38,16 by Spotlight Magazine

"The Most Controversial man in 2015 President of .....2016?

THIS ISSUES

CONTENTS 05

Golf

Golf Simplified

Columnist Donald Crawley.

07 Law What is a Retainer and Why do Most Lawyers Seem to Want One?

Columnist Scott Steinbeck 09 Mayor Governing with Respect or

With a Hammer Drew Barns

11 Brent Dunstan Because It’s Time Columnist 13 FINANCE Snowbirds Retiring Away From Canada BMO consultant - Dan Hein,

16 EDITORIAL “The Most Controversial Man of 2015”... of 2016? Scott Cowan 18

The Fashion Files

Gainsboro Spotlight EDITOR

SCOTT COWAN (403) 504-7092 ART DIRECTOR

JOAN BATEMAN joan@gainsboro.ca GRAPHICS DIRECTOR

HEATHER COONS

scott-cowan@live.com ADDRESS

377 - 4 Street SE Medicine Hat, AB T1A 0K4 For a complimentary subscription to Spotlight, forward your email to:

info@spotlightmagazine.ca

PHOTOGRAPHY

GAINSBORO STUDIOS

Published and Printed by Spotlight Magazine

PHONE (403) 526-3054

Disclaimer: No responsibility can be taken by Spotlight Magazine for any errors or omissions contained herein. Furthermore, responsibility for any losses, damages or distress resulting from adherence to any information made available through this magazine is not the responsibility of Spotlight Magazine. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Spotlight Magazine. Comments are welcome.

Golf Simplified

Donald Crawley Columnist

Private Function, Birthday or Special Event Today!

for our special guests 55 plus

value features delicious meals made just for you

ns Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz Ins Agcy Ltd zAgent Ins Agcy Ltd Crystal Metz, Agent Canada Way SECanada Way SE z, Agent2-1335 Trans Medicine Hat, AB T1B 1J1 T1B 1J1 nsAB Canada Way SE Bus: 403-526-1345 1345 at, AB T1B 1J1 State Farm, Aurora, ON 6-1345 1211999CN

Dinner salad or cup of soup just $2.49 ith té

2301 Trans Canada Way Southeast

Golf Simplified is the name of my teaching system. It means what it says.....golf simplified. Golf is a difficult game that we make way too complicated. Most golfers enjoy the game more when they are relaxed and keep the thought process simple. With forty years of playing / teaching experience I often have to remind myself, every day, to keep it simple, the KISS method. In a previous article I summarized my experience of playing golf in the homeland, five days in a row, on beautiful courses with fantastic company. That is a recipe of fun and fond memories. The only way I could spoil it is if I complicated the environment. By a) teaching too much to my playing partners, clouding their minds from enjoying the whole experience, or b) ask too much of myself to perform perfectly. The reminder at the start of each round is to keep the thought process simple and enjoy the game. Everyone wants to play better, so I gave each playing partners one thing to work on, to help them control their ball, keep it in play, and hit better shots. On the range when we are working on some fundamental or particular shot (reduce the slice of the ball: stop topping the ball: chip the ball cleaner, closer- you get the idea.) I try to emphasize two key thoughts, pictures, or 'feels'. Only two, not twenty two.

Shaun Vaudry Sales Manager

Cherie Martens

Licensed Sales Professional

Scott Hughson

Owner/Business Manager

Licensed Sales Professional

Jeff Caissie

Earnie Taylor Service Manager

Licensed Sales Professional

Go to one of my GolfSimplified video clips https://youtu.be/0jbyJi8btpg if you want to add a visual to this dialogue. " At the start of the backswing I try to push the club straight back for 13 inches before I turn my left shoulder under my chin. As I transfer my weight to the inside of my right leg, that must remain flexed and stable. But not

too rigid. At waist height I start to cock my wrists maintaining the pressure between my thumb and forefinger on the right hand. As the left wrist hinges flat, and my right elbow folds down and in, close to but not against my right side. My upper body is coiling perpendicular to my spine. Yet resisting the hip turn as I'm feeling a straight. But relaxed left arm connected to my chest, with my hands above my fully turned rear shoulder.......... And on and on and on............ You get the message. It’s not that each individual thought or feel is wrong but my goodness that is way too much, too complicated, and we haven’t even finished the backswing yet! And your playing partners are yelling at you to “RELAX”! If you are a new golfer and interested in the game, start with lessons. Get some help, go with a friend. If you are an experienced golfer, a veteran of the game, get some help and take a lesson from a qualified instructor. Keep your goals simple yet focused. If the instruction is lengthy, boring , confusing or complicated, seek out a different instructor! If you are making a winter trip down to Scottsdale AZ, come see me at the beautiful Boulders Resort. http://www.theboulders. com and we can work together on simplifying your swing or short game. The majority of my winter students are

