Circular Economy Month

The Circular Innovation Council (CIC), a non-profit charity, celebrates the annual Circular Economy Month campaign in October by educating the public on circular economy solutions that ‘design out’ waste. Through local events, social media campaigns, online pledges, and educational resources, the campaign engages millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Circular Economy Month is a reminder that everyone has a role to play in protecting the earth's finite resources. Caitlin Perry, CIC’s Senior Manager of Education & Communications who leads this month’s campaign stated, “Canadians can sustain the campaign’s momentum by taking daily steps to rethink your consumption. Purchase smartly designed products meant to last longer, be reused, refurbished, and dismantled. Support companies that offer take back programs for products and packaging. Use your purchasing power to influence greater performance; and deliver environmental and social value.” By the end of the month, many enjoy the excitement of planning and dressing up for halloween. By thinking ‘circular’, it’s a great idea to check out costumes and halloween trinkets at your local thrift store. Even your jack o’lantern has great value. As Ruth Johnston stated in her “The Creative Cook’s Recycling Book,” - “That scary face needn’t hit the dust on November 1st. Beneath the stare, he houses a wealth of golden goodness.” An easy way to cook a pumpkin is to cut it in half and bake face down. This method allows the thick skin to just peel away. Pumpkin cookies, pies, muffins, and squares make great desserts. Creamy pumpkin soups and loafs offer a sturdy lunch. Cooked, pumpkins can be substituted in equal parts in winter squash recipes, and can be used as a pizza topping. To prepare a snack of pumpkin seeds, rinse them with water while holding them in a sieve. Blot dry. Spread on a cookie sheet, sprinkle with salt, and bake at 360 F for about 15 minutes, tossing frequently. For a pudding, add 1 cup cooked pumpkin and a 1 cup cold milk to a 3-ounce package of vanilla instant pudding. Include a pinch of cinnamon, allspice and nutmeg. Beat until pudding thickens. Pour into small bowls and chill for 15 minutes. The gooey pulp can be added to smoothies, or composted. If you have a worm bin with red wigglers, they will love this slushy pulp treat. Ruth Johnson’s cookbook on Pumpkin Soup. 4 cups of pumpkin mashed & cooked 4 cups of chicken stock 1 tbsp of ground ginger 2 tsp butter 1 cup of cream Salt & pepper to taste. Combine all ingredients, except cream, and simmer gently for 10 minutes. For variety, substitute 1/2 tbsp of dill weed and a tsp of curry in place of ginger. For my pumpkin soups, I’ve also included cooked apples and potatoes. Cooked pumpkin can be mashed, placed in small bags and frozen.

The Same Price for Everybody

I have a PC Optimum card, and most of the time I scan it without giving it much thought. Groceries. Card. Points. Done. Every once in a while the app gives me an offer worth using, and I’m pleased with myself as though I somehow negotiated it. I did not negotiate anything. The computer offered it to me. There has been a lot of discussion lately about surveillance pricing, the idea that a company could use information it has about you to decide what price *you* should pay. Not what everyone should pay. You. If a box of cereal is $5.99 for me and $4.99 for the guy standing beside me because an algorithm thinks I’ll tolerate the extra dollar, most of us know exactly how we feel about that. Loblaw says it doesn’t happen in grocery. This summer, the company said surveillance pricing “does not exist in grocery” and that it will never use that kind of pricing. Fair enough. But this week I went looking through the PC Optimum privacy material, and that is where the question gets more complicated. Loblaw’s general privacy policy had just been updated, effective Sept. 30, while its separate loyalty notice spells out something much more familiar. PC Optimum is built to provide a “personalized experience.” It uses past purchases and other information to tailor rewards to the things you buy most. In other words, the price on the shelf may be the same for both of us. The deal in our pockets may not be. You might get points on coffee because you buy coffee. I might get an offer on something completely different. Somebody else may get nothing at all. That is not surveillance pricing in the way people usually mean it. Nobody has secretly added a dollar to my cereal. But if a personalized offer changes what I effectively pay, then the old idea that everybody walking through the same grocery store is having exactly the same transaction starts getting harder to defend. The shelf can still show one price while what you actually pay depends, at least partly, on who is holding the phone. Ottawa has noticed the issue too. Bill C-36, tabled in June, is the federal government’s latest attempt to rewrite private-sector privacy law, and its background material identifies “inappropriate surveillance pricing” as an unfair use of personal information the legislation is intended to address. At a media briefing, officials said the bill does not simply ban surveillance pricing. They pointed to possible benefits, including targeted discounts, and said the regulator would ultimately have to determine what counts as an appropriate use. Use what you know about me to make something more expensive and I’ll probably be furious. Use what you know about me to make it cheaper and I may thank you for the points. Same data. Very different reaction. The data itself has already caused trouble. In March, the federal Privacy Commissioner ruled on complaints from six PC Optimum members who had tried to delete their accounts. Loblaw removed names, email addresses and other direct identifiers, but retained information that included historical transaction data. During the investigation, Loblaw took the position that the remaining information had been effectively anonymized. The Privacy Commissioner found the company had not demonstrated that adequately, and Loblaw accepted the recommendations, including an independent review of its anonymization practices. That part matters more than the points. The receipt used to come out of the machine and go into my pocket. Now the store can keep a memory of the transaction too: what I bought, when I bought it, what offers I used and what I tend to buy again. That history can then help decide what offer appears on my phone next Tuesday. There is nothing automatically sinister about any of this. The old grocery flyer was trying to influence what I bought too. Coupons did the same thing. So did 10 per cent Tuesdays, seniors’ discounts, club cards and the paper coupon somebody clipped from the newspaper and carried around in a wallet for three weeks. Which brings me to the obituary. Maybe “the same price for everybody” isn’t dead. Maybe it never really existed. We have always found ways to charge one customer a little less than another. What has changed is who does the clipping. It used to be me, at the kitchen table, with a pair of scissors and the grocery flyer. Now the coupon clips itself. And it knows what I bought last week.

