simple exercise: Write down three things you appreciate about someone in your life and tell them. It might initially feel awkward, but it will mean more to them than you realize.

This Valentine’s Day, let’s expand our idea of love beyond chocolates and roses. Real love is about making people feel valued, respected, and understood—at home, at work, and in our communities. That is the kind of connection that truly lasts.

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.

The job search myths that are holding you back

Troy Media
-
0
The job search myths that are holding you back

Stop wasting time on job search myths and learn how today’s hiring process really works

Nick Kossovan

Troy Media

Acknowledging current job market realities is imperative for job search success. Clinging to comforting narratives while ignoring hard truths will not change how employers operate, especially when it comes to their hiring process.

Most job seekers conveniently ignore these seven uncomfortable truths. Accepting them would speed up their job search.

•           There’s always someone younger and more ambitious than you. When it comes to “job search truisms that suck,” this is at the top.

Job searching is a competition against other candidates, AI, automation, low-cost overseas labour, and the advantages of using contractors and freelancers. Success in this competitive landscape requires being more driven than your competition, as winning typically demands strong ambition.

I view “someone younger and more ambitious” (and more skilled) as a call to action. While you can’t “youth appeal,” you can lessen its influence on hiring decisions by:

•           Showing employers you’re relevant—not outdated—by keeping up with technology, shifts in social media and changing social norms.

•           Demonstrating you can work autonomously (read: you’ll be easy to manage).

•           Cultivating professional relationships that can vouch for your value to an employer.

•           Establishing you don’t have a sense of entitlement—the Achilles heel of most job seekers.

•           You don’t own your job; your employer does. The phrase “my job” is misleading. Layoffs illustrate that the job belongs to the employer, yet many job seekers chase the illusion of job security.

An employee is essentially renting their job until they leave or their employer no longer requires their services. Job seekers would shorten their job search by adopting a renter’s mindset. In other words, don’t look for what doesn’t exist—a permanent employment situation.

Renting is primarily about having a roof over your head; therefore, we tend to accept, within reason, “less than ideal” (e.g., neighbourhood, kitchen layout, bathroom size). The motivation to buy a home is to build equity, which, as you know, is more challenging, expensive and requires a long-term commitment. When job searching, think of yourself as looking for a rental situation; looking for a job that meets your immediate income needs is a quicker route to landing a job than looking for your “ideal work situation.”

•           What you show is what an employer will know. Employers hire based on results, not opinions.

Most résumés and LinkedIn profiles are merely lists of opinions; hence, they fail to attract opportunities. Vague claims like “I’m a team player” lack substance. You must quantify: “I was part of a 12-member sales team responsible for a $6.5-million quota.” Numbers, the language of business, illustrate your impact and make you a more attractive candidate.

•           You don’t define your worth; employers do. A sense of entitlement fuels the obsession with being paid what you’re worth.

Basic economics: The value of a product or service is primarily determined by how well it solves a customer’s problem, meets their needs and compares with competing products.

As I mentioned, when job searching, you’re competing against candidates who are younger and more ambitious than you. Thus, they’re willing to work for a lower wage to get their foot in the door, gain experience and prove themselves. The reason many job seekers experience a lengthy job search is because they possess an inflated sense of their value to employers and overlook their competition.

•           Employers are moving away from remote jobs. Their company, their rules.

It’s no secret that many companies, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Meta and Walmart, along with Donald Trump mandating federal workers return to the office full time, are ending the remote work setup during COVID, which gave white-collar workers a taste of the privilege of working from home.

From what I’ve observed and heard, working from home abuse is prevalent; hence, I agree with employers giving their employees return-to-office (RTO) notifications and employees having to manage their workdays as they did pre-COVID.

Be open to working onsite for a faster job search. If working from home is a non-negotiable ‘must-have,’ be prepared for a lengthy job search, as the number of such opportunities is rapidly shrinking.

•           Your LinkedIn profile and activity on LinkedIn matter more than your résumé. What has more visibility—your résumé, seen only by those you send it to, or your LinkedIn profile, which anyone can view at any time?