folks who haven’t played for a while, weeks months, sometimes years. The first step is to make them comfortable in the golfing environment. A common request I get is “I just want to play reasonable and not embarrass myself”. A legitimate goal! We will work on fundamentals to help you hit the ball better; keeping it simple. A more specific goal such as “I want to get rid of my slice,” is also a very common request. Again keeping the information practical but understandable, the correct diagnosis and correction, helps simplify the process. I love to hear the feedback”oh that feels easier ,“ or “now I know what to work on, that makes sense”. I have to keep the message simple so that you can grasp it quickly, see some immediate improvement, which encourages you to keep working on it. A ‘quick fix’ doesn’t necessarily mean only a temporary fix. Some folks call it a ‘band aid’. A quick fix is making the correct diagnosis and applying the correct fix, thought, feel, or picture. Maybe the phrase ‘tune up’ is better. Either way, make sure you are keeping your routine, thought process and most importantly ‘in- swing’ keys ( that means when you are actually over the ball, ready to give it a rip!) SIMPLE. I look forward to seeing you in the valley of the sun, Scottsdale, AZ

NEED A MORTGAGE? If you own a home and were turned down by the Banks, If you have bad credit ? Lost hope? You need

Scott Cowan,

Dominion Lending (Mortgage Agent)

403 504 7092 If nobody else can get you a mortgage, Call me. 5

What is a Retainer and why do most Lawyers seem to want one? Scott Stenbeck 1(866)783 6232 Columnist

If I had to pick a part of my job that I dislike the most, it would be the financial end. I love practicing law. I hate running a business. If I could just write briefs, do research, negotiate settlements and make court appearances all day every day, law would be like a trip to the day spa. The part I dislike the most is the area of the consultation. Where I have to tell a client that, yes, they have a decent case and I can help them, but that I am going to need a cheque up front in order to begin work. From what I know of my office and of colleagues, for an experienced divorce lawyer or for a litigation matter, a typical minimum retainer is $5,000. So what is a retainer? Well, a retainer is like a deposit on legal fees. Lawyers are required to keep a separate bank account called a trust account where we put money that doesn’t belong to us. I deposit retainers that are provided by clients in such an account. I have strict rules to follow to account for that money. After I have done work for a client and rendered a bill for services, I am then entitled to pay myself out of that money. Also, if I have spent money on behalf of a client, such as with filing fees or on a process server, I can pay it out of that account, or repay myself out of that account. Most lawyers require that there be some balance in a retainer as work is going on so that there is always enough to pay a bill for upcoming or ongoing work for a client. Why is it $5,000 or a similar amount? Well, a couple reasons. The first is that if I am starting a case, I know there will be some work and fees right at the start. Although not usually anywhere near that $5,000. However, I want there to be some left after the first steps are taken, so that when it comes time for the next step, I can concentrate on doing what I need to do for the client and their case. Rather than stop to chase them for more money, as would be the case if I started work for a retainer of $1,000. Secondly, I don’t want to be misleading in terms of the costs of litigation. Asking a client for a retainer of $500 when I know that given the nature of their case it is going to be $4,000 at the least is a bit of an unfair surprise. If that is not realistic, it is