Who Wants Room Temperature Water?

Have North Americans become accustomed to excessively sweetened beverages? That’s my theory after hosting guests from both Europe and Asia recently. Almost without exception, upon taking a sip of bottled iced tea, they remark on how sugary it is. One child declared it tasted “like syrup.” It’s no small concern that North Americans have come to prefer sweeter foods and beverages. We also tend to go for colder drinks, not those at room temperature, and that’s not helping. It’s a lesser-known fact that cold temperatures reduce the perception of sweetness. The colder the drink, the less sweet it seems. At corner stores where people shop for refreshment, it’s no small challenge to find selections not full of sugar. I have been in enough convenience stores around the world to be frustrated at what they offer in this part of the world. Zero nutrition. Garbage drinks, candy, chips, and fatty fast food. In a typical North American convenience store, stretches of refrigerated space are given over to soft drinks, sweetened iced teas, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit drinks and flavoured beverages. Fifty per cent of the store may seem like an exaggeration, but it’s not far off, and the other half contains chips, candy and other highly processed food. By contrast, a convenience store in Japan offers a very different experience. You will find some sweetened drinks, but you will also find an astounding assortment of unsweetened green tea, barley tea, oolong tea, black coffee, sparkling water and plain water. Unsweetened tea is not a niche health product. It is a regular beverage. It’s a public health disaster that the North American beverage environment has become saturated with sweetness. And we should do some finger pointing, because taste is trainable. If someone gets sickly sweet drinks often enough, that level of sweetness becomes familiar. Reduce the sweetness and, for a while, the drink may seem tasteless. But the palate adapts. What is astonishingly sweet to a child visiting from afar can become unremarkable to a local who has been drinking it for years. We have become accustomed to beverages that are essentially liquid candy. The consequences involve high caloric intake and increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dental cavities and everything that follows from these gateway diseases. Consumers need to get angry. Why should we have to navigate aisles filled with brightly packaged sugar water before finding plain water or unsweetened tea? Why should we have to decipher labels only to discover that the beverage is loaded with sugar? And why, when governments are spending enormous sums dealing with obesity, diabetes and dental disease, are we so reluctant to challenge an industry that profits from selling the products that contribute to those problems? I would like to see thousands of consumers join me in writing to the chief executives of the big beverage companies and convenience store chains. And to government regulators, too. For their absence of care, I have a strong message: shame on you! But we all should change our habits of our own initiative. Do not buy those awful drinks. The far better choice comes freely out of our faucets. Drink good old-fashioned water. Make your own unsweetened tea. Drink your coffee black. To the beverage executives, I’ll add more scorn. You know exactly how much sugar you are putting into these products. You know that taste preferences can be shaped by repeated exposure. You know your customers include children who have not yet learned to question what they are drinking.

The Wrong Foot

I have been married to my husband for 19 years. We met in high school and had a child right at graduation. After high school and some college we decided to marry. I really didn’t want to marry him nor did I want to continue the relationship with premarital sex. I wanted my freedom to date people and then see if he was right for me. He didn’t want to break up and he didn’t want me to see other people, so I decided to stay, thinking he must really love me. I couldn’t see my way out. I told him, let’s get married or it’s over. I didn’t think he would marry me because he said he wasn’t ready, but weeks after I broke it off he came back and agreed. So we were married. I felt apprehensive about getting married, but I thought it was just cold feet. At the time I thought marriage would work out the kinks in our relationship, and the love we had for each other would overrule anything. Well, 19 years and two more children later I am utterly miserable. He is now someone I do not like, and I don’t think he likes me that much either, but he doesn’t want to get a divorce. I do but I am afraid. Our oldest daughter moved out and we have two teenagers at home. Raising children together has been the best thing we’ve done. It’s about the only thing we can agree on because everything else is a tug of war. I want out. But with the shaky economy and thoughts of being a single parent, I don’t know if this would be the best time. Plus, if he doesn’t agree to the divorce, it will be expensive and I will have to prove irreconcilable differences. At times I feel like I am pushing a man away from loving me. I am so confused. Jill Jill, in the HBO series “The Sopranos,” Carmela Soprano enjoys the lifestyle provided by her gangster husband, Tony. At the same time, she is dissatisfied with his crude ways. Contemplating divorce, Carmela goes to a therapist to find a simple answer to her dilemma, but she is taken aback by his bluntness. The therapist makes clear her husband is a mobster, and whether she stays or goes, Carmela intends to continue living off blood money. You would like a simple solution, too, but in your own mind you are sidestepping the truth. Immediately after telling us you never loved your husband, you speak of the love you both had. Which is it? It appears you gave him an ultimatum. Marry me, or I will date others. That isn’t the wedding proposal most girls dream of, and if that is what happened, it wasn’t the right way to begin a marriage. Most people don’t like to say no, and that is why they often give in to high-pressure sales people. Is that what your husband did? Look at what happened, examine it, and own it. There is no shame in admitting a mistake, when a mistake is made. Put your cards on the table with your husband, but before that, put your cards on the table with yourself. You are not the only person who ever mistook like, familiarity, and convenience for love. Your yearning is telling you that you never had love and are still looking. Many women in your situation--trapped by economics and the prospect of single parenthood--go looking for another man and leave the marriage only when they have found one. But that is the low road, and you don’t need to take the low road again. We don’t get more from less, and we don’t get something from easy. First, be honest with yourself. Next, be honest with your husband. Then the two of you can decide where you honestly are. Wayne & Tamara