Given how influential your LinkedIn profile can be to your job search and career, I find it surprising that I still see profiles that scream, “I’m not serious about my job search or career!”

With all the information and guides available, it’s inexcusable not to create a fully optimized LinkedIn profile that’ll attract opportunities.

•           Your likability supersedes your skills and experience. Hiring managers don’t hire candidates they don’t like, so likability is a job seeker’s biggest asset. While your résumé, cover letter and LinkedIn profile will get you interviews, the success of your interview will be primarily determined by how likeable you are; therefore, being likeable is a trait (read: skill) worth fostering.

Job searching is tough, but ignoring these hard truths only makes it harder. Understanding how hiring really works, adapting to market realities, and focusing on what employers value most will give you a competitive edge. Instead of clinging to outdated job search myths, take control of your career by making informed, strategic moves. The sooner you embrace these realities, the sooner you’ll land the right opportunity

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

Canadians don’t know their own history – and it’s holding us back

Troy Media
-
0
Canadians don’t know their own history – and it’s holding us back

Canada’s historical amnesia leaves us ill-prepared to confront today’s new realities

Bill Whitelaw

Troy Media

To the south, “Manifest Destiny.” To the north, “Peace, Order, and Good Government.” These constitutional principles define starkly different national identities—one rooted in individualism, the other in collectivism.

Manifest destiny may sound like a relic of 19th-century history, but it remains deeply embedded in the American psyche. Until Donald Trump’s inauguration speech, many Canadians had likely never encountered the term. Yet it explains much about American ambition and unity—qualities often absent in Canada.

Trump’s speech revived the ethos of manifest destiny, framing it as a modern call to action: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation … We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars.” Stirring and unapologetically ambitious, it was bellicose populism at its finest—rallying the troops while feeding the voracious ego of a leader who thrives on division.

For Canadians, such rhetoric is foreign. Unity here often feels elusive, and our leaders rarely invoke it with the same fervour. The closest Canadian equivalent might be Sir John A. Macdonald’s National Policy, a 19th-century strategy designed to solidify the young country’s unity. Yet, ask 100 Canadians about it today, and half would respond, “Who is Macdonald anyway?” Let alone his policy.

This historical amnesia is troubling. Without a clear sense of our national identity, we face challenges ill-prepared. We squabble among ourselves, making plenty of noise about national unity but offering little substance or direction. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to expand its influence and ambitions, waving the four aces of manifest destiny in its poker hand almost daily.

Manifest destiny was the belief that the U.S. was divinely ordained to expand westward, a conviction that still inspires American ambition. Trump’s speech revived this ethos, rallying unity while excluding those outside its vision.

As Canadians, we must ask: what’s our version of manifest destiny? What vision unites us?

Canada’s National Policy offers a potential answer. Macdonald used it to foster unity by linking an established East with a growing West. It relied on tariffs to protect Canadian businesses from cheaper U.S. imports, encouraged immigration, and built infrastructure like the transcontinental railway. Above all, it aimed to keep American influence at bay.

Westward expansion highlights the contrast between Canada and the U.S. Both nations offered settlers 160 acres to entice westward settlement. In the U.S., there was little government intervention, and rapid, aggressive acquisition was encouraged. In Canada, the government maintained control, dictating who could settle and imposing stewardship requirements. Of course, both nations’ expansions came at the expense of Indigenous communities, a shameful legacy we must also acknowledge.

This difference—unchecked ambition versus collective management—reflects our national ethos: “Peace, Order, and Good Government.” Yet most Canadians today are unaware of how these principles shaped our history.

Canada faces internal divisions, regional disparities, and global pressures—challenges that demand unity but lack a shared purpose.

Americans, for better or worse, remain inspired by their national mythos. Trump’s rhetoric may have been divisive, but it was undeniably stirring. By contrast, Canadians haven’t heard such a unifying call in generations.

Revisiting the National Policy could help Canadians recover their sense of self. Its vision of linking a stable East with a growing West carried a unifying purpose rooted in pragmatism. Canadians today value “peace, order, and good government,” but many have lost sight of its origins and its potential to guide us forward.

