Is Your Home the Missing Piece of Your Retirement Plan?

By Bruno Scanga When people think about retirement planning, they usually focus on CPP, OAS, pensions, RRSPs, and TFSAs. Those all matter. But one asset many Canadians overlook entirely is the wealth and equity in their home. For years, homeowners work hard to pay down their mortgage and build equity. Then retirement arrives, and this important asset gets overlooked in their financial planning. That mindset doesn't always fit today's reality. Retirement looks very different than it did a generation ago. People are living longer, costs have increased while pensions have decreased, and many retirees are providing financial support to adult children and grandchildren. I see the result in my office regularly. A couple sits across from me with a paid-off house and a solid RRSP, yet they're nervous about spending. On paper, they're comfortable. In practice, they're watching every dollar. So how do you put that wealth to work? For some people, it means downsizing, though moving is costly and often means leaving a home and community they love. For others, it's a home equity line of credit (HELOC), which means qualifying and making regular payments, or drawing from investments, which may trigger tax implications. A growing number of homeowners are also asking about reverse mortgages, and I'm having more of those conversations with clients than I used to. More and more, reverse mortgages are becoming part of holistic financial planning in retirement. A reverse mortgage lets homeowners 55 and older access a portion of their home's value without selling. With no regular mortgage payments and tax-free funds, it can take real pressure off monthly cashflow. You stay in your home, you keep the title, and the loan is repaid when you move, sell or pass away. You don't have to take the full amount upfront. Once you've qualified, you can take only what you need today and leave the rest available for later, without having to requalify. You can also draw monthly to supplement your income. Many Canadians are surprised to learn that reverse mortgages have been available in Canada for decades. In fact, the Reverse Mortgage have been around for 40 years. Like any option, a reverse mortgage isn't right for everyone. Interest rates are typically higher than on a conventional mortgage and, with no monthly payments, the balance grows over time, which reduces the equity left in your home. That said, you'll never owe more than your home's fair market value, as long as you keep up with property taxes, home insurance, and maintenance. The point isn't that any one option is the answer. It's that retirement planning should consider every asset available to you. Your investments, pension and government benefits all do plenty of heavy lifting. But if a large portion of your wealth is tied up in your home, it deserves a place in the conversation too.

Nineteen Beds

According to Hospice Whitby, Durham Region has 19 residential hospice beds. Not nineteen hospices. Nineteen beds. When Neil Orr’s wife, Heather, spent her final week at Oak Ridges Hospice in Port Perry, Neil stayed there too. “I lived there for a week,” he told The Uxbridge Cosmos. “We had a toy box there for the grandkids.” Before arriving, he’d imagined an old house pressed into service as a hospice, with bad food and low standards. What he found changed his mind. Most of us would probably picture a hospital bed. Neil remembered a toy box. A residential hospice provides nursing care around the clock, with private rooms and space for relatives to stay overnight. For Durham residents with a valid Ontario health card, the care is free. Palliative care is also available in hospitals and at home, but a hospice residence offers another setting. One where, as Neil discovered, the grandchildren can still be grandchildren. The Canadian Cancer Society cites a benchmark of seven hospice beds for every 100,000 people. Applied to Durham’s population of more than 800,000, that works out to roughly 57. We have 19. A benchmark isn’t a waiting list. It doesn’t tell us how many families sought a bed and couldn’t get one. But the gap is difficult to ignore. There has been progress, and considerable effort behind it. Oak Ridges opened in 2021, followed by Marigold Hospice in Newcastle in October 2025. Roger Anderson House in Whitby is still under construction, with 10 private rooms planned. Even when those rooms open, Durham will have only about half the benchmark. It is worth remembering that the first of these residences opened just five years ago. What I hadn’t appreciated was that building a hospice is only the beginning of the fundraising. Whitby says most of its construction costs must be raised in the community. In September, organizers were still looking ahead to the furniture and equipment they’d need, right down to recliners and laundry machines. Then there is the matter of keeping the lights on, the meals coming and the staff available. The province contributes to operating costs and has increased its support. Even so, Marigold says it must raise more than $700,000 every year. Its fundraising suggestions include bake sales, garage sales, barbecues and car washes. It’s the sort of list you might find at a school trying to pay for band uniforms. Except this is a place where people spend their final days. Some of those purchases are anything but ordinary. In November 2025, a Handbags for Hospice event in Whitby raised enough money to buy three cuddle beds. They’re specially designed so that someone nearing the end of life can lie beside a person they love. Nobody hands the family a bill for hospice care. But somebody may be selling cupcakes on a Saturday to help make it possible.

The Heart Has Its Reasons

The heart is a muscle that needs lifelong care and maintenance. But over the past few weeks, thanks to long weekends and extra time with family and friends, my heart and soul teamed up for a different kind of work out. Is it part of getting older? The time of year? I found myself flowing between a sweet memory that brought back true joy and an abundance of heart-clenching ruminations that a good life can so quickly be changed. What was the memory? The ruminations? What does it all mean? And to the point of this column, does it do one’s health any good to brood about matters of heart and soul? The memory was brought on suddenly by a dish of chocolate ice cream. It’s usually not my choice. I like vanilla with caramel. But this was excellent chocolate ice cream, and it made me swoon. I had a flashback to a time when I was about four or five years old and someone gave me my first chocolate ice cream cone at a beachside stand. I swooned then too. “What kind of heaven is this, right here in my hand, on a wafer cone?” For the past few days, I’ve been asking others, expectantly, hoping for kindred souls, “Do you remember the first time you tasted chocolate ice cream?” Few seem to share the memory. But it is wonderful when eyes light up and the stories come out. At the same time, the ruminations have been plentiful. The world is a mess. It’s been a mess for a long time. And there’s little hope the scene will be cleaned up. It’s depressing. Life can be good. But in the face of disasters, or when living them firsthand, life can be awful. It can jolt from good to bad in an instant, or it can drift slowly that way. How taxing on the soul when one perceives nefarious forces even in the case of a bad life getting better. Pure virtue is so uncommon. Is there any good to come of philosophizing? I’m asking this in the sense of one’s own health and wellbeing. Or, are we better off sticking to the easy joy of a happy memory?. Psychologists have been studying this question, and the evidence offers an encouraging distinction. A review in Current Opinion in Psychology found that nostalgia — reflecting on personally meaningful memories, often involving people we care about — can promote psychological wellbeing. By contrast, research on rumination, the repetitive revisiting of negative thoughts, links it to a range of mental health difficulties. The difference is not between thinking about happy things and thinking about unhappy ones. It is between reflection that helps us understand our lives and thinking that leaves us trapped in the same distress. The practical advice? Enjoy the memories when they come. Tell the story, ask someone about theirs, and savour the details. When darker thoughts demand attention, give them a fair hearing, particularly if there is something to learn or something to be done. But recognize when thinking has stopped being useful. We cannot make the world virtuous by worrying about its shortcomings, any more than we can make life predictable by anticipating its cruelties. The wisest thing we can do for our health is to put down the burden of trying to make sense of everything — and enjoy the chocolate ice cream. Of course, the heart muscle needs looking after. But if a spoonful of chocolate ice cream also makes the heart and soul sing, I see no reason not to enjoy it that way.