Public Input Should Come Before the Decision

Imagine someone asking for your opinion about a major purchase after they have already signed the agreement. You might reasonably ask: What, exactly, can my opinion change now? Residents should ask the same question when governments make decisions involving public money, public land and public assets. Public input belongs at the beginning of the process, while options remain open and residents can still influence the outcome. When consultation comes after important commitments, people are left responding to a decision instead of helping shape it. There is a significant difference between informing the public and consulting the public. A presentation announcing what will happen provides information. Meaningful consultation gives residents a chance to question whether it should happen, what it should cost and what alternatives deserve consideration. That distinction matters because the consequences can last for decades. A major purchase can create borrowing costs, maintenance expenses and operating obligations. The sale of a public asset can permanently change what a community owns and controls. A development decision can affect roads, services, farmland and neighbourhoods long after the council that approved it has left office. Before those commitments are made, residents deserve clear answers. What is the full cost? What independent information supports the price? What conditions must be satisfied? What happens if anticipated funding does not arrive? Who pays for ongoing operations? What other options were considered? These questions should guide the decision from the outset. A conditional agreement also deserves careful explanation. Calling an agreement “conditional” does not tell residents how much flexibility remains. People deserve to understand the significant conditions, the deadlines and what obligations may already exist. My standard is straightforward: establish and understand the conditions upfront, obtain the information needed to assess the price, and seek meaningful public input before making major commitments. There are circumstances where confidentiality serves a legitimate purpose. Residents do not need every negotiating detail published while negotiations are underway. But confidentiality should have a clear purpose and a limit. The public deserves as much information as can responsibly be released, along with an explanation of what remains confidential and why. What residents hear publicly may not capture everything discussed behind closed doors. That makes accurate public explanations especially important. People need enough information to assess the decision, its costs and its consequences. Funding announcements deserve the same scrutiny. We often hear that another level of government will help pay for a project. That can be valuable, but the money still comes from taxpayers. The same taxpayer pays at every level. Funding can also carry conditions. Before accepting it, a municipality should explain the obligations attached to it and whether local taxpayers will inherit expenses after the initial contribution has been spent. Council should also be cautious about approving projects before outside funding is secured and its conditions are understood. Otherwise, taxpayers can end up paying for consultants and preliminary work, only to face a choice between abandoning the project or covering the funding shortfall themselves. Money already spent can become an argument for spending even more. That is why the funding plan and its conditions should be examined before costly commitments begin. Residents deserve the complete financial picture. Public participation also improves decisions. A resident may identify a practical problem that was overlooked. A business owner may explain an impact that does not appear in a staff report. Someone who uses a service every day may offer a solution that deserves consideration. Listening does not require council to agree with every opinion. It requires council to take those opinions seriously, consider them before deciding, and explain its eventual choice. That is how trust is earned. As an elected representative, I believe our responsibility includes making decisions that residents can understand and examine. When we ask people to pay for something, we owe them a clear explanation of its value, its risks and its long-term cost. The people of Pickering deserve a meaningful voice in decisions about the community they live in and help fund. Their questions deserve answers while those answers can still affect what happens next. Public input should never be reduced to an invitation to comment on a finished plan. If we want residents to trust City Hall, we must give them a place in the process before commitments are made. Ask first. Explain the costs. Understand the conditions. Consider the alternatives. Then make the decision.

Since You Can’t Read Your Interviewer's Mind, Is a Beverage Really Worth Risking Your First Impression? Less Canada, More Foreign Capital: The Hypocrisy of Carney's Quest for Foreign Investment

By Nick Kossovan Given economic realities—from inflation and trade tariffs to AI-driven restructurings that are erasing white-collar entry-level roles—you'd think job seekers would have bigger concerns than turning the internet into a battleground over a Gen Z applicant walking into an interview with an iced coffee. Arguing that personal comfort should trump workplace professionalism conveniently ignores the first rule of employment: the employer issuing the paycheque decides what's acceptable. Once you strip away the social media virtue-signalling, what's left to debate? An interviewer either cares about that beverage or doesn't; it's that simple. Deciding what counts as a dealbreaker or which of two equally qualified candidates is a better fit is entirely the hiring manager's prerogative. Since you can't read minds, err on the side of caution and leave the drink outside. Unless, of course, you aren't particularly serious about landing the job, in which case feel free to walk into the interview with a Venti Caramel Macchiato. The issue isn't the drink; it's the human tendency, shared by all of us, to interpret observable behaviours as evidence of professionalism. Your dress, mannerisms, and whether you're carrying a drink will be noticed and, therefore, subject to bias. Think carefully about the optics you present to your interviewer and what they may assume based on what you show. An interview is an exercise in managing assumptions; that responsibility is entirely yours. Holding a drink unnecessarily exposes you to assumptions about your character that may not work in your favour. · Casual indifference: You treat high-stakes meetings like a casual errand between the hardware store and the dry cleaner. · Poor time management: You couldn't manage your morning schedule well enough to finish your beverage before the interview. · Subtle entitlement: You expect employers to accommodate your personal relaxation habits within their workplace. · Weak self-awareness: You disregard how physical props and handheld distractions undermine your professionalism. No two hiring managers evaluate candidates the same way. Each applies their biases, standards, and elimination filters to hiring decisions. Personally, I gravitate toward candidates with a touch of swagger, those who signal confidence. Another manager, however, might see that same swagger as arrogance and view the candidate as unmanageable. This unpredictability makes relying on luck extremely risky. You have no idea what your interviewer prefers. As Will Rogers famously noted, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." Consider this the golden rule of interviewing. Job seekers often ask me why recruiters and hiring managers obsess over microscopic details rather than technical competency, experience, and aptitude. The answer: your resume gets you in the door, but your behaviour strongly influences whether they want you to join their company. With nothing else to go on, interviewers rely on your demeanour to gauge maturity, assess cultural fit, and determine your manageability. Years of observation taught me that corporate workplaces are, for the most part, stages; much of the activity is theatrical. My actions speak before I do, and that image is everything, instantly opening or closing doors. Treat an interview like a casual coffee catch-up, and don't be surprised when you get a "We've decided to pursue other candidates" email. Beyond perception, carrying a drink introduces physical risks. You have to find a surface to set it down. You may leave a condensation ring on the boardroom table, spill it onto documents, or offer a cold, clammy handshake. Why introduce these risks to a critical conversation? I recommend extending this caution: Don't drink anything one hour before an interview, and don't eat three hours prior. "Nature calling" often happens at the worst possible time; discomfort interferes with posture, poise, and focus. Managing your narrative intentionally is key to controlling your interviews or any room you find yourself in. First impressions form within seven seconds of contact. The key to winning those seven seconds is to follow three rules: · Rule 1: Arrive unencumbered. Leave all physical baggage outside the interview room. Keep your hands completely free and ready to shake your interviewer's hand. · Rule 2: Project intentional composure. Stand tall, maintain steady eye contact, and offer a firm handshake. True confidence is quiet, deliberate, and free of handheld props or nervous fidgeting. · Rule 3: Respect the domain. Signal to your interviewer that you are fully attentive to their time and evaluation of you. You can't control your interviewer's biases or predict whether they favour humility or swagger. However, you own every variable you bring into the room. I've never rejected a candidate simply for bringing a drink, a pet (happened twice), or a stress toy (happened once) to the interview. For me, none of those are automatic dealbreakers. Real dealbreakers include not knowing the company, ignoring the job scope, dodging questions, failing skills assessment, or showing zero curiosity. While I don't personally understand "iced coffee"—coffee is meant to be hot—a cold caffeinated drink won't, for me, single-handedly eliminate an otherwise qualified candidate. However, I speak only for myself. Still, why give your interviewer a reason to eliminate you? Dress the part, leave the distractions outside the interview room, and focus solely on proving your value.