It’s time to rediscover our history. Historians could help Canadians—and their leaders—reconnect with the principles that shaped our nation. Perhaps it’s time for a “National Policy 101,” where historians could reintroduce us to the ideas that once held the country together.

Regardless of your views on Trump, his words remind us of the power of a unifying vision. It’s time for Canadians to find their own. “Peace, Order, and Good Government” may lack the bravado of manifest destiny, but it is uniquely ours—and it’s worth rallying behind.

Bill Whitelaw is a director and advisor to many industry boards, including the Canadian Society for Evolving Energy, which he chairs. He speaks and comments frequently on the subjects of social licence, innovation and technology, and energy supply networks.

Trump tariffs a wake-up call for Canada to break free from U.S. dependence

Troy Media
-
0
Trump tariffs a wake-up call for Canada to break free from U.S. dependence

Diversification is key to protecting Canada’s economy from trade shocks such as Trump’s tariffs

Roslyn Kunin

Troy Media

Those fortunate enough to have accumulated savings in these challenging times want to see them grow or, at the very least, maintain their value. The first rule of ensuring savings and investments do not disappear is to diversify.

That rule is often summed up as, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” The future is uncertain, and any single financial asset can unexpectedly move in the wrong direction. However, with broad or even moderate diversification, the prospects for a portfolio are much improved.

The benefits of diversification extend beyond managing family assets. They also apply to companies. Well-run businesses rely on more than one customer to avoid the risk of being left high and dry if that customer is lost. They also seek multiple suppliers so that the loss of any single supplier does not leave them stranded, a lesson many firms learned during the disruptions caused by COVID-19.

Canada, however, has failed to learn this lesson as a nation. As a country with a small domestic market, we depend heavily on foreign trade. Over 30 per cent of our economy is tied to the export sector, and 72 per cent of those exports go to the United States. Such heavy reliance on a single customer leaves Canada dangerously exposed to shifts in U.S. trade policies and economic conditions.

This is no accident. Canada’s vulnerability is not just the result of U.S. protectionism but also decades of domestic complacency and failure to diversify, compounded by the Trudeau government’s missed opportunities.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of significant tariffs against Canada only highlight the risks of this dependence. While across-the-board tariffs would be a total economic disaster, they are unlikely. Such measures would hurt Americans too, as 70 per cent of what Canada provides is critical to their supply chains. Nonetheless, targeted tariffs and other barriers against specific industries are far more likely, and these would be enough to harm us north of the border. Canada cannot afford to sit idle, waiting to see where the axe will fall.

The answer is not to impose retaliatory tariffs or embrace protectionist policies of our own. That would hurt Canada as much, if not more, than the U.S., creating a race to the bottom and leading to long-term economic decline.

The solution is economic diversification. We are in this precarious position because, collectively, as a nation, we have put almost all our eggs in the basket of the U.S. market. What we need is a broader range of customers outside the United States. This shift will not be easy, but it is essential if we are to safeguard our economy against future shocks.

British Columbia’s lumber industry provides a cautionary example. For years, the province’s economy was so tied to American housing starts that one could forecast its performance with a single number. When U.S. housing starts declined or restrictions were placed on lumber imports—issues that persist today—the industry faltered, and the province suffered. Occasionally, B.C. firms sought customers in Europe or other regions, but as soon as demand in the U.S. rebounded, they returned to their old ways. This kind of short-term thinking must end.

Canadian producers across all industries must find and maintain customers on other continents. This effort should have started long ago. One does not wait for a rainy day to fix a hole in the roof.

Admittedly, reducing dependence on the U.S. market is a significant challenge. Canada has been spoiled by a major customer that is geographically close, operates in the same time zones, speaks the same language, and shares similar business and legal structures.

But other markets, such as those in Europe and Asia, offer immense opportunities. With focus and determination, Canada can tap into these markets. We have an abundance of sought-after products and services and enjoy an excellent reputation as a safe, stable, and reliable trading partner. Furthermore, many Canadians or their families come from diverse regions of the world, bringing invaluable knowledge of languages, customs, and business practices in those markets.