better to know at the beginning. Sometimes I can space the work out to spread the expense over time. Or we can prioritise what needs to be done according to cost. I also always prefer to write a cheque back to the client for an unused portion of their retainer, rather than have to ask for more money they weren’t expecting. Why do lawyers seem to be pretty sticky about getting a retainer before starting work? I think one would probably find that the more experienced the lawyer, the more that they insist on a retainer before commencement of work. There are a few reasons for this, and I hope that by listing them I can help folks understand that it’s for more reasons than members of my profession being greedy. I know this is sometimes the perception. The first is that in a lot of cases, once a lawyer makes a Court appearance, or files documents for a client, that lawyer is “counsel of record”. That means the lawyer is “on the hook,” to receive documents for service on their client, to make court appearances, and to respond to certain processes within deadlines. This has a way of sometimes spiraling out of control pretty quickly and drawing a lawyer in for a lot more time and work than they bargained for initially. The second is the nature of running a business. My estimate would be that in my kind of practice, it costs somewhere around $15,000 to $20,000 per month per lawyer for law firm overhead. That’s before the lawyer takes a paycheque. That means every month, that money goes out the door on staff, overhead, insurance, rent and so forth before I take a dime for myself. If I don’t collect on the work I do, that money still has to be paid. Since it doesn’t take too many months of paying that without bringing in money to go out of business, I learned pretty quickly that it was important to be sure I could collect right after I performed work. Obviously if I can’t pay my staff or turn the lights on, I can’t be of service to anyone. The third is fairness to all my clients. I have clients that have sold vehicles and cashed RRSPs to deal with setting custody and access, or to set appropriate support, or to have matrimonial property fairly divided. If Mr. Smith has moved heaven and earth to obtain

the funds to advance his case and his retainer is sitting in my trust account and he is expecting I am working on his case, it isn’t right for me to do work for Mr. Jones who hasn’t provided a retainer. The fourth is the kind of work that I do. I have been told I’m a pretty good lawyer. That’s where my expertise is, so I work in that area. I am not much of a banker, or collection officer. This is related to the above reason. The more time that a lawyer has to spend collecting accounts, the less time there is to advance a client’s case. In the past we have done things like post-dated cheques and payment plans, but find those arrangements almost never work out. I hear the same from my colleagues. And the fifth is probably more emotional than rational. I practice law in areas where people’s lives are just falling apart. When someone comes to see me, it is not unusual for it to be necessary for me to drop everything and begin work on rectifying their situation immediately. And I do, happily. That is the kind of work I choose to do, and I love doing it. However, nothing takes the wind out of my sails more than having someone asking me to make them my first priority, but me being their last. It is a terribly draining experience as a professional to work as hard you can, get someone a great result, but then have to beg and plead to get an account satisfied, because I stand in priority behind everything else. Anyone who has practiced longer than a few years knows what that is like, and that’s why we choose to avoid it by having the discussion as to cost at the beginning and asking for funds in advance. Rather than have the tension and problems at the end. I hope the above sheds a little bit of light and maybe gives some explanation as to why lawyers can sometimes appear so hard-nosed about the retainer issue, and what the nature of a retainer is all about. As I said, it is probably my least favorite part of practice. But being a lawyer in Canada is different than being a medical professional for example, where a government health plan covers the fees. An unfortunate part of my profession is having to deal with the costs of my services with a client. But I have found with time that it always works better for everyone to just do it up front at the beginning.

Governing with Respect or with a Hammer? Nobody would be surprised to hear that our Wildrose caucus has significant ideological disagreements with the NDP. We will continue to argue these differences of opinion out in the open – in the sunlight of public debate – contributing to a healthy and robust democracy.

DREW BARNES MLA

Cypress - Medicine Hat

cypress.medicinehat@assembly.ab.ca

DIRECTOR JENNIFER DAVIES VOCAL DIRECTOR RALPH BROWNE

Book by Marshall Brickman & Rick Elice presents

MUSICAL DIRECTOR CURTIS PERRIN

Music and Lyrics by Andrew Lippa

403-528-2191 It’s been said that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail. As I reflect on the fall session gone by, I can’t help but think of how that analogy plays out in our own government. It’s no secret that our parliamentary system awards the winning party a great deal of power. Majority governments have the power to set the agenda, unilaterally pass legislation, and craft regulation behind closed doors. Precisely because the government is afforded such powerful tools, it is all the more important that they not overstep their bounds. Such a great deal of authority is ultimately limited only by the governing party to the degree they wish to limit themselves.