If We Want Seniors to Stay Home, Why Do We Make It So Hard?

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Oshawa is a union town. We know what a picket line looks like. For generations Those are fair questions. We saw how We hear it all the time. Seniors want to stay in their own homes. Governments want that too. It helps seniors keep their independence and stay connected to their community. But there is something missing from this conversation. Not every senior is in a wheelchair. Not every senior has dementia or needs someone looking after them every day. Many seniors are still fairly fit. They cook. They clean. They shop. They go for coffee. They take the bus. They visit family. They work around the house. But maybe they have a bad hip. Maybe it is a knee that needs replacing. Suddenly, something as simple as going downtown can become a challenge. I understand this more than I once did. When you have trouble with a hip or knee, you begin noticing things you never noticed before. You notice how far away the next bench is. You notice stairs. You notice narrow spaces. And if you use a walker, you really notice washrooms. Think about going into a restaurant. The accessible stall is being used, so you try the regular stall. How do you get yourself and a walker through that little door? Sometimes you cannot. The same thing happens with public transit. Durham Region Transit has accessible buses, ramps and spaces for mobility devices. That is important. But getting onto the bus is only part of the trip. Can you move through it safely? Can you get a seat? What happens when the bus is crowded and you are trying to turn a walker around? Then there is the waiting for surgery. Canada has a benchmark of 26 weeks for hip and knee replacement surgery. Yet many Canadians wait beyond that benchmark. During that time, life continues. You still need groceries. You still have appointments. You still want to see your grandchildren. Most importantly, you want to keep moving. That is where Oshawa and other cities can make a difference. We need more benches along walking routes. A bench might not seem important to a healthy 30 year old. To somebody with a painful hip, that bench might be what allows them to walk another block. We need bus stops where people can sit. We need sidewalks kept clear, especially during an Oshawa winter. We need public washrooms that people using walkers can actually use. Pedestrian crossings also deserve another look. Is there enough time for someone with a walker to safely cross a busy street? And what about our parks? We should have more exercise equipment designed for older adults. Many seniors want to exercise. They are not asking for somebody to do everything for them. They are trying to remain independent. Perhaps city councillors and planners should spend a few hours with seniors who use walkers. Take the bus with them. Walk several blocks. Try the washroom. Wait at a bus stop. Try it again in January when there is snow on the ground. You might learn more doing that than reading another hundred page report. There is also a financial side to this. Helping someone remain active and independent may help them stay in their home longer. Isolation and inactivity can take away confidence surprisingly quickly. Sometimes independence comes down to very small things. A bench. A cleared sidewalk. A safe washroom. A place on the bus. We keep telling seniors to stay active, stay healthy and stay in their own homes. Fine. Now we have to help make that possible. So here is the question I would put around the kitchen table. If Oshawa truly wants to be an age-friendly city, are we willing to walk beside our seniors and see the city through their eyes. Because if a person can live independently in their own home but cannot safely get around their own community, we still have work to do.

Is Ontario Closing the Door on Government Transparency?