Horse Sense

By Wayne and Tamara I have a question about ending a friendship. I would like to feel I did what I had to do, that I was not just being too sensitive. The woman in question was a friend of mine for some eight years. We shared a passionate love of horses; it was our common interest. In addition, during our friendship we both had troublesome relationships and helped each other through the worst times. Some months ago, however, I had photos taken of my horse and I. When I showed them to my friend, she accused me of being vain and basically said my horse was ugly. I stopped talking to her. I was horribly hurt. After several months, I made contact and slowly we resurrected our friendship. Well, just this week I bought a new horse, a 1-year-old Arabian. He is not the most expensive or impressive of his breed, but he is undeniably beautiful. When I showed his photos to my friend, she immediately criticized his appearance and asked if he was even purebred. I said, Of course, I have paperwork to prove it. My friend was openly hostile. She ended an email saying my new horse was ugly. She said she did not want to have to say that, that she was initially being polite for the sake of our friendship, but I "forced" her to say it. Her final word was an angry acknowledgment that she is not allowed to use the word “ugly.” When I read that, it seemed to me she is more interested in being right than in keeping me as a friend and saying a real sorry. This is all the more hurtful considering she made it sound like she was the victim. Maggie Maggie, this woman used her spurs on you, and you bucked her off. Bravo! You shouldn’t feel bad. She’s intentionally cruel. Her remarks were barbed and meant to hurt. Giving her a second chance allowed her to revictimize you. That’s irritating, but you don’t need her to acknowledge that you are right. You just need to end this. People like her are always right, especially when they are wrong. Wayne & Tamara Semiannual Review My husband and I have been married 12 years and have two kids. He has been asking for a divorce every six months since we got married. He says I don't treat him right, but I cook, clean, work part-time and we are together at least two times a week. Four months ago he again asked for a divorce and went to Reno to get his head straight. From phone records I found out he was having an emotional affair with a girl he went to school with, who lives in Reno. Then I learned he’s been in contact with another ex--you know, the one who got away, the true love of his life. Later I found a message to a third girl that said, like a fine wine you grow more beautiful each day. He says I am blowing this all out of proportion. He yells at me and calls me every name in the book when we discuss it. He even spit in my face. Am I supposed to forget this all happened because now he wants to work this out? Dani Dani, grain merchants use long probes to collect samples from different levels of a rail car or truck. They do this to measure the quality of the grain and to check for toxins. Your husband has collected samples of your marriage every six months and found it rotten. That you haven’t gone to a counselor, women’s center, or divorce lawyer after his threats shows how much his “sampling” has damaged you. You are too good for him and he knows it, so he beats you down. Contact one or more of the three sources we mentioned to escape this rotting relationship.

“Free Palestine!” When Pop Stars Forget Why Their Fans Bought a Ticket

By Nick Kossovan Concerts are tribal gatherings centred on music, not political rallies or protests. When tens of thousands crowd into a venue like MetLife Stadium, they're paying hard-earned money to hear their favourite artists perform, not to be told how to think and feel. Live concerts have an innate tendency to bring strangers together, united by a shared love of the artist. The person swaying and dancing beside you might hold polar-opposite political views. Yet for two hours, you're aligned and bound by shared songs. Additionally, concerts offer a temporary suspension of reality, providing a respite from whatever geopolitical friction is currently unfolding. The last thing concertgoers want is for the artist they came to see to forget why they're performing and to deliver a divisive political statement to an audience peacefully united by their music. When Macklemore took the stage at New Jersey's MetLife Stadium on September 4th, during Ed Sheeran's tour, he broke the unwritten rule that concerts should be politically free zones with a pro-Palestinian speech. Addressing the approximately 80,000 concertgoers, he declared: "One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages in stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: Free Palestine. I said, Free Palestine!" Macklemore's words triggered an immediate chain reaction: he was quickly removed from upcoming tour dates. Supporting acts Finneas, Lukas Graham, and Aaron Rowe, along with Ed's band Beoga, also left in solidarity, disrupting a major global pop tour. Uproar followed, predictably causing a rift among those who publicly engaged in virtue-signalling and manufactured outrage. Despite the polarization, both sides refuse to acknowledge a truth: performance artists—musicians and actors, though comedians certainly get a pass—are fundamentally in the business of entertainment, not government policymaking and free speech always comes with responsibilities and consequences. Admittedly, musicians have used their concerts to make polarizing political statements—such as Roger Waters flashing anti-war slogans or Madonna, whose sense of public relations is unapologetically provocative, hanging from a mirrored crucifix wearing a crown of thorns to deliver a staged sermon during her highly controversial 2006 Confessions Tour. However, a glaring difference exists between a headliner risking their own tour capital and an opening act hijacking a shared, multi-artist stage. Treating a stadium tour like a personal soapbox violates a basic professional boundary. When you're a guest on someone else's bill, using concertgoers to promote your personal political views isn't bravery; it's parasitic hijacking. There's a staggering absurdity in treating celebrities, as many do, as moral sages and philosophers, as if private jets, security details, and multi-million-dollar paychecks give them a perspective on the world that a fan singing along in row thirty-four doesn't have. Looking to recording artists, whose livelihoods depend on mass commercial appeal, to validate what's right and wrong in the world is utter lunacy. Conversely, when an artist delivers partisan or geopolitical rallying cries on a stage provided by promoters and set up in venues rented from billionaire owners, they commit a fundamental error in professional judgment: mistaking a commercial transaction they've contractually agreed to for a public forum. While concerts are indeed kumbaya tribal gatherings, they are also, more so, commercial enterprises governed by capitalist realities and contractual obligations. When Macklemore used his time on stage to wade into one of the most volatile geopolitical conflicts on earth, he didn't offer a nuanced critique of foreign policy; he breached the social contract implied by the ticket stub. Fans paid to hear music, not to serve as a captive audience for an unvetted lecture. Herein lies the backlash's hypocrisy. Critics love to accuse "censorship" whenever the consequences of free speech catch up to celebrities who use the stage as a personal soapbox, conveniently misunderstanding what free speech actually means. Free speech protects citizens from government tyranny; it doesn't guarantee a megaphone in a privately leased stadium. Ed Sheeran didn't invent the inescapable truth that, when push comes to shove, a massive entertainment infrastructure that exists to make a profit will always protect its bottom line over an artist's political activism. The artists who walked out in solidarity with Macklemore likely have the self-righteous ego and the financial privilege to believe they're standing up for artistic freedom, when in actuality they're indulging in a luxurious worldview. They acted as if stadium concerts take place in a vacuum, detached from the promoters, venue owners, roadies and security teams who share the same objective: to ensure a safe and profitable event. If civil, uncompromised political discourse is truly the goal, we should seek out media pundits, public intellectuals, and advocates who have dedicated their lives to drawing attention to human rights crises or legislative reforms, rather than pop stars whose livelihoods depend on mass consumption, for robust debates that shape our thoughts, beliefs, and values. Art, in all its forms, is at its best when it transcends what divides us and offers a rare, agnostic sanctuary where people from diverse backgrounds and with differing beliefs, values, and ideologies can stand shoulder to shoulder in shared joy. But when multi-millionaire artists hijack that sanctuary to peddle their own unvetted geopolitics, they don't raise awareness, contribute to culture, or motivate action. Instead, they undermine the unity their art can create and turn the one place we can take a break from the stress and anxiety of everyday life into yet another exhausting battleground.

SURVEILLANCE ON WHEELS: WHAT IS THE REAL PRICE?

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               You shut the car door and think you have some privacy. Maybe you talk about money, work or something your family is going through. But what is your vehicle recording? And who gets to see it? Norwegian soldiers had reason to ask that question. During a military exercise in September, soldiers discovered that cars rented through Hertz had stored video of their activities. At least two were Chinese Deepal vehicles, according to Forsvarets Forum, citing Dagens Næringsliv. The footage reportedly showed soldiers getting in and out, their movements and security codes used at gates and doors. Soldiers deleted the recordings but could not confirm whether copies existed elsewhere. That does not prove China received anything. It does not prove a spy operation. What it shows is troubling enough: sensitive information was recorded, and the people involved did not know where it might end up. Now bring that question home. Canada established an initial annual import quota of 49,000 electric vehicles from China, with the arrangement taking effect in March 2026. Ottawa, what written guarantees will Canadians get that their vehicles will not secretly record them or share their private information? And why stop with Chinese makers? Demand the same guarantees from General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, the Big Three. In January 2026, the American Federal Trade Commission finalized a settlement over allegations that GM and OnStar collected, used and sold drivers’ location and driving data without proper notice and consent. The order required stronger controls and placed limits on sharing. That case does not establish wrongdoing by Ford or Stellantis. Still, trust needs more than a familiar badge. Then there is the other hand reaching into the driver’s pocket: subscriptions. Some charges are already here. GMC Canada advertises OnStar Connect at $9.99 a month plus tax for access to selected connected apps. Ford Canada offers a connectivity package covering features such as streaming and navigation, with separate subscriptions required for streaming services. Plans and features vary by vehicle. Be clear about what that means. Ordinary AM and FM radio is not the same as paid streaming. OnStar says drivers can still use AM and FM without its connected service plan. There is no basis here to claim every maker will charge for ordinary radio. But how many monthly bills will follow us into the driver’s seat? You buy the vehicle. Then you keep paying to use certain connected features. How much of the dashboard will eventually depend on another payment? That is a fair question before anyone signs. Chinese brands may attract buyers by offering more features for less money. A family struggling with bills could find that hard to refuse. Nobody should blame them. But a lower price deserves the same hard questions as a higher one. What information does the car collect? Can you refuse? What stops working if you do? Who can access your travel history? Can the terms change after you buy? Cheap does not prove spying. Expensive does not buy privacy. Canada’s privacy commissioner has warned that connected vehicle privacy risks reach beyond any single country. So require plain written promises, independent checks and real penalties. Make companies explain recording, sharing, storage and deletion before the sale. Require a clear list of future subscription costs. No government can promise perfect security. It can demand proof that safeguards work. The price on the windshield tells us what it costs to take the car home. It should not take years to discover what else we gave away.