But what I find most disappointing is how quickly into their term this new government decided to reach for the hammer. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than in the roll-out of the Bill 6 farming legislation and the ensuing debate. I served with all four of the incumbent NDP members on the opposition side of the house and, political differences aside, I had high hopes that they would govern more openly and collaboratively than their most recent predecessors. As Bill 6 was introduced, it immediately became clear that the government had no intention of conducting any meaningful consultation with those whose lives were to be most directly impacted. In fact, many of the consultation sessions were scheduled to take place after the government had planned to whisk the legislation through the Assembly. It was a broad, vague omnibus bill that – as

we saw on the original government briefing material and websites – was designed from the start to be wide-reaching and intrusive into the lives of family farms and ranches. Perhaps most troubling was that none of these things were brought up during the election campaign, leaving so many feeling completely blindsided. Furthermore, most of the real, substantive changes were slated to take place behind closed doors through Cabinet regulations. They wrote an open-ended piece of legislation and essentially told the agricultural community, “Trust us.” As the public debate unfolded, it became clear that the real issue was that the trust just wasn’t there. An overwhelming majority of the public didn’t trust that the NDP had a good grasp of the complexities of the problem, didn’t trust them to take their concerns and best interests to heart, and didn’t trust the government to get things right once they had been given a blank cheque to do as they pleased. The public certainly made this known. Rallies with hundreds, even thousands, of people took place across the province and at the Legislature. The largest petition in Alberta’s history was tabled in the house. And, personally, I received over 2100 emails and letters, many coming from ridings held by government MLAs. And that’s when the final hammer came down: the government invoked closure,

FEBRUARY 2 \3 \ 4\ 5 \ 6 AND 9\ 10\ 11\ 12, 2016 SHOWS AT 7:00PM ALSO 2:00PM MATINEE ON FEBRUARY 6th DOORS OPEN HALF-HOUR PRIOR TO PERFORMANCES

Tickets are $23 and are sold on the CHHS home page www.chhsweb.ca Some tickets may be available at the door

T HRO UGH SPECIAL ARRANGEMEN T WI T H T H EAT R I C AL R I G H T S WO R LD W I D E

ending any discussion in the house and muzzling the debate. Closing the debate is the bluntest of all instruments, and one that my NDP colleagues rightly criticized while in opposition. It seems to be an unsettling trend that these principles they once held – respecting opposing speech, listening and consulting in a meaningful way, encouraging debate – have been sacrificed in favour of blunt, forceful tactics to get their agenda rammed through. While the hammer has always been a tempting option for government, the unfortunate result of so many of the NDP’s recent actions is that Albertans have been the nail.

WEEKLY SPECIALS mexican mondays

$5.25 Corona $6.90 margaritas $10 10 oz Nachos

$5.95 paralyzer

All Day!

SUPER wing wednesdays

$0.30/each WINGS

Beer specials!

3ULFH :LQH

WKXUVGD\V Enter to Win a Spa Day!

Fridays & Saturdays

$12.95 Fishbowl $13.95 Premium Fishbowl 1/2 Price Apps (until 7pm) $5.95 Caesar

Because It’s Time

Brent Dunstan Columnist

The dust has settled. The spotlights have faded. The shiny newness is gone, and Prime Minister Trudeau and his government have settled into their offices, both figuratively and literally. The reality and enormity of the tasks before the PM and his Cabinet have likely tempered some of the idealism that all politicians seem to possess when they first take the reins of power. Obstacles suddenly seem bigger, challenges greater, and timelines tighter than previously imagined. (The Syrian refugee situation springs to mind.) It’s funny what happens when the responsibility for enacting policies falls upon you. The Cabinet the Prime Minister appointed that is taking on these responsibilities was assessed and assembled by applying slightly different criteria this time, somewhat beyond the usual considerations. When building a Cabinet, a Prime Minister has typically taken into account things like region of origin, mother tongue, ethnicity, age, and, of course, gender, when choosing it’s members. That last standard - gender, took on a greater significance, as PM Trudeau mandated that females compromise half of the cabinet. When asked why, he replied, “Because it’s 2015.” This may seem like old news, but it is now, well after the hoopla surrounding this “monumental” event has settled down, that a dispassionate examination of an issue this decision has raised can take place. This issue is not, I repeat, not, a debate about men vs. women in government and leadership, nor is what is to follow a criticism of any particular member of the current cabinet. The quota the Prime Minister imposed on the makeup of his Cabinet raises a far broader concern, and his somewhat glib answer when questioned about it underscores this concern’s validity. This concern transcends the gender issue, and encompasses the majority of the