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington For almost four decades, Ontario's freedom-of-information system has rested on a simple democratic principle: government information belongs, ultimately, to the public. There have always been legitimate exceptions. Personal information must be protected. Cabinet needs space for confidential deliberations. Commercially sensitive information cannot simply be thrown into the public domain. Police investigations, security information and other protected records require safeguards. But there is a fundamental difference between protecting legitimately confidential information and removing entire categories of government records from the public's legal right of access. In 2026, Ontario changed that balance. Through Bill 97, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026, the province made significant amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - FIPPA. And Ontarians should understand exactly what changed. From 30 days to 45 business days. Previously, a government institution generally had 30 calendar days to respond to a freedom-ofinformation request. For requests made on or after July 1, 2026, that became 45 business days. That distinction matters. Forty-five business days can translate into roughly nine weeks before weekends and statutory holidays are considered. The legislation also permits a second extension in specified circumstances. For journalists working on a developing story, community organizations investigating a public issue, businesses trying to understand a government decision, or ordinary citizens asking how their tax dollars were spent, information delayed can sometimes become information that has lost much of its usefulness. The legislation also introduced "staged access plans." Where requests are considered sufficiently broad or burdensome - including because of their time period, volume or collective impact on government operations - institutions can establish a process for providing the information in stages. There are procedures and appeal rights surrounding those plans. But the practical reality remains: obtaining large amounts of public information can now take considerably longer. The most consequential issue is not simply waiting longer for documents.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. It is whether certain documents can be obtained through FIPPA at all. The amendments exclude specified records held by the Premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices from the Act. That distinction is enormous. The independent Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario warned in March that excluding records held at the highest political levels would diminish Ontarians' right to information. The Commissioner also challenged one of the rationales for the change: that sensitive material needs greater protection. Ontario's existing freedom-of-information legislation already contained protections for cabinet confidences, personal information, confidential commercial information and other legitimately sensitive records. In other words, freedom of information never meant that everything inside government was automatically public.It meant citizens had a legal right to ask. Government could claim an exemption. And, importantly, an independent Information and Privacy Commissioner could review many of those decisions. That system of checks and balances is at the heart of access-to-information legislation. And then there is retroactivity. Perhaps the most extraordinary element of the amendments is their treatment of existing records and requests. Bill 97 expressly provides that the new exclusion applies even to records created before the legislation received Royal Assent. It also provides that a person who previously possessed a right of access to one of those records ceases to have that right - even where an access request had already been submitted. The Information and Privacy Commissioner subsequently stated that the legislation applies retroactively to 1988 and removes the affected records from the scope of FIPPA and from the Commissioner's statutory authority.nThink about what that principle means. A citizen can have a legal right to request a government record. The citizen can exercise that right. And legislation can subsequently remove the record from the access regime. Whatever one's political affiliation, that deserves serious public discussion.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. This isn't just about reporters. There is another misconception worth addressing. Freedom of information is sometimes portrayed as something primarily used by journalists trying to embarrass governments. The numbers tell a very different story. According to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, the province processed 27,344 provincial freedom-of-information requests in 2024. Only 1,092 - approximately four per cent - came from the media. More than 95 per cent came from individuals, businesses, researchers, community organizations and others. Freedom of information is therefore not merely a tool of the press. It is a tool of citizenship. The Ontario government presents the changes very differently. It says Ontario's access and privacy legislation had gone almost four decades without major modernization and needed to reflect modern technology, cybersecurity requirements and contemporary government operations. The province says changes involving cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices bring Ontario more closely into line with approaches elsewhere in Canada and will support more efficient government administration. Those are arguments Ontarians are entitled to consider. But they must also be weighed against the concerns raised by Ontario's independent Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has argued that existing FIPPA exemptions already protected cabinet confidences and other sensitive information and that excluding records altogether reduces transparency and independent oversight.That is the real debate. Democracy isn't simply the ability to vote every four years. It also depends upon citizens having enough information between elections to understand what their government is doing. Who participated in a decision? What advice was provided? How was public money spent? Who communicated with government? What records exist behind a controversial decision? Not every answer must necessarily be disclosed. There are legitimate reasons for confidentiality.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. But there is an important democratic difference between government saying, "You may ask, but this particular information is legally exempt," and the law saying, in effect, "You no longer have the right to ask for this category of records under FIPPA." That distinction should concern Ontarians regardless of whether they support or oppose the current government. Because freedom-of-information legislation isn't supposed to belong to one political party. It belongs to the public. Governments change. The public's right to scrutinize them should endure.

DIY Home security on a budget

By Tom Reimer When Daniel bought the little house at the edge of town, he quickly discovered that owning a home came with an unexpected responsibility: making it feel safe. He didn’t have money for an expensive security system, reinforced steel doors, or a professional installer. What he had was a toolbox, a weekend, and a modest budget. So he started with the front door. The door looked strong, but Daniel noticed that the lock hardware was attached to a flimsy section of the frame. He replaced the worn hardware with sturdier hardware and used appropriately sized screws that anchored into the structural framing. He did the same for the door leading into the garage. Next came the windows. He checked every latch and discovered that several had become loose over the years. He repaired them and made sure every accessible window could be properly secured. For windows that faced secluded areas, he added inexpensive alarms that would make a loud sound if the window was opened unexpectedly. On Saturday evening, Daniel walked around the property with a flashlight. He discovered things he had never noticed before. A tall hedge blocked the view of the side entrance. A stack of garden equipment sat beside the garage. The porch was surprisingly dark. He trimmed the hedge, moved the equipment into the locked shed, and installed a simple motion-activated light near the entrance. The changes weren’t dramatic, but the house already felt different. On Sunday, Daniel installed a couple of inexpensive cameras facing the main approaches to the property. He positioned them so that they didn’t invade his neighbors’ privacy. He also placed a visible alarm notice near the entrance. Then he created something more important than any gadget: a family plan. If something suspicious happened at night, nobody would wander downstairs to investigate. Everyone would know where to go and whom to call. A small upstairs room with a solid door became their designated safe room. They kept their phones charged and made sure everyone knew the local emergency number. Daniel explained to his daughter that the goal wasn’t to fight anyone. “Security isn’t about being brave,” he told her. “It’s about giving ourselves time to get somewhere safe.” That evening, Daniel sat on the porch and looked at the house. It wasn’t a fortress. There were still plenty of things he couldn’t afford to change. But the doors were stronger, the windows were secured, the dark corners were illuminated, and the family had a plan. A week later, a violent storm knocked out the neighborhood’s electricity. Daniel’s daughter woke frightened by the darkness. Daniel reached for the flashlight he had placed beside the bed. The emergency lights came on, powered by batteries. Everyone knew what to do. They stayed together, checked that the doors and windows were secure, and waited for the power to return. Daniel smiled. He had originally thought home security was about keeping strangers out. Now he understood that the most important part was helping the people inside remain calm, prepared, and safe. His little house didn’t need to become a fortress. It simply needed to become a home that was ready.