Newly elected Municipal Councils : Do Your Homework on Homelessness

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support To every newly elected mayor and councillor across Durham Region: congratulations on earning the trust of your community. Now comes the hard work; and few issues call for more careful attention, courage and cooperation than homelessness and the need for affordable, supportive housing. Before decisions are made about budgets, land, services or development, take time to understand what homelessness looks like in your municipality and across the region. Meet with people who have experienced it. Speak with outreach workers, housing providers, shelters, food programs, health professionals, Indigenous organizations, community groups and local businesses. Visit the services residents rely on. Read the plans and reports already on the table, and ask what is missing. Do not assume that homelessness is limited to one neighbourhood, one kind of person or one visible street corner. People can lose housing because of rising costs, job loss, family violence, illness, disability, addiction or a shortage of suitable homes. Some are sleeping outside or in vehicles. Others are moving between couches, temporary shelters and unsafe situations. Every person’s circumstances are different, and effective responses need to reflect that. Municipal governments may not control every source of housing or homelessness funding, but local leadership still matters. Decisions about land use, planning, municipal property, community services and partnerships can help create more housing options and improve access to support. Mayors and councillors can bring partners together, raise local needs with the Region and provincial and federal governments, and press for the resources required to respond. That work requires more than approving a plan or announcing a target. Ask whether proposed homes are affordable to the people who need them. Find out what supports residents will need to remain housed. Consider options for people with different levels of need, including supportive and transitional housing. Look at whether existing buildings or underused land can serve the community. Track outcomes and listen to people receiving services so that policies can be adjusted when they are not working. There will be difficult conversations. Some residents may worry about safety, neighbourhood impacts or change. Those concerns deserve clear information and honest answers. But fear and stigma cannot be allowed to decide who gets a safe place to live. Good planning, appropriate supports, communication and accountability can address practical concerns while respecting the dignity and rights of people experiencing homelessness. The newly elected leaders of Durham Region have an opportunity to move beyond short-term reactions and work toward lasting solutions. That means learning the facts, working across municipal boundaries and being willing to defend sound housing initiatives when they face opposition. We need bold politicians: leaders who will stand up for vulnerable neighbours, explain why the work matters and keep going when the decisions are unpopular. Homelessness is not someone else’s problem. It is a community challenge, and our response will reflect the kind of community we choose to be. Do your homework, listen closely and lead with courage.

Japan, Canada and the Drug Crisis: Time For A Hard Line

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington When I travelled to Japan for the World Championships, I saw something that stayed with me long after the competition ended. Japan has people who experience homelessness, just as Canada does. But the visible street disorder and open drug use that have become familiar in too many Ontario communities were strikingly different from what I observed. That does not mean Japan has solved homelessness. Some people there lose their housing after layoffs, financial setbacks or family breakdown. Homelessness can be less visible, and a visitor cannot judge an entire country from a short trip. Still, the contrast raises an uncomfortable question: why have we accepted the scale of public drug use and street disorder we now see at home? Canada has two overlapping crises, and we need the courage to distinguish them. One is the affordability crisis. Housing costs, rent, groceries, fuel and economic insecurity can push working people and families to the edge. People who cannot afford a home need practical housing solutions, not criminalization. The other is a devastating addiction and illegal-drug crisis. Families are losing loved ones. Businesses and residents are dealing with disorder. Emergency workers are repeatedly called to the same scenes. And too often, public debate treats any demand for enforcement as a lack of compassion. Japan takes a much tougher legal and cultural stance toward illicit drugs. Canada has chosen a different mix of harm reduction, treatment and enforcement, including supervised consumption services and, in some settings, prescribed alternatives to toxic street drugs. Supporters argue these measures prevent overdoses and connect people with care. Critics question whether the overall approach has done enough to restore safety and help people recover. My position is clear: Canada needs a hard line against the illegal drug trade and against open drug use that makes public spaces unsafe. Dealers and traffickers should face serious consequences. Police need clear authority and resources to enforce the law. Courts need meaningful options that protect the public. I favour zero tolerance for illegal drugs in public spaces. But simply putting every person caught possessing or using drugs in jail, without assessment or treatment, is unlikely to end addiction. Where addiction drives repeated offences, the justice system should be able to mandate closely supervised treatment and recovery programs, with custody where the law and circumstances justify it. Accountability and rehabilitation must work together. We also cannot pretend that enforcement alone will lower rents, build housing or create stable employment. Governments must tackle the affordability crisis with the same urgency they bring to public safety. A person displaced by the cost of living should not be lumped together with an organized drug dealer. What I saw in Japan reminded me that the conditions we have come to accept in Canadian communities are not inevitable. We can insist on cleaner, safer streets. We can demand stronger action against dangerous illegal drugs. And we can help people get back on their feet instead of leaving them to deteriorate in plain sight. Compassion without accountability is not a complete policy. Neither is punishment without a path to recovery. Canada needs both—and it needs the political will to act.

Christmas Is Just Around the Corner: Is Your Store Ready?

By Tom Reimer Christmas is less than two months away, and for retailers, that means the busiest and most profitable shopping season of the year is quickly approaching. Storefronts will soon be decorated, display cases filled with high-value merchandise, and customers flooding through the doors searching for the perfect gift. But while retailers are preparing for increased sales, criminals are preparing too. Across North America, organized flash mobs and smash-and-grab crews have become an increasing concern for businesses. These groups often strike with little warning, rushing into stores in coordinated attacks designed to overwhelm staff and security personnel. Their target is simple: valuable merchandise displayed behind glass cases. The attack usually takes less than a minute. A group enters the store, hammers are raised, display cases are smashed, and thousands of dollars' worth of merchandise disappears in seconds. By the time police arrive, the thieves are often long gone. Many shop owners assume it won't happen to them. Until it does. The reality is that criminals are looking for easy opportunities, especially during the holiday season when display cases are stocked with expensive inventory and stores are bustling with customers. Traditional glass cases may look secure, but when faced with repeated hammer strikes, they can quickly become the weakest link in your security strategy. Fortunately, there is a proven solution. Polycarbonate security glazing is engineered to withstand the kind of impacts that would shatter ordinary glass. Instead of breaking apart under repeated strikes, polycarbonate absorbs and disperses the force, creating a powerful barrier between criminals and your merchandise. Consider a typical smash-and-grab scenario. A group of thieves enters a jewelry store expecting to smash their way into a display case within seconds. The first hammer strike lands. Nothing. A second strike follows. Still nothing. The attackers quickly realize they cannot gain access to the merchandise. Valuable seconds are lost. Employees have time to react. Security cameras capture evidence. Police response becomes a real threat. The criminals leave exactly as they arrived. Empty-handed. That's the power of delay and deterrence. Most thieves are looking for quick access and an easy escape. When confronted with a display case protected by polycarbonate, the risk increases and the reward decreases. Often, that alone is enough to stop an attack before it succeeds. The key is not waiting until after an incident occurs. The most successful retailers are taking action now, before the holiday rush begins. They understand that security is not something to think about after inventory arrives and shoppers fill the aisles. It is something that should be in place beforehand. This Christmas season, don't leave your business vulnerable to smash-and-grab thieves. Protect your merchandise, protect your employees, and protect the profits you've worked all year to earn. Christmas is coming. Criminals are preparing. The question is: are you? Call to Action Now is the time to upgrade your display case security with polycarbonate protection. Don't wait until after a break-in to discover the weakness of ordinary glass. Contact Metalex today to learn how polycarbonate security solutions can help protect your merchandise and stop smash-and-grab attacks before they start.