standards of measure a Prime Minister considers when forming a Cabinet. Because it’s 2015, or rather 2016, should a Prime Minister consider anything other than merit when appointing anyone to a Cabinet position? Given the times we live in, and the circumstances, shouldn’t Canada’s Government be well past the need to evaluate and select it’s innermost circle by any measure other than an individual’s qualifications? Tradition has it that Canada’s Prime Minister appoint his or her Cabinet with the goal of ensuring it’s members are representative of all regions of the Country, if not all Provinces. Historically, the mother tongue of Cabinet members, particularly French and English has been a factor for much consideration. As Canada has become more diverse, ethnicity has become a more important factor in the process. Age and religious affiliation have often been taken into account. And, in this, the most recent Cabinet, our new Prime Minister has chosen to highlight gender, by self imposing an arbitrary rule of 50-50 in the male to female membership ratio. It must be said, when it comes to the practical results that came from doing so, the “real change” didn’t amount to much of a difference, as far as female Ministers are concerned. The gender-equal makeup of the new Liberal Cabinet has resulted in precisely 3 more female Ministers than existed in the previous Conservative Cabinet just prior to the 2015 election, growing from 12 to 15. A 20% increase may seem large, but not in light of a 100% increase in Ministers from Quebec, from 3 to 6, or the same 100% increase in Ministers who are practicing Sikhs; 1 to 2. The number of visible minority Cabinet Ministers grew by 700% from 1 to 7. If you find it a bit disquieting to see statistics about such things, and perhaps even consider them discriminatory in nature, you’re beginning to see the point being made. Maybe it’s time to forego trying to satisfy any other standard of measure beyond choosing the best qualified people available to serve in Canada’s Federal Cabinet, regardless of these other factors. Why? To borrow our Prime Minister’s words, “Because it’s 2015.” This is not to say that those governing Canada

should not be reflective of the sociological makeup of the Country. But, I would suggest that Cabinet is not the first or best place to force the issue. There may be better avenues to take to accomplish that. Prime Minister Trudeau commented that he wanted his Cabinet to reflect modern Canada in it’s composition. However, the roles Ministers play, and the tasks before them, are too important and too difficult to not apply the very best to the job. This is not meant to impugn the current Ministers; they are likely capable and qualified, several impressively so. But by attempting to ensure gender equality, regional balance, ethnic and religious diversity, etc., the question of whether or not each is the MOST capable and qualified available will always remain. And isn’t that what we want? The most qualified people to hold the highest positions in Government? Ask yourself; wouldn’t you be outraged if you children’s school applied the same hiring practices for it’s teachers, as Prime Ministers do when they choose their Cabinet? Or hospitals when they hire their medical staff? Or wherever you work? When put into these contexts, it’s illuminating that the key decision makers of the largest organization in the Country, with the largest budget, having tremendous impact on your lives and mine, are selected for reasons other than pure ability and qualifications. We wouldn’t want the person fixing our car’s brakes hired this way, but we’ll gladly accept the key leadership of Canada being chosen from among those we elect to meet idealistic measures of supposed fairness and equality. By satisfying regional, linguistic, ethnic, religious, and gender quotas, not to mention pay back political favours, a Prime Minister follows conventions that began to be established when it took days to travel from Ottawa to Halifax, information was transmitted by telegraph, and Canada was being held together by a thread, politically speaking. Now, a Prime Minister can have lunch in Ottawa and dinner in Vancouver, the Internet has enabled instant face to face meetings between individuals in different places almost anywhere on the planet, and appeasing regional interests to quell separatist sentiment is almost a thing of the past. Almost. Perhaps it’s time to measure our Ministers by a standard that’s a bit more

Continued on page17 11

TEAM

BMO Nesbitt Burns

Insurance & Financial Services

Snowbirds Retiring away from Canada

ENERGY INDUSTRY

It’s great to think about escaping the Canadian Prairie Winter in retirement for warmer climates and still enjoy Canadian Summers. It’s like having your cake AND eating it!

Snowbirds Canadians planning to enjoy winters in a different country should understand A) How long you are allowed to stay in another country as a visitor and B) the maximum amount of time you can be absent from your home province before your Canadian provincial health benefits are interrupted or terminated.

Simplified insurance and financial solutions for the energy industry. • General Liability • Disability Insurance • Health & Dental Plans Thomson-schindle-Green insurance & Financial services ltd.