Canada Cannot Build a New Future With an Unreformed Public Service

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has entered a period in which infrastructure and national security can no longer be treated as separate policy files. Ports, railways, energy systems, critical minerals, communications networks and defence production all affect our ability to protect our sovereignty and sustain our prosperity. Political leaders can recognize this reality and announce ambitious plans. However, announcements will accomplish little unless the public service is equipped, organized and expected to deliver them. The federal government has created a Major Projects Office to coordinate projects of national importance and improve the speed of decisions. It has also launched a Defence Industrial Strategy intended to strengthen domestic production and accelerate procurement. These are welcome signs of urgency. They also raise a harder question: can the machinery of government carry out the transformation that ministers are promising? Consider what it takes to build a strategic port. The project may require federal and provincial approvals, Indigenous consultation, environmental assessment, financing, rail connections, labour, electricity and security planning. Each issue deserves serious attention. Yet when responsibility is divided among many offices, a project can spend years moving between them without anyone being accountable for the whole result. The same problem affects defence. A government may decide that Canada needs new equipment or a stronger industrial base. The armed forces must define the requirement; procurement officials must run the competition; industry must have confidence that orders will materialize; and equipment must eventually reach personnel who can use and maintain it. If these steps are disconnected, increased spending will not necessarily produce increased readiness. Public-service reform is therefore a condition of effective political change. It should begin with a simple principle: every major national priority needs a person with the authority, expertise and duty to see it through. That leader must be able to bring departments together, resolve disputes promptly and report honestly when a deadline or budget is at risk. Ministers remain answerable to Parliament, but the public needs to know who is responsible for delivery. Reform also requires restoring technical capacity inside government. Canada needs experienced engineers, project managers, procurement specialists, scientists, digital experts and people who understand the industries with which government works. Consultants can provide useful advice, but the state cannot make sound long-term decisions if it lacks the knowledge to evaluate that advice. A government that wants to build must understand construction, operations, maintenance and risk. This is particularly important in defence procurement. Buying equipment is more than signing a contract. It involves training, spare parts, upgrades, domestic production and the ability to keep a system working in a crisis. Procurement officials should be judged on the capability delivered over time, alongside fair competition and prudent use of public funds. Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy acknowledges the need to connect military requirements with industrial capacity. Public-service practices must now make that connection real. Approval processes need reform as well. Faster decisions should come from clearer requirements, coordinated reviews and firm timelines. Indigenous rights, environmental protection and public accountability are essential. Agencies should identify concerns early, work through them together and give proponents a dependable path to a decision. An approval that takes years because government offices cannot coordinate does not serve the public interest. There is also a cultural challenge. Public servants are often rewarded for avoiding mistakes within their own area of responsibility. Major projects require people to identify risks, make judgments and solve problems across departmental boundaries. Leaders must permit well-founded decisions, including decisions that may attract criticism. They must also distinguish an honest error from negligence. If every difficult choice is passed upward or deferred indefinitely, no organizational chart will create momentum. At the same time, reform cannot be reduced to cutting positions. The federal government is pursuing a broad expenditure review intended to reduce duplication and spending. Efficiency matters, but a smaller public service is not automatically a more capable one. Eliminating a vacant technical post may save money on paper while delaying a project worth billions. The test should be whether Canadians receive better decisions and measurable results. Parliament has a role in changing those incentives. For major infrastructure and defence programs, the government should publish realistic milestones, estimated costs, responsible officials and regular progress reports. When a project slips, the explanation should identify the obstacle and the proposed remedy. Public reporting would make it harder to conceal delay behind optimistic announcements and easier to recognize teams that solve difficult problems. Federalism must also be part of the solution. Provinces, territories, municipalities and Indigenous governments have their own authority and legitimate interests. Ottawa cannot simply order a railway, transmission line or port into existence. It can, however, convene partners early, negotiate practical agreements and coordinate its own decisions. Respect for jurisdiction should encourage disciplined cooperation, not become an excuse for years of drift. Canada faces a strategic choice. We can continue to announce nation-building projects while accepting the administrative habits that prevent them from being built. Or we can match political ambition with a public service designed for execution: technically competent, transparent, accountable and able to act across institutional boundaries. That reform would honour the many capable public servants who already want to deliver. It would give them clearer mandates and the tools to do their jobs. More importantly, it would give Canadians something they have been promised too often and shown too rarely: completed infrastructure, stronger security and a government whose actions keep pace with its words.

IF I HAD A DIME FOR EVERY TIME I GET ASKED THIS!!!