Well It is Over!!!

By Joe Ingino By now we know the results of the recent municipal election. Unfortunately that by the time we went to publish. We could not report on results. I am sure we will next week with some interesting commentaries. One thing for sure is that we must give recognition to all the people that put their name forward. It takes guts and determination. As a campaign coach and the only professional municipal critic. I can tell you first hand that many ran on the fact that they had enough. Enough of how municipal governments across the region are managed. Everyone cries, transparency, accountability. Responsible spending. In reality many candidates have no clue. Cliche words that gets them elected. Sadly, we the people are the ones to face the reality that is our municipal government. Personally, I do not think that good intentions should be part of job description. I think education and life experience should be at the top of the list. How are we to expect to make million if not billion dollar decision when those faced with that decision have never even come close to managing such portfolio. Many have not had jobs that would even remotely have them face the many administrative challenges faced with being a councillor. Good intentions are great but do not make the grade in my opinion. I have always advocated for less government. Get rid of the municipal government. They in modern times serve no real purpose. Across Durham for example. Many elected do not return phone calls. Many elected fail to truly perform their duty to address the publics best interest. Then why do we the taxpayers are forced to pay for municipal elect salaries that do not benefit taxpayers? We in many cases have no voice and we are always made to carry the cost of their decisions. This is wrong. Last week I introduced the thought of just having a regional government. More like administrators. Administrators that would feed all data into a server and Artificial Intelligent software would give the best and worst case scenarios. No more, expensive consultants. No more of the bad decisions. No more collusional type voting on possible kick back projects. It would be logical analysis based on business standards and academics. I did get many calls. Letters, of people attempting to spread fear... on how dare I suggest such thing. A.I is dangerous. A.I. will rule the world mentality. Personally those that think like that should educate themselves on the actual technology. Second. Technology is there to make life simpler. In reality there is no real intelligence. Only faster processing of information. Light speed cross referencing and mathematically give probability on any given event based on facts and pure logic. The human mind can’t be that logical as bias and prejudices are part of the human DNA. We need to move towards education. For the old and the young. The young think they know it all and they don’t and the old have given up on getting to know anything due to it’s perceived complexity. We call it Artificial Intelligence due to the fact that the machine can process information faster than the human mind. That is can analyze based on theory, standards and raw logic. In reality A.I. is nothing short of a sophisticated browser. We should not be fearing it. We should be embarrassing it. We are the human factor that created technology. Even though we may be made to look like fools and easily manipulated due to our intellectual limitations and ignorance. We are still in control. We will always be. As the systems and logic models come from the raw human existence and not from a machine. Congrats to all the 2026 Election winners.

We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports?

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports? In the Greater Toronto Area, few debates have been as intense—or as politically charged—as the future of farmland and green space around Rouge National Urban Park. For years, governments, environmental advocates and local communities have contested every hectare. The objective is clear: protect prime agricultural land, preserve ecosystems and manage the pressures of relentless urban expansion. Now, with the federal government stepping away from the long-proposed Pickering airport on lands held for decades by Transport Canada, the debate has entered a new phase. Thousands of acres of publicly owned farmland—adjacent to Rouge Park—are once again open to policy decisions. What should be done with them? It is an important question. But it is also an incomplete one. Because while we scrutinize every acre of public land in Rouge and Pickering, we continue to ignore a far larger reality—one that sits in plain sight across Durham Region and the eastern GTA. Golf courses. The land we choose not to see In Durham Region alone, golf courses occupy an estimated eight to 10 square kilometres of land. That is not a marginal figure. It is comparable to the footprint of Vancouver International Airport and not insignificant relative to Calgary International Airport or Edmonton International Airport. If a proposal were brought forward today to build an airport of that size on prime land in the GTA, it would trigger years of environmental assessments, legal challenges and public consultations. Yet that same scale of land already exists—distributed across golf courses—and it is almost entirely absent from serious policy discussion. This is not an oversight. It is a contradiction. A double standard The case for protecting Rouge Park and the Pickering lands rests on the value of Class 1 farmland—some of the most productive soil in Canada. This is a compelling argument. Food security, climate resilience and long-term economic sustainability depend on preserving such land. However, many golf courses sit on the same class of land. They are often former farms, converted over time into low-density recreational spaces serving a relatively small portion of the population. They occupy large, contiguous tracts—exactly the kind of land policymakers now argue is too valuable to lose. Yet, unlike farmland, golf courses are rarely subjected to the same scrutiny or policy pressure. If the principle is that prime land must be protected for the public good, it cannot be applied selectively. The Pickering paradox The cancellation of the Pickering airport proposal has created a rare opportunity. For decades, these federally owned lands were effectively frozen, reserved for infrastructure that never came. Now, they can be reimagined. Some argue they should remain entirely agricultural. Others propose integrating them into Rouge Park. Still others see an opportunity for carefully planned development to address the region’s housing shortage. All of these positions are valid. However, they also reveal a deeper inconsistency. We are prepared to debate publicly owned farmland hectare by hectare, while ignoring privately held land of comparable scale that could offer greater flexibility. It is as if one category of land is considered strategic, while another is simply beyond discussion. Housing and hard choices The GTA’s housing shortage is no longer theoretical. Governments are under pressure to increase supply, accelerate approvals and identify land for development. At the same time, there is strong resistance—rightly so—to building on protected farmland or environmentally sensitive areas. This is where the silence around golf courses becomes consequential. These lands are: · already cleared and serviced · often located near existing infrastructure · large enough to support meaningful development Even partial repurposing—10 to 20 per cent of golf course land—could support tens of thousands of housing units across the region, while preserving recreational use. This is not about eliminating golf. It is about acknowledging that land use must evolve. Why the silence persists The answer is straightforward. Golf courses are politically comfortable. They are established, familiar and rarely controversial. They do not generate the same level of opposition as new development or infrastructure projects. In short, they are easy to ignore. However, good policy is not about avoiding difficult conversations. It is about confronting them—especially when they involve trade-offs of this magnitude. A question of fairness Public lands like Rouge Park and the Pickering lands are subject to intense scrutiny because they are meant to serve the broader public interest. Their use must be justified in terms of environmental value, agricultural productivity or public access. Golf courses, by contrast, are typically: · privately owned or membership-based · accessible to a limited segment of the population · maintained with significant resource inputs This is not an argument against golf. It is an argument for consistency. If one category of land must justify its use in terms of public benefit, then all categories should be held to a comparable standard. Time for a coherent strategy The real issue is not golf courses—or even the Pickering lands. It is the absence of a coherent, region-wide land-use strategy. What we have instead is fragmentation: · intense scrutiny of public land · relative silence on large private land uses · reactive decisions driven by pressure rather than planning A serious strategy would apply consistent criteria across all land uses, evaluate them based on long-term public benefit and explore multi-use models that integrate recreation, housing and green space. The broader test The debate over Rouge Park and the Pickering lands is necessary. However, its credibility depends on its scope. If we are willing to scrutinize public farmland hectare by hectare, we must also be willing to examine other large-scale land uses with equal rigour. Because in a region where land is finite and growth is inevitable, what we choose not to debate matters just as much as what we do. And silence, in this case, is not neutrality. It is a policy choice.

Do you have excess wealth that you plan to pass on to the next two generations

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Do you want to take care of family financially and have you earmarked a portion of your investment portfolio for them. One issue that arises is that all non-registered investment growth is eroded by taxation. A tax-free permanent insurance policy can make sure your financial legacy extends all the way to your grandchildren. Have you considered a generational wealth transfer using permanent life insurance? You can take out an insurance policy on your adult children and investment growth in these plans is not subject to annual taxation, increasing your overall wealth. As the owner of the plan, you control money growing inside and can access it during your lifetime if needed Your Child When you purchase the plan and insure your child, they have an asset right away: life insurance protection. You can transfer the policy to them at any time tax free, however most people will transfer the policy at the time of their passing. This is done seamlessly by naming them as a contingent owner on the plan. As the new owner, they now have access to all the money that is growing inside the policy. This money can be used to help buy a home, supplement their retirement, or help fund their child’s education. Your Grandchild By naming them as the beneficiary on the policy, you have helped put a foundation in place they can build on. As the named beneficiary on the policy at the time of your adult child’s death (hopefully well into the future) your grandchild will receive the death benefit proceeds tax-free. This is a great way to help extend your financial legacy. You worked hard to earn it. Make sure your loved ones are the beneficiaries.