(403) 526-3283

Toll-Free: 1-800-830-9423 12

One of Canadians favorite benefits is our health care. Be aware that in order to maintain provincial health care benefits, Canadians must be physically present in their province of residence for four or more consecutive months (check Foreign affairs website for each provinces eligibility requirements). In Alberta you must be present in the province for 183 days a year to not lose health care coverage. Medical insurance is a necessary supplement to provincial health care coverage, but costs can be prohibitive- be sure to shop, compare and budget for health care coverage. The

SPEC 687•AP

#100 chinook Place, downtown medicine hat

Snowbirds bound for the United States need to be aware of the “Substantial Presence Test”. If a Canadian stays in the U.S. for more than 183 days in a calendar year they are considered a “resident alien” and must file a U.S. personal tax return. If you stay in the U.S. for more than 31 days but less than 183 days in a calendar year you may meet the substantial presence test and have to file a U.S. tax return.

cost of health care outside of Canada can be astronomical don’t take unnecessary risks. Budget for health care. Implications for U.S. vacation property owners – Canadian owners who rent out their U.S. vacation property when they are not there are subject to a flat 30% tax in the U.S. on the rental income received before any expenses. The tenant must withhold the 30% and send this tax to the IRS directly. This means Canadian landlords do not have to file a U.S. personal income tax return. Any U.S. rental income earned must be reported on your Canadian tax return minus any expenses incurred relating to the property. If a Canadian dies while owning a U.S. property their estate could be subject to U.S. estate taxes. Unlike Canada where there is no estate tax, many other countries levy an estate tax. However, don’t let this deter you. Check with your tax advisor, one who specializes in U.S. taxes and determine what your opportunities are.

Canadians living outside Canada who have severed their residential ties with Canada will be considered a non-resident for tax purposes. (There are some exceptions, if you keep a principal residence but rent it out temporarily, if your spouse and children remain in the country and if you have personal property, furniture, bank accounts, credit cards, health care, you may still be considered a resident). You can get a ruling from Revenue Canada on a case- bycase basis determining if you qualify for non-resident status. Canadians can still receive their Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), and Old Age Security (OAS) benefits if they are living in a different country, however, certain conditions must be met.

Permanent Retirement Outside of Canada

Before leaving Canada permanently, consult extensively with a qualified team of professionals, both here in Canada and in the “new” country. We need “eyes-wideopen” to all tax, legal & estate implications. Get ALL the facts, and plan accordingly.

Some Canadians may consider retiring permanently in another country, perhaps for lower taxation or other reasons. Be double clear on the implications of this major decision.

Lets Connect:

Citizenship: To permanently spend retirement in a different country, you must establish a legal status within that country either permanent residency or citizenship. If you are leaving Canada permanently you will lose your health care privileges, unless you return to Canada and resume residency for the required period of time in order to reinstate health care. The requirements for each province may vary.

Dan Hein, BRE Investment Advisor BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. 606 2nd St SE Medicine Hat, AB T1A 0C9

403-528-6771 Dan.Hein@nbpcd.com www.danhein.ca

BMO Wealth Management is the brand name for a business group consisting of Bank of Montreal and certain of its affiliates, including BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., in providing wealth management products and services. “BMO (M-bar Roundel symbol)” is a registered trade-mark of Bank of Montreal, used under licence. “Nesbitt Burns” is a registered trade-mark of BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of Montreal. If you are already a client of BMO Nesbitt Burns, please contact your Investment Advisor for more information. The comments included in this publication are not intended to be a definitive analysis of tax applicability or trust and estate law. The comments contained herein are general in nature and professional advice regarding an individual’s particular tax position should be obtained in respect of any person’s specific circumstances.

BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. is a Member – Canadian Investor Protection Fund. Member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.

WHY BUY YOUR NEXT PREOWNED VEHICLE FROM

Sun Country Nissan? Buy Smart. Own Confidence. History Reports We put our Money where our Mouth is

Full Reconditioning Reports

apply online today at www.suncountrynissan.ca 14

"The Most Controversial Man of 2015"... of 2016?

“A dream doesn’t come to reality through magic; it takes sweat, determination and hard work.” Colin Powell