By Joe Ingino It is no secret that for the past 35 years, I have earned the reputation and status of being the only bona fide political critic across Durham Region. As such, it carries a huge responsibility. The question I get asked all the time is: Who should readers be voting for? In the past, the question was hard to answer, as most candidates had some sort of qualification. In today’s world, anyone can fly, and everyone is an expert. Across the region, quality of life is slowly eroding. Taxes keep going up, and people are fed up. So, my advice: If you have a choice between an incumbent and a new candidate, take a chance on the new candidate, as the incumbent is responsible, at least in part, for the current state of our community. The thinking often leans toward the idea that an incumbent has more experience than any new candidate. Here is where the problem lies. The experience that many incumbents hold is not necessarily experience that has proven to benefit taxpayers. So, when faced with the choice of an incumbent versus a new candidate, go with the new candidate.Let’s look at the shit show in Oshawa. For mayor, you have nine candidates running for the position. One would think someone left the door to the pig trough open, and it is open season for anyone looking for a step up in the job market—or incumbents looking to legally get a pay raise. In Oshawa, out of the nine candidates, three are former or current council members. Three council members who have served and have little or nothing to show for their achievements. The problem with having a nine-person race is that the three council members are splitting the incumbent vote. The other six candidates get to split the general vote and possibly a fraction of the incumbent vote. So, what does this add up to? Well, if any of the readers believe in miracles, one had better happen—one that will bring forward, from among the six new candidates, someone who can capture both the general vote and some of the incumbent vote. On one side, you have candidate Henry. He has shown potential but needs work. On the other side, you have Tito, a self-proclaimed winner whose confidence appears heavily dependent on the belief that his years of working within the political establishment have given him enough momentum to take the mayor’s seat. After all, the City of Oshawa is coming off the Carter era. The three-way split may prove to bring some surprises. As for the rest of Oshawa: Ward 1: Being an open ward, it is a total toss-up. The level of ignorance displayed by some of the candidates in this ward makes the selection scary. I would refrain from supporting Martin Franssen. I would go with someone else.Ward 2: I would put my vote on Olaleye Oluwaolorunlanke—a professional with the right attitude and intentions. Regional Ward 3: I would put my vote on Rizwan Javed. He has a lot of learning ahead of him but appears to have potential.Local Ward 3: Anyone but Roger Bouma.Regional Ward 4: Jeff Davis is the people’s choice. Even though he is rough around the edges, he connects with the people. Kerr is fighting to keep the gravy train flowing, while Sanders wants it back. These are two council candidates who have had their chance and, in my view, failed taxpayers. Local Ward 4: This is an important ward. I think the best person for the job is Dave Thompson. Through the years, he has proven himself to care about Oshawa. Regional Ward 5: I know what I said at the beginning: If faced with a two-horse race, go with the new candidate. I think this should be the exception. Out of the two choices, I think Brian Nicholson would be the better choice.Local Ward 5: This is a mess of a ward. Out of the ashes, I believe the best choice is Scheshawna Lemaire. She is heavily involved in the community, and she genuinely cares.Another interesting battle is happening in Pickering.The vacant City Ward 1 seat appears to be an open run to the finish. All are new candidates, and most do not appear to have a strong understanding of the inner workings of the city. Taxation seems to be a foreign word, as each candidate interprets it differently.This is an important seat that appears likely to be won by someone with limited experience in the position.On the upside, Regional Ward 3 is a two-man race. Pickles, by his actions, appears to be campaigning as though he has already won. Azmat Mujeeb, however, may be coming from behind and could make the race much more competitive than expected. The City Ward 3 battle is between incumbent Shaheen Butt and Nada Rajkumar.This race could produce a major surprise, particularly as rumours have begun circulating concerning current Councillor Butt and questions surrounding the purchase of a number of properties following his 2022 election victory. These remain allegations and rumours unless supported by verified evidence.The rumours have also brought Regional Ward 3 candidate David Pickles into the discussion. If credible evidence were to substantiate any allegations involving either individual, the political consequences could be significant. Stay tuned for next week, when I take another look across Durham and offer more predictions.

Homelessness has become an emergency and your voice and a little kindness can break the silence

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support With growing concern about toxic fentanyl in the drug supply, people who use drugs are facing grave danger. Today, outside the gas station at Whites Road and Kingston Road in Pickering , I saw a man lying on the ground in a position that made me fear the worst. I recognized it as the same one many other Fentanyl users find themselves in when the get into trouble.. I ran over with my phone and naloxone in hand. No one else seemed to stop or even act surprised even though there were a few waiting right there for the next bus. They watched from afar. It felt as though a black curtain had fallen around myself and the man in a position where I wasn’t sure I could even help him. The man was very difficult to wake. Finally with some forceful nudging right under his shoulder blade he roused enough to allow me to move him to a sitting position on the bench. Eventually, he told me who he was and shared a little of his story. He has been homeless over a year living in Pickering. He was hoping to use the DARS warming centre. He was cold and needed somewhere to go. But it is still 60 days until it opens on December 1. Our Winter Warming Centre operates at nighttime only and individuals must still find other spaces to stay warm during the day. Until then, he has to find a way to survive outside. He looked frail and unwell. When I offered to get him lunch or water, he asked for a mint chocolate Aero bar. I learned his teeth were gone and he found most food too difficult to chew. I went to the store and returned with two bars and a protein drink. He was thrilled beyond belief. How sad I recall feeling. By then, a young police officer was speaking with him. The man said he had experienced a seizure. This was the same explanation he had given me. Fire crews arrived but were waved off by the officer who said it looked like I had things under control and she, to the man’s relief, left too. I offered him information about our services and called Street Outreach at 311. He was alive but I had little control over his situation nor the broader homeless epidemic. Once again I felt the black curtain fall. I’m not blaming first responders. Their hands are often tied and when they do intervene their efforts are met with no beds, no help, no change for the individuals they attempt to serve and protect. This encounter stayed with me. Homelessness is an emergency. Addiction, poor and declining mental health and limited access to timely, intensive care are adding pressure to a system that needs new solutions now. Governments at every level, together with frontline organizations, must work differently and act urgently. More than 2,000 people in Durham Region alone are living without housing. These are our neighbours, sons, brothers, sisters and daughters. How is this okay? Whether you blame the individuals or not, and I hope you don’t, this is so unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada. The next time you see someone in distress, offer kindness and help if you can. Carry naloxone; it is available free at many pharmacies and they will train you how to administer it. It’s actually a simple nose spray. LEARN CPR!! If someone appears to be in immediate danger, don’t hesitate to call 911. Then call your MPP and MP. Tell them homelessness is not going away, and that people cannot wait for help until winter—or until their next crisis. We already have a crisis!!!

What happens if you retire before you’re officially “supposed” to?

’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Whether you’ve decided to “hang up your boots” early or life “threw you a curveball”, retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap. That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65. So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture. Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime. Think of these “gap years” as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream. Here’s a game plan that may work for most people: Lean on Your RRSPs First If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend. Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate. There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF). Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year. If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively “melting down” your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill. You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption. Leave Your TFSA Alone While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses. Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free. The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP. Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life. Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully. While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals—keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check. Review you options before you make any commitments!