The House in the Picture

By Gary Payne, MBA Those four words appear at the end of the online description for an Oshawa bungalow listed for sale this fall. Nothing scandalous about that. The disclosure is right there, where anyone can read it. The photographs, of course, are where I tend to start. First the kitchen, then the yard, then a quick look at whether the living room could hold the furniture. Somewhere along the way you decide if the place is worth a Saturday drive. Apparently, I may also need to ask whether the living room exists. In 2024, a brick garage on a Toronto laneway appeared in a real estate listing with a rather ambitious future. The building at 194R Chatham Ave. was still a garage, but the photographs offered something else. Some showed a polished loft. Others pushed out walls to create new rooms or imagined a much larger building. The Globe and Mail reported that 15 of the listing’s 21 images were AI renderings. The renovation had taken place entirely inside a computer. The Globe reported that callers asked whether the garage was part of a much larger building. The agent removed those exterior renderings. A prospective buyer also complained to the Real Estate Council of Ontario, or RECO. The Globe did not report an outcome. But the agent hadn’t hidden what he was doing. The listing included a warning: “Please note that some photos depict conceptual ideas, not actual representations.” The technology made an unbuilt future look a good deal further along than it was.Real estate photography has always involved a little theatre. Someone arrives with furniture that fits perfectly. The towels are folded as though nobody has ever used them. I don’t object to any of this. Sellers want their homes to look good, and buyers know the family probably doesn’t live with fresh flowers on every table. But putting a nicer chair in a room is not quite the same as putting a room in a building. For most of my life, a photograph carried a fairly simple promise. You might be seeing the house from its one good angle, but somebody had pointed a camera at something. Now the camera might never have seen the room at all. Ontario already has rules about misleading real estate advertising. RECO told the Globe that enhanced images should be identified in a listing and that buyers should visit properties to check what they’re seeing. CREA and Realtor.ca don’t regulate AI use in listings themselves. That sounds reasonable. So does RECO’s advice to go and see the place. Walk through it. Open cupboards. Ask what that stain on the ceiling is. But you can’t visit every house. The pictures help decide which ones get a visit in the first place. The Oshawa bungalow isn’t the Toronto garage. Its listing says only that some photos were virtually staged, which doesn’t necessarily mean AI was involved. There is no reason to suspect anything improper. Still, a line at the bottom of a description has to compete with aphotograph that has already done its job. The actual building was a garage. The beautiful rooms were ideas. Only one of those things was for sale.

Is a Cute Dog Better Than an Ugly One?

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Cats are nice. I respect people who prefer cats. But I’m a dog person. Nothing triggers more reader mail than a column picking pet favorites. But being close to a dog, almost any dog, warms my soul. What a wonderful world it would be if people were as generous to humankind as most of us are to our beloved dogs. What is it about dogs that makes us love them so much? Of course, it’s their unwavering devotion to us. But there’s more. Dogs trigger what scientists call the "baby schema." The idea was first proposed by Nobel Prize-winning zoologist, Konrad Lorenz. He observed that certain features in human babies – large eyes, round faces, small noses, prominent foreheads, and chubby cheeks – cause an automatic response from us. We find these features cute. We also feel protective of them. The reaction appears to be hardwired into the human brain. Researchers have since discovered that the effect extends far beyond human babies. Puppies, kittens, teddy bears, and cartoon characters activate the same response. Studies using eye-tracking technology show that young children spend more time looking at faces with stronger baby-like features. Adults do the same. We are drawn toward them. This response helped our ancestors survive. Human babies are helpless for a long period of time. If adults were not irresistibly attracted to them, babies would not fare well. Evolution established the impetus. Big eyes and round faces stimulate attention, affection, and caregiving behaviour. But upon seeing a cute dog, I notice my happiness level rises too. Is there any science to that? After all, puppies require a lot of work. Studies show that appearance plays a major role in why people select particular breeds as pets. Cuteness and physical appearance rank among the strongest motives for acquiring a pet. People report feeling intense attachment to dogs with infant-like features. It’s an odd thing, but some studies find stronger emotional bonds with flat-faced breeds such as French Bulldogs, presumably because of that snub nose. However, long-term satisfaction depends less on appearance than on behaviour and compatibility. Research on dog-owner relationships found that personality fit, attachment style, trainability, and behaviour predict whether the relationship thrives. In other words, the dog that makes you happiest may not be the cutest dog in the park. It may be the dog that fits your life. This means ugly dogs can rest easy. People become happily devoted to all sorts of pooches. The mutt with one ear standing up and the other pointing sideways may not win a beauty contest, but to its owner, the goofy look can become utterly endearing. Once we form an attachment to a dog, our emotional response to its appearance becomes part of the bond. Their familiar faces – cute or ugly – become a reliable source of pleasure. Part of the evidence is in the veterinary bills. Some breeds that humans find cutest are also prone to serious health problems. Flat dog faces may be cute, but they can also make breathing difficult. It’s not a paradox that owners remain deeply attached to these dogs despite the veterinary bills. It’s proof of priorities. So, does picking a cuter dog lead to more happiness? Apparently not. Cuteness may open the door, but it does not sustain the relationship. It’s the years of loyalty, companionship, and shared routines that matter most. Keep in mind that dogs can have downsides for your health and happiness as well. Allergies, infections, injuries, and high costs. Before you surrender to those irresistible eyes, make sure you are ready for the responsibility. And now, here comes your mail!

Hometown Boy

By Wayne and Tamara Six weeks ago my daughter got engaged. My husband and I never got to know her fiancé well because she dated him while attending college in a different town. He seemed nice and she loved him, so we believed in our daughter’s judgment. Now I am not sure anymore. Here’s the thing. She will be graduating soon which is what brought on the proposal. They will be married at his church in the town where he grew up, a two hour drive from where we live. Since reception venues need to be close by, my oldest daughter, the bride-to-be, and I spent two weekends driving up to look at possible halls. After passing our information on to her fiancé, he decided we were looking at places that cost too much. He wanted to look for himself. He made appointments at two venues, a steakhouse and a country club. He told my daughter from day one she could have whatever she wanted as long as it was within the budget they agreed upon. When comparing the two places, my daughter and I decided the country club was a better choice for the money and the occasion, and it is within budget. But her fiancé set up a slide show of their wedding day and honeymoon showcasing only the steakhouse. He constantly talks about how are they going to afford the country club. If he wants her to have what she wants, why does he keep insisting the country club costs too much when the steakhouse costs more. This stress is getting the better of my daughter and myself. Traditionally this is the bride’s job, and her fiancé seems to be taking control and making the whole experience a nightmare. Dottie Dottie, boys don’t grow up dreaming of their wedding day. Girls do. So it might seem odd the groom is digging in his heels, but there is an obvious explanation. Somehow, perhaps because the bride does not have a church of her own, this has become the groom’s wedding. It will be in his town, in his church, with his friends. It needs to fit his people. Once the wedding became his, it needed to be done his way. At least that’s what he feels. He wants the venue to be correct for the people who will be there, and his mistake was telling your daughter she has a choice. Now she needs to ask him whose decision this is. If he says no to the country club, they can work from that point. They can discuss why each wants a different venue and whether their differences are greater than their love. Wayne & Tamara Reservations My boyfriend and I met his senior year in college--I'm still in school--and he didn't want to be tied down during his last college days. Now, two years later, things have changed. I was thrilled when he wanted to take things to the next level. Recently, however, I've been encountering a grass-is-greener mindset. I am surrounded by my single friends and our campus is definitely not conducive to serious relationships. What if I'm giving up the college experience only to have him dump me down the road for some hot chick in grad school. One night I let another boy kiss me. It was wrong, I know that. But that is as far as it went. I will work harder than ever before to be loyal and good to my boyfriend. But is this enough? Kaley Kaley, loyalty comes from the heart, and your heart is full of doubt. You gave us two excuses why you have a right not to be faithful: your boyfriend played the field his senior year in college and you fear he’ll dump you while he’s in grad school. Two excuses are two too many. Wayne & Tamara