Every cloud has a silver lining. The looming threat of U.S. protectionism should motivate Canada to finally diversify its trade and markets. Let us not squander this moment. It is time to stop putting all our eggs in one basket.

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.

Stop blaming others and take control of your job search success

Troy Media
-
0
Stop blaming others and take control of your job search success

Nick Kossovan

Troy Media

Five hundred applicants (a conservative estimate), one hire:

• 500:1 ratio

            •           2 per cent chance of getting hired

Regardless of your education, skills, experience, or connections, job searching today is akin to betting against the house.

The 499 who didn’t get hired will likely say:

            •           “I’m over 45, so it must be ageism.”

            •           “I’m green, so it must be racism.”

            •           “I identify as [whatever], so it must be [whatever].”

            •           “I don’t fall into a DEI category, so it must be reverse racism.”

Rare is the job seeker who’ll admit, “I could have done a better job applying or interviewing.”

In most cases, job seekers reach for the “I’m a victim” card (read: excuse) as the reason they weren’t selected for an interview or hired. With rejection so prevalent, self-professed career coaches—who never provide empirical data and only offer selective anecdotes (details are never given)—exploit the vulnerability of job seekers by telling them what they want to hear. They claim it’s not their fault and that employers are bad people looking for unicorns and rockstars, all as a ploy to sell their “service.”

Actions and inactions have consequences, especially in job hunting. Based on my observations and conversations, people rarely consider the consequences of their actions or inactions, instead blaming circumstances—or everyone but themselves—for their lack of success. What you eat today will affect you tomorrow. Not returning a phone call immediately could mean a lost opportunity.

Today’s sense of entitlement among job seekers is so prevalent that it’s fueling visible anger: “I’m not getting what I deserve!” or “I’m not getting what I want!” Anger frequently results in false pride and an overinflated belief in worth. It’s the job market—not your opinion of yourself—that determines your worth. Overcoming this mentality is one of the most difficult challenges for job seekers.

We are all born into this world to make our own way. Nothing is promised—not health, safety, food, shelter, happiness, love, or a job.

Social media amplifies voices, opinions, and narratives—too well. The result is a toxic echo chamber that makes it seem like everyone is a victim of something: ageism, sexism, racism, and more. While many “isms” are undeniably real, you have little to no influence in changing them. Dwelling on systemic issues distracts you from finding a job. As a job seeker, you’re in the job-finding business, not the advocacy-for-hiring-policy-changes business.

Since your mindset directly influences your attitude and behaviour, having a victim mentality is counterproductive. Blaming external factors—often unquantifiable—for your frustrations won’t bring you closer to finding a job. Job seekers who play the victim card become passive observers of the job market rather than taking actionable steps to change their strategy.

A victim mentality or sense of entitlement turns employers off and is often evident during interviews. Experienced recruiters or hiring managers can immediately spot entitlement or a negative attitude. Employers prefer proactive, resourceful candidates who take responsibility for their actions.

Let go of any sense of entitlement you may have. Employers—and the world—owe you nothing. Network relentlessly by reaching out to contacts, attending events, and engaging on LinkedIn. Embrace rejection as a learning tool. Analyze what went wrong and adjust your job search strategy. Resilience is key; setbacks are part of achieving goals. Focus on what you can contribute to employers, not what you want them to give you.

Your actions and inactions are the ultimate contributors to your job search success. Control what you can influence: Are you applying to the right jobs and companies? (My advice: Don’t just look for a job; look for your tribe. Seek employers who will welcome you.) Does your resumé and LinkedIn profile showcase tangible results you’ve achieved for employers, backed by numbers rather than opinions? Are you actively seeking out opportunities and networking?

Focus on articulating how you can solve problems for an employer. By envisioning yourself as a solutions provider—“How can I help this employer?”—you cultivate a proactive approach to your job search.

When job hunting, your greatest asset is your mindset. Yes, systemic issues exist and may affect your job search. However, allowing these “isms”—which you can’t change—to dominate your focus is counterproductive. Don’t let those with an entitlement mentality convince you that a host of systemic barriers are preventing you from finding a job. Instead, focus your energy and attention on what you can do to secure employment.

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

123...27Page 1 of 27