Scott Cowan Donald Trump may go down in history as the most controversial man in 2015. Why is he so polarizing? The simple answer is, he squarely confronts the political correctness of the liberal elites. These self proclaimed experts in western society. For decades the leftists have incrementally and systematically chipped away at the foundation of America. Most Republicans are deathly afraid to speak out in fear of being branded racist, intolerant, or labeled “phobic” something. Trump sets an example for all Republican politicians. He never bows to the liberal media, preferring to chastise and even confront their obvious bias. The liberal icons berate, marginalize, and dismiss Trump. The only problem is he refuses to go away, apologize, or bend to the pressure of their religious fervor. Yes, to a liberal their doctrine of tolerance, inclusion, and fairness is nothing but a cultist religion. If anyone challenges the validity or questions the motives of liberal dogma, there is outrage on the left. Facts don’t matter, history does not matter, only subservience to the cause matters. Enter Donald Trump, a self made multi-billionaire. He doesn’t need the financial super packs that obligate establishment politicians. He speaks the words that a majority of thinking Americans whisper over coffee, and while watching the evening news. Trump reminds the public when men were men, and America stood proud. He exploded on to the airwaves by saying, “Build a wall, and make Mexico pay.” He said illegals were drug dealers, rapists, murderers, and have their children as anchor babies. The press went wild, why? Mexico was sending their worst people across in mass. When the border is a sieve, drug dealers do immigrate to where they can practice their illicit trade. The unfortunate truth is that the Central American culture is rampant with child molestation. It is also true that Border States are experiencing dramatic rises in such crimes, perpetrated by

illegal immigrants. Women are coming to America so their babies are born, “American.” Not every illegals a criminal, but they entered criminally. A high numbers of those tens of thousands walking across the border were very bad, and are now securely embedded in the USA. Democrats won’t even use the term, “Illegal immigrant.” We owe people from other countries no rights in Canada or the USA. We’re not guilty for sealing our borders to no more than our social systems can handle. But Trump was not supposed to speak the truth. Democrats desire low class, illiterate people. They’ll vote to keep welfare flowing. Illegal immigration and naturalization is simply the importation of new democrat voters. The problem is Trump keeps shining the light of truth all over the Washington elite of both parties. Critics grossly distort his person and abilities. Canada just elected Prime Minister, an out of work substitute drama teacher whose resume includes such high lights as, “rafting instructor.” But the elites declare Trump unqualified. If he is not, then who is, and what is the criteria? There’re over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If only 2% are radicalized, that means 320 million soldiers are ready to kill us for reading these words. Polling indicates over 65% believe in Sharia Law. Both Canada and the USA are bringing in refugees from Syria. The most common place to find radicalized soldiers. So Trump says, “We need to halt immigration until we can figure out who is a refugee, and who is a bad guy. “ The press and the elite scream racism, and level hate charges. Unfortunately none of that “same old,” sticks. Why? Because when confronted with political correctness Trump doubles down. He expresses what many American’s fear, that we’re being infiltrated. Considering immigrant rioting in Europe and the rape epidemic. Speaking out isn’t hateful, it is common sense patriotism. The elite claim Trump hates women. This has Continued on page22

Challenge Yourself and Make your own Transformation for the New Year -Looking for an extra income? -Need something to carry you through a layoff? -Can you spend a few minutes a day on your computer???

DIESEL Popeye’s Supplements Medicine Hat 105, 1501 Dunmore Rd. S.E. Medicine Hat, Alberta Tel: (403) 580-2728

-With very little effort, I secured an extra $1000.00 a month. Others do much better.

Because It’s Time

Check out the link below:

http://www.myadvertisingpays. com/cp1.asp?SponsId=189712

Popeye’s Supplements Lethbridge 1289 - 3rd Ave. South Lethbridge, Alberta Tel: (403) 381-8566

Continued from page 11

progressive than the 1867 model. By invoking a “get with the times” tone, Prime Minister Trudeau has invited the suggestion that it is anything but timely to appoint a Cabinet in a subjective manner at all. Many modern feminists are critical of the “affirmative action” approach to gender parity; pointing out that the act of showing partiality to a woman, based on her gender, is still discrimination, albeit favourable. Likewise, if we envision Canada as truly multicultural, devoid of racial, religious, regional, linguistic, and sexual discrimination, can we not also envision a process whereby the highest political offices in the land aren’t filled by patently discriminating? If this appears to be overstating things, consider the dictionary definition of discrimination: “The treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in

favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.” I rest my case. Perhaps it’s time for our Prime Ministers to demonstrate some faith in the people of Canada, and the electoral process. We nominate our various parties candidates, and elect our representatives from among them to sit in the House of Commons as MPs. The makeup of the House is the result of the will of the people, and as such, completely and democratically representative of Canada. This should give our Prime Minister all the license he or she needs to select from that body the best and brightest available to head up the various Ministries of Government, and show some faith in the institution of Parliament

to satisfy the other subjectives. If that isn’t deemed sufficient, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint Senators. This may be the means by which new life can be breathed into the stale and oft-maligned Upper House; to ensure Canadian Society is reflected in Government by appointment of Senators who represent the diversity of Canada. Isn’t this just as discriminatory? Probably. However, this would satisfy those who would raise concerns that a particular sector of Canadian society may not have their interests well advocated for, while preserving the ideal of having merit based leadership at the core of our Government. Between a democratically elected House, and a judiciously appointed Senate, Canadian society should be adequately enough represented to allow for a meritoriously chosen Cabinet. Why? Because it’s time. Brent Dunstan