Protect the Bay. Protect the Taxpayer. Show Us the Deal

Frenchman’s Bay is one of Pickering’s greatest natural treasures. It is part of our identity, our waterfront and our history. I want it protected. I want it preserved for future generations. And I support bringing the Bay into public ownership if the deal is responsible, transparent and in the best interests of the people of Pickering. But supporting the Bay does not require taxpayers to stop asking questions. In fact, when millions of public dollars and one of our community’s most important natural assets are involved, we should be asking more questions, not fewer. The City has announced that the Frenchman’s Bay acquisition has reached an important milestone and that the key parties are now in place to establish a funding agreement and long-term management model. It has also acknowledged that important work remains and that final agreements and arrangements are still being worked through. That matters. A press release is not a purchase-and-sale agreement. A headline is not a contract. And an announcement about everyone working together does not tell taxpayers exactly what they are ultimately agreeing to. On August 6, Council considered a confidential report concerning the acquisition of Frenchman’s Bay. When Council returned to open session, the public motion approved the confidential direction provided to staff. Five members voted in favour. I voted against. One member did not participate in the vote. The public can see the motion and the vote. What the public cannot see is what that confidential direction actually contained. And because those discussions took place in closed session, I am limited in what I can disclose. That puts me in an unusual position. I can tell residents that I have concerns. I can tell them that the details matter. But I cannot simply repeat confidential information to prove why I am asking the questions I am asking. That is exactly why the agreements themselves should be made public before taxpayers are irrevocably committed. Residents deserve straightforward answers. What exactly will the City of Pickering own? What will other governments, agencies or conservation organizations own or control?Who will manage the Bay? Who will be responsible for maintenance, environmental obligations, dredging, infrastructure and future capital costs? What restrictions or conditions will apply? What financial obligations could fall on Pickering taxpayers after the purchase? And when all of the agreements are read together, does the deal being signed match the deal residents believe they are getting? Those are not anti-environment questions. They are not anti-waterfront questions. They are basic due-diligence questions. I have seen enough municipal agreements during my time on Council to know that the headline rarely tells you everything you need to know. The real obligations are often found in the conditions, schedules, responsibilities, long-term commitments and fine print. That does not mean something improper is happening. It means responsible elected officials should read before they celebrate and verify before they commit taxpayers. And that is why I voted the way I did. My vote was not a vote against Frenchman’s Bay. It was a vote for knowing exactly what Pickering residents are signing up for. If I am elected Mayor, once disclosure can legally occur and before final closing where possible, I will push to make the purchase-and-sale agreement and related agreements available to the public, subject only to redactions genuinely required by law. Where something must remain confidential, residents should be told why. No political spin. No carefully selected pieces of the story. The documents. The obligations. The costs. The ownership. The complete picture. Because if this is truly an excellent deal for Pickering, transparency will not hurt it. Transparency will strengthen it. Let me be perfectly clear: I support protecting Frenchman’s Bay and bringing it into public ownership. What I will never support is asking taxpayers to write a blank cheque or accept a headline in place of the agreement. Protect the Bay — absolutely. But protect the taxpayer too. Before anyone celebrates, show taxpayers the agreements. Because the headline is one thing — the legal reality can be something very different. Frenchman’s Bay belongs at the heart of Pickering. And Pickering residents belong at the heart of the decision. It’s your money. It’s your waterfront. You have a right to know.

Hiring Is Ruled By 'Similar to Me' (And What You Can Do About It)

By Nick Kossovan You don't logically analyze why you immediately trust a stranger who shares your taste in music, nor do you deliberate over ordering your usual at a local diner. You aren't making logical choices; you're following evolutionary hardwiring. We instinctively embrace biases that draw us to people and groups we connect with effortlessly or that we believe are safe. Be honest: it's comforting when someone shares your generation, ethnicity, gender, political ideology, or love of golf. You instinctively interpret those shared traits as commonalities, not differences, that signal safety rather than threat. I don't know anyone who doesn't gravitate toward people they feel comfortable with. Seeking allies is basic human psychology; after all, we're tribal by nature. Nevertheless, let's acknowledge a collective hypocrisy: the moment a hiring manager's alleged bias conflicts with a job seeker's self-interest, the job seeker makes unsubstantiated claims that “isms" are preventing them from being hired. This reaction is naive. HR rhetoric wants job seekers to believe that recruiters and hiring managers operate like objective evaluation algorithms, but that's fiction. As human beings, they're inherently biased and emotional, and they hire largely based on affinity. Most hiring decisions don't hinge on a rigorous skills assessment; they're driven by the subconscious "similar-to-me" effect. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman nailed it: "We are not only rational animals; we are also rationalizing animals." We don't decide logically; we rationalize our gut instincts afterward. Accepting this aspect of human nature isn't defeat; it's a reminder that, as a job seeker, you must obsessively focus on triggering those gut instincts first. You can't erase another person's biases, but you can try to influence them to your advantage. Because most self-proclaimed career coaches profit from keeping job seekers angry and anxious, standard (read: cliché) job-search advice overlooks a fundamental truth: biases aren't prejudices, preferences, or tribal affiliations; they're cognitive mechanisms. They're simply the brain's way of simplifying decision-making, whether choosing a restaurant, selecting a financial advisor, or hiring Candidate A over an equally qualified Candidate B. This isn't a design flaw; it's human nature. Navigating a hiring manager's biases requires deliberately engineering the signals you send. You can use biases to your advantage only if you manage them intentionally. The moment you enter the room, your appearance, mannerisms, vocal inflection, and posture immediately signal your professionalism and self-assurance. Visual and auditory cues are entirely within your control. Assuming an interviewer must accept you "as you" isn't strategy; it's entitlement. Nobody owes you acceptance. The following five visual, auditory, and mannerism-related cues are under your control: 1. Dress for stature: Wear clothing that conveys authority and competence. 2. Match vocal cadence: Mirror your interviewer's pace and tone to reduce psychological defences. 3. Command presence: Maintain a steady posture, open body language, and direct eye contact to project confidence. 4. Signal active engagement: Nod and confirm key points to foster shared understanding. 5. Project thoroughness: Arrive early and be over-prepared to make an unforgettable first impression. When biases such as ageism work against you, generic advice like “removing dates” is garbage, as if your age won’t become evident somewhere in the employer’s hiring process. Although bias is hardwired into our DNA, it’s also lazy thinking. Savvy job seekers counter that lazy thinking by treating their resume and LinkedIn profile like precision-guided missiles designed to cut through bias. If anything is confusing or ambiguous, a recruiter’s or hiring manager’s cognitive bias won’t prompt investigation; they’ll move on. Overcoming any bias requires crystal-clear clarity. Harvard economist Dr. Iris Bohnet asserted that defeating bias requires “designing systems that neutralize gut instincts." Because most employers fail at this, you must manage the psychological friction yourself. Starve their biases of oxygen with undeniable proof. No ironclad guarantees exist when navigating human nature, but remember this: Just as you expect your values and beliefs to be respected, you must respect an interviewer's cognitive defaults. Your job isn’t to change their hardwiring; it’s to appeal to the analytical side of their brain. Explicitly communicate how you’ll increase their profitability, because that’s ultimately how employers determine a candidate’s value. Counteract inherent hiring biases with these five strategies: 1. Quantify impact: Eliminate listing duties. Replace arbitrary descriptions ("great team player") with results-oriented metrics ("increased operational efficiency by 22%"). 2. Employ their language: Use the terminology, jargon, and abbreviations of your industry, profession, or the employer to elicit a "one of us" response. 3. Demonstrate your ability to drive business: Describe your employment history in terms of revenue growth, cost reduction, and risk mitigation. 4. Feature social proof: Showcase recommendations, published articles, testimonials, association and board memberships, and public engagements. External validation disarms internal skepticism. 5. Explain employment gaps: Don't leave them open to interpretation. Provide a brief, logical explanation for any gap. Until humans stop making hiring decisions, bias isn't going anywhere. The expectation that an employer's hiring process should be fair is a highly subjective standard that breeds bitterness and anger. You can't change someone's hardwiring; you can only change your strategy. Therefore, focus on the one variable you can control: the signals you broadcast. You mitigate bias by framing your candidacy as offering employers undeniable value, which is all you can do.