‘A New solution to an OLD problem’

What is the OsteoStrength Clinic?

No Bones About It - It Works

Is it safe?

**“My Doctor said there was nothing that could REVERSE MY OSTEOPOROSIS. I proved him wrong I had a bone density test done one year after treatment and I had quite an INCREASE in my bone density” (AF, 61, Medicine Hat) ***

“I am very happy with my progress – I feel STRONG, have NO PAIN and have noticed a huge difference in my BALANCE & POSTURE” (BZ, 67, Medicine Hat) *** “I lost 60lbs and attribute it to the OsteoStrength Clinic – I am now PAIN FREE, FULL OF ENERGY and look forward to coming each week”

“Before the OsteoStrength Clinic I could barely walk a block I can now walk for over an hour and a half” (DD, 72, Medicine Hat) ***

“I feel like I did 10 years ago!” (LO, 63, Medicine Hat) ***

“I want to thank the OsteoStrength Clinic for being here in Medicine Hat – I can bend my knees for the first time in years – I even ran to the car” (DC, 53, Medicine Hat) ***

“Coming to the OsteoStrength Clinic is the best thing – my wife and I could have done for ourselves” (RA, 66, Medicine Hat) **Note: This client had a bone density increase of over 12%. Not only did she gain back what she lost but her bones are also denser than they were in 2009

Call us at 403- 548-0000 to book a FREE consultation with one of our trained experts

www.OsteoStrength.com 18 20

"The Most Controversial Man of 2015"... of 2016? Continued from page16

come to mean disagreeing with Hillary Clinton. President Nixon erased eighteen minutes of tape, and was impeached. Clinton erased over 50,000 emails, many of which have been identified as top secret. As of this writing, no charges filed. Can anybody explain why Liberals hate Trump, but embrace Muslim’s who beat women, execute gays, and practice honor killings of their children? Democrats despise Trump because he calls them out, annihilating their power of political correctness. If successful, this threatens their monopoly hold on the American psyche. The country is listening, and Democrats are petrified. After Trump secures the nomination, he will eat Clinton alive in the election. I can’t wait to hear them debate. This is why you hear Leftist Republicans the likes of Jeb Bush saying, a Trump nomination means Clinton will win. Why? They are petrified of a Trump presidency. He exposes hypocritical politicians. The establishment Republicans have been wrong about him all along. Trump is a steam roller, who’ll win bigger than Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. He’ll set back leftist agenda decades. Numerous celebrities sanctimoniously drone on, “If Trump wins I’m moving to Canada.” Interesting none of them say, I’m moving to Mexico. Why is that? Could it be once you leave the 5 star resorts in sunny Mexico you’re putting your life at risk? Could it be there is a crime and rape culture to fear? Real kidnapping threats, drug dealers to contend with and avoid, trash on the streets, fraudulent vendors? Personally, if Trump is elected I’d like to move to the USA! I’ll cheer a President who’ll run the country like a business, the multi-trillion dollar business it’s been all along. Someone, who because of his personal multi-billion dollar acheivements... is perfect to administrate such a business. Name another politician who can boast such experience? For once a man who tells the special interests, I don’t need your money. A politician who can’t be bought. What a novel idea. A President who’ll do the right thing for the people. Contrast that with the Clinton Foundation, accepting hundreds of millions from not only Americans, but numerous foreign governments. Obama ran on, “Hope and Change.” Now America just hopes it changes. Although Mr. Trump declined an interview with Spotlight Magazine, he was quoted as saying he loves Canada. Contrary to those who envy him, resenting his success, and are intimidated by his vast qualifications. I say, Donald Trump is akin to Paul Revere in a designer suit, is presidential, and a patriot.

Inside this Month’s Issue “Diana Couture” 24