WHEN JUSTICE BETRAYS THE PEOPLE

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Compassion must protect victims, too. Immigration is not the enemy. The real fear is losing our culture, our laws and the right to expect justice. People are not necessarily afraid of immigration. They are afraid of losing the country they grew up in. And perhaps the greatest threat is not arriving at our borders. Perhaps it is sitting in our legislatures and courtrooms. Before somebody shouts racism, consider what culture means. It is our laws, freedoms, traditions and the belief that everyone deserves equal protection. Our grandparents fought two world wars defending those freedoms. Immigrants came here seeking them. So why do so many people question whether governments still protect those principles? Look at England. The Rotherham scandal exposed the sexual exploitation of at least 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013. Investigators found that some officials feared being called racist for identifying offenders' ethnic backgrounds. Children suffered while authorities failed to act. Where were the politicians? Where was the protection? And who was answering to those children? That is what happens when protecting an institution's reputation becomes more important than protecting victims. Now consider Canada. In 2022, Parliament passed Bill C5, expanding access to conditional sentences, including house arrest, for certain eligible offenders. Supporters argue that rehabilitation matters. Fair enough. But victims matter too. Imagine being assaulted, threatened or robbed, then discovering the person responsible may serve a sentence at home. What message does that send? Not every offender deserves prison. But every sentence deserves an explanation. Judges must follow the law. Politicians write much of that law. Both must answer for the decisions they make. Judicial independence protects courts from political interference. It should never become an excuse for avoiding legitimate public scrutiny. When a serious offender receives a sentence the public struggles to understand, Canadians deserve to know why. Consider California. Proposition 47 reduced certain theft offences involving $950 or less to misdemeanours. Theft remained illegal, but the penalties changed. In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36, increasing penalties for some repeat offenders. What about the small shopkeeper facing repeated theft? The employee losing a job? The family losing its business? Who speaks for them? Compassion for offenders and people struggling with poverty matters. But what about compassion for victims? And this brings us back to immigration. Nobody should abandon their ancestry, religion or traditions to become Canadian, British or Australian. But everyone, whether born here or arriving yesterday, must respect the same laws and freedoms. We cannot blame immigrants for decisions made by politicians and judges. Nor should governments dismiss legitimate concerns about public safety as prejudice. Canada has many cultures, including those of Indigenous peoples and generations of newcomers. Our shared responsibility is to protect the rights of everyone. I do not have all the answers. But I know this much. Politicians should have to defend the laws they pass. Judges should have to explain the sentences they impose. And victims should never feel forgotten. A government that demands respect must first earn the public's trust. A nation does not lose its identity when strangers arrive at its door. It loses something far more precious when its own government forgets who the law was written to protect.

John Gray and Oshawa: A Record Worth Remembering

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington There is an old saying in municipal politics that people have short memories. I was reminded of that this week when I came across a social media advertisement questioning the record of former Oshawa Mayor John Gray, particularly the investments made in recreational facilities during his time in office. Now, John Gray is a friend of mine. I make no secret of that. But more importantly, I had a frontrow seat to some of the most significant economic decisions affecting Oshawa and Durham Region during his years as mayor. As the former Mayor of Clarington and Chair of Finance for Durham Region, I worked alongside John on matters involving industrial taxation, economic development, infrastructure and the future of our largest employers. And I believe that history deserves a closer examination. The General Motors Centre One of the projects now being criticized is the General Motors Centre, today known as the Tribute Communities Centre. Opened in 2006, this facility represented a significant investment in Oshawa’s recreational and entertainment infrastructure. It provided a modern home for the Oshawa Generals, community ice facilities, and a venue capable of hosting concerts, sporting events and other major gatherings. Was it expensive? Certainly. Were there legitimate debates about financing, operating costs and the responsibilities of municipal taxpayers? Absolutely. But a serious examination of the project should consider both the costs and the public facilities that were created. The same applies to the Legends Centre and other recreation investments made during that era. Municipal infrastructure is not simply an expense recorded in the year it is built. It is an asset intended to serve residents for decades. Protecting General Motors and Manufacturing Jobs This is where my own involvement becomes particularly relevant. During my time as Durham Region’s Chair of Finance, one of the major challenges we faced was the competitiveness of our large industrial employers.General Motors was the economic backbone of Oshawa. Its operations supported thousands of direct jobs and an enormous network of suppliers, contractors and service businesses. John Gray understood the importance of maintaining a competitive environment for manufacturing. Working at the regional level, we advanced changes to the large industrial property tax structure to help keep Durham competitive with other Ontario jurisdictions. This was not simply political rhetoric. On November 22, 2006, John appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and spoke directly about the manufacturing economy and Durham’s decision to eliminate the large industrial tax class effective in 2007. He understood that municipal taxation, economic development and job retention were connected. That work involved multiple municipal and regional leaders, but I can personally attest to John’s involvement and his commitment to Oshawa’s industrial economy. Bringing the Durham Courthouse to Downtown Oshawa Another important chapter in Oshawa’s development was the decision to locate the new Durham Region Courthouse in downtown Oshawa. In December 2005, the Ontario government announced that the consolidated courthouse would be built in the city’s downtown. The project brought together court services previously spread across the region and ultimately delivered a modern facility with 33 courtrooms. The provincial government identified the courthouse as a major opportunity to stimulate downtown redevelopment, attract legal and professional services, and generate additional economic activity for surrounding businesses. John Gray was mayor when the location was announced, when construction began and when the completed facility was unveiled. He publicly recognized the importance of the investment to Oshawa’s downtown. Of course, this was a provincial project involving many participants. No mayor can claim sole credit for such an undertaking. But municipal leadership matters when provincial institutions are deciding where to invest, and the courthouse remains a substantial part of downtown Oshawa’s civic infrastructure. Building Relationships With Ontario Power Generation - There is another part of this history that I remember personally. During John’s time as mayor, he was already reaching out to Ontario Power Generation to develop stronger relationships and explore opportunities for an expanded office presence in Oshawa. I participated in discussions concerning those opportunities through my involvement in the nuclear sector. John recognized the importance of OPG as a major employer and economic institution in Durham Region. This was long before OPG’s much later announcement concerning its new corporate headquarters in Oshawa. It would be inaccurate to suggest that one individual or one administration secured that later decision. But the earlier outreach illustrates something important about economic development: relationships between municipalities and major employers are often built over many years. A municipality cannot wait until an investment opportunity is announced before beginning those conversations. Looking Beyond a Single Project The broader record also includes downtown revitalization planning, brownfield redevelopment initiatives and efforts to diversify Oshawa’s economic base. In his 2006 parliamentary testimony, John discussed the downtown Oshawa action plan, brownfield redevelopment and other economic development initiatives. Those were important subjects for a city whose identity and prosperity had long been closely tied to automobile manufacturing. Not every initiative produces its intended results. Not every municipal investment achieves its original financial projections. And no mayor makes every decision correctly. John Gray’s administration, like every administration, should be examined with that reality in mind. But judging an entire period of municipal leadership by attaching a price tag to one recreational facility tells only part of the story. The Value of Institutional Memory I have served in municipal government long enough to know that one of the most valuable resources a community possesses is the experience of people who have already dealt with major challenges. They remember why decisions were made, which options were considered, which relationships were established and what lessons were learned. That experience can be useful to the next generation of municipal leaders, whether those former officials hold elected office or not. John Gray was involved in an important period of Oshawa’s development, from recreation infrastructure and downtown investment to industrial competitiveness and relationships with major employers.His record includes decisions that deserve scrutiny, as well as projects and initiatives that deserve recognition. For Oshawa’s next mayor, the lessons of that period are worth understanding. History should not be rewritten to suit an election campaign. Nor should it be reduced to a single dollar figure on a social media advertisement. It should be examined in its entirety. And when we do that, we give residents something far more valuable than another political argument. We give them the facts needed to understand how their city was built. John Mutton, known as “Mr. X,” is the former Mayor of Clarington, former Chair of Finance for Durham Region, and Chair of the Ontario Nuclear New Build Council.

Halloween is a time for "Trick or Treat" not steal and cheat

By Tom Reimer Halloween is a time for spooky costumes, glowing pumpkins, trick-or-treating, and neighbourhood fun. But while families prepare a night of frightful delights, it is also a time to be extra vigilant about home security. With homes often left unattended, doors opening frequently, and strangers moving from house to house, taking a few simple precautions can help keep your property safe from unwanted visitors of a different kind. On a quiet street in a friendly neighbourhood, the Wilson family was busy preparing for Halloween. Their front garden was decorated with skeletons, cobwebs, and flickering lanterns. The children were excited about trick-or-treating, while their parents planned to accompany them around the neighbourhood. Before leaving, Mr Wilson remembered a safety tip he had heard recently: burglars often look for easy opportunities. He checked that all windows were locked, secured the back door, and made sure the garage was closed. Mrs Wilson switched on the porch light and set a timer for the living room lights to make it appear that someone was home. They also avoided posting their Halloween plans on social media. Although it was tempting to share pictures of the children in their costumes, they decided to post them after returning home instead. Small decisions like these can help prevent strangers from knowing when a property is empty. As the evening grew darker, a suspicious-looking individual walked along the street, glancing at houses and checking which properties appeared unoccupied. At the Wilsons' home, the lights were on, the doors were locked, and a security camera covered the front entrance. There was nothing obvious to suggest that the house was an easy target. The individual continued down the street. Meanwhile, the Wilsons had reminded their neighbours to keep an eye out for unusual activity. Their next-door neighbour, who was staying home that evening, agreed to report anything concerning to the authorities. The family also made sure that garden tools, ladders, and other equipment were securely stored, so they could not easily be used to gain access to the house. When the Wilsons returned, they found their home exactly as they had left it. The children excitedly emptied their bags of sweets onto the kitchen table, unaware of the potential danger they had avoided. Mr Wilson smiled, relieved that a few simple precautions had helped protect their home. The lesson was clear: home security is not about living in fear. It is about being prepared, aware, and sensible. As Halloween approaches, remember these essential tips: Lock every entrance: Secure doors, windows, sheds, and garages, even if you are only stepping out briefly. Make your home look occupied: Use timers for indoor lights and consider motion-activated outdoor lighting. Protect your privacy: Avoid announcing your absence or sharing real-time holiday plans online. Secure valuables: Keep keys, wallets, electronics, and other valuable items out of sight. Look out for one another: Build good relationships with neighbours and report suspicious behaviour to the appropriate authorities. Check your security equipment: Ensure alarms, cameras, and outdoor lights are working properly. This Halloween, enjoy the costumes, laughter, and sweet treats—but remember that a little vigilance goes a long way. The scariest thing on Halloween should be a ghost at the door, not the discovery that your home has been burgled.

Alberta’s Referendum: Gambling With a Province and a Country

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada cannot afford to treat Alberta’s referendum as another passing confrontation between a provincial premier and Ottawa. What is at stake reaches beyond political messaging. It concerns economic confidence, constitutional stability, national security and the future of a country already facing formidable external pressures. Governments that encourage separatist uncertainty must accept responsibility for the consequences. Governments that dismiss the grievances behind it must accept their share as well. On October 19, Albertans will face ten referendum questions. The question attracting greatest attention asks whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada or begin the legal process toward a future binding referendum on separation. This initial question is non-binding. By itself, it will not take Alberta out of Confederation. Nevertheless, its political significance is considerable: it could give separatism an institutional foothold and prolong uncertainty. The distinction between expressing dissatisfaction and authorizing a separation process must remain clear. A voter angry about federal energy policy may intend to send Ottawa a warning. Separatist organizers may interpret the same ballot as permission to pursue independence. Once that interpretation takes hold, political leaders cannot guarantee that the movement will remain a manageable bargaining instrument. A protest can acquire momentum far beyond its original purpose. Alberta’s frustration deserves serious attention. Its energy industry contributes to Canada’s prosperity, supports employment across provincial boundaries and provides resources essential to our economic security. Federal governments should recognize those contributions through dependable policy, timely decisions and practical infrastructure. Albertans are entitled to challenge decisions they believe unfairly restrict their future. National unity becomes harder to defend when citizens conclude that their concerns receive speeches instead of solutions. Yet legitimate grievances do not establish that separation would improve Alberta’s position. Independence advocates must explain how their proposed country would function, what it would cost and which arrangements other governments would actually accept. Promises of prosperity are inadequate without credible accounts of taxation, debt, pensions, trade, public administration and security. Voters deserve a practical plan detailed enough to withstand independent scrutiny before embarking on such a consequential journey. The economic danger begins before any border changes. Businesses invest against expectations about future conditions. A credible prospect of separation could complicate decisions about major projects, financing and expansion. Investors would need answers about the currency, legal framework, market access and regulatory continuity of an independent Alberta. No responsible government should assume that uncertainty carries no price simply because its consequences are difficult to quantify in advance. Alberta’s geography presents another unavoidable challenge. It is landlocked. Its resources must reach customers through transportation networks crossing other jurisdictions. Independence would not provide a coastline, eliminate pipeline disputes or guarantee favourable transit arrangements. It could instead turn disagreements within Canada into negotiations between separate countries. Access to ports and markets would depend on relationships that Alberta’s government could influence but could never control by proclamation. Nor should anyone assume that closer dependence on the United States would deliver greater freedom. A smaller state negotiating with a vastly larger economy faces an obvious imbalance of power. Alberta’s energy wealth would remain valuable, but wealth alone does not guarantee favourable treatment. Canadians should examine carefully any argument suggesting that abandoning influence within Confederation would produce stronger bargaining power abroad. Economic vulnerability can increase even while political independence is proclaimed. The constitutional obstacles are equally substantial. Canadian law provides no unilateral route for a province to secede. The Clarity Act requires a clear expression of support before federal negotiations can proceed, and lawful separation would require constitutional amendment. Even a future referendum favouring independence would therefore open a demanding negotiation rather than guarantee a completed departure. Political campaign slogans cannot settle the terms on which a country might divide. Indigenous peoples cannot be treated as spectators in that negotiation. Their rights, interests and territorial claims would require attention, alongside possible changes to provincial borders, minority protections and the division of assets and liabilities. These are explicitly recognized in the Clarity Act. Any suggestion that a provincial vote could simply carry every community and all existing territory into a new country overlooks fundamental questions that a referendum cannot resolve alone. For ordinary families, the debate must become concrete. What would happen to federal benefits, pension administration, citizenship arrangements and employment across borders? How would public debt be allocated? Who would pay for institutions currently provided through the federation? These questions should never be brushed aside as details for later. They concern household security. Retirees, workers and young families deserve answers before political leaders ask them to accept years of negotiation. The risks also extend across Canada. Separation would raise difficult questions about transportation corridors, defence arrangements, national finances and relations among the remaining provinces. A country absorbed by internal fragmentation would have less political attention available for trade diversification, infrastructure and security. At a time when Canada needs the capacity to act decisively, a prolonged constitutional struggle could consume the energy required to strengthen its independence and economic resilience. Premier Danielle Smith’s government must therefore exercise disciplined leadership. Permitting a vote does not absolve a government of its responsibility to explain consequences honestly. Ottawa must show equal discipline by addressing practical grievances and resisting the temptation to dismiss every dissatisfied Albertan as disloyal. Both governments should concentrate on measurable improvements: reliable energy policy, stronger transportation links, fair treatment and cooperation that produces visible results for the public. Canada’s unity requires work, competence and mutual respect. Alberta should insist on a better federation, and Ottawa should help deliver one. However, launching a separation process as political leverage could expose both province and country to consequences far exceeding any expected advantage. Leaders entrusted with public authority should resolve grievances through responsible action. They should never gamble with the economic security of their citizens or the integrity of Canada.