The Reactor That Didn't Retire

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print We had a family friend who lived near Pickering, and for years I drove past the nuclear generating station regularly. Those enormous reactor buildings became a familiar part of the trip. These days I live farther north, and the plant is still part of the landscape. I didn't need to know much about what was happening inside to recognize it from the road. That familiar plant was back in the news this week. On Monday, September 21, Ontario announced that work had started on the refurbishment of Pickering's four remaining operating reactors. They're being taken out of service by the end of September and will remain offline for about a decade while they're rebuilt. The plan is to bring them back in the mid-2030s and keep them generating electricity for decades after that. It's a remarkable second career for a plant that was approaching retirement.You might assume artificial intelligence had something to do with that decision. After all, we keep hearing about the electricity needed to power AI and the enormous data centres being built to support it. But Ontario asked Ontario Power Generation to examine refurbishing Pickering back in September 2022, before ChatGPT arrived. The province was already preparing for more homes, electric vehicles and industry. AI wasn't what put Pickering's refurbishment on the table. The data centres have since joined the line, and they're asking for a remarkable amount of electricity. In August, the Independent Electricity System Operator reported roughly 7,000 megawatts of data-centre connection requests, about double what had been reported in March. That's electricity those companies want access to, not power they're already using. Some projects may never be built. But the demand being proposed is considerable, and it arrives just as Pickering is preparing to stop generating electricity for the next decade.There's a problem to work through in the meantime. Environmental Defence has warned that taking Pickering offline could increase Ontario's reliance on natural gas to generate electricity, adding to greenhouse gas emissions. The province says the refurbishment will secure decades of nuclear power once the reactors return. Both the years without Pickering and the years after it comes back matter when planning Ontario's electricity supply.Which brings me back to something closer to home. The hydro bill. Most of us look at the amount owing, perhaps compare it with last month, and pay it. But there's a line worth noticing near the bottom of an eligible Ontario household's bill called the Ontario Electricity Rebate. Last November, the province increased that rebate to 23.5 per cent, helping offset an increase in electricity rates. The rate we're charged and the amount that ultimately comes out of our pockets aren't quite the same thing. The Ontario Energy Board's explanation of last November's price changes pointed to higher-than-expected generation and conservation costs. It didn't name the new wave of data centres as a cause. So when someone says AI is already responsible for that increase, the explanation from the agency that sets the rates doesn't support it. What happens next is another matter.In August, Ontario proposed separate electricity pricing for large new data centres. The province says it wants to prevent the costs of their growth from being passed along to existing customers. That's the promise. The details are still being worked out, including which facilities would be covered and how their charges would be calculated. Somebody has to pay for the electricity and the equipment needed to deliver it.Data centres have their uses. They support everything from online banking and shopping to the photographs we store on our phones. They can bring investment and jobs, too. But the electricity they need has to come from somewhere, and building the infrastructure to serve them takes time. From October 6 to 9, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hold a public hearing in Ajax on Pickering's licence renewal and proposed refurbishment. The site work has started, but the regulatory process is still underway. A plant I've driven past for years is about to go quiet for a long time, and the discussion about its future is taking place right here in Durham.I still know where to look for Pickering when I'm driving past. The buildings are hard to miss. Most of us will never see the data centres that are asking to join Ontario's electricity system. But we'll still have the hydro bill.

Head Games

I have a coworker I've been friendly with for several years. About three months ago she started being too busy to have lunch together. I asked her once whether anything was wrong and whether I offended her in some way. She assured me nothing was amiss and she considers me a friend at work. But in the past month she stopped speaking to me unless absolutely necessary. No more sailing into my office, flopping onto a chair, and asking, How is life? No more talking about her work stuff and home stuff. No more good morning or good night, even when she is leaving the office next door to mine and always used to pop her head in. Once she went so far as to look through me to say good morning to someone else. Another time she was in the conference room having arrived first for a meeting. I arrived second, and she kept her head down as if very busy until a third person arrived, then said hello to both of us. There have been hundreds of instances of not seeming to hear me when I say a normal pleasant greeting to her in her office or in the hallway. I feel hurt and disturbed as I wonder if I'm being accused of something I didn't do, or if I put my foot in my mouth in a way that never struck me as offensive. I feel it would be useless to ask again if something is wrong. I think my real question is, how can I make myself tougher so a thing like this doesn't occupy my mind and bring me close to tears a few times every day? Are there steps a person can take to grow a tougher skin? Alexia Alexia, Wayne once asked a 60-ish friend why he was always in such high spirits. This friend explained that as a young man he worried incessantly. He worried over tests, dates, and whether he would ever find a job. Then in his late teens he had an epiphany. Worry accomplishes nothing. What you need is not so much a tougher skin as to stop worrying over things beyond your control. You asked if there was a problem and she denied it. You’ve done all you can. For some reason, the friendly woman with an office next door moved away and a person with whom you have little in common and no rapport moved in. That’s curious, but it’s not a reason for worry. In the personal space between her ears something is going on. You are likely never to know what. Wayne once smiled at a friend on a street corner and was baffled when a woman he didn’t know and hadn’t noticed crossed the street to ask why he was laughing at her. Say what? People do all manner of strange things. People tell tales, create hoopla, and use passive aggression. They also show extraordinary kindness and care. Good people torture themselves asking why, why, why. But the answer is often as simple as displaced emotion. This woman may be a little like the serial killer who wants to kill his mother but kills other women instead. Not everything in life carries the same weight. Your family carries a certain weight, your partner a certain weight, your house a certain weight, and your neighbors a certain weight. Your job carries a certain weight. You are giving her too much weight. Your purpose at work is work. Treat this woman with the normal corporate politeness used in the workplace. Treat her professionally, clinically, and distantly. When you walk into a room and she is there, ignore her, but with a third person present act normally. It always helps to ask ourselves, what is my purpose in life? Then let your life proceed from your purpose and not from the oddities and quirks of others.

You Can Lose Weight

Pills, pills, pills. Any doctor not encouraging patients to protect health with their own fortitude first is a doctor who has underestimated the patient. Don’t be complacent if this is your doctor. An astounding majority of North Americans are dismantling their health. I won’t quibble with definitions of what constitutes being overweight or obese. But I am comfortable saying that about seven in ten of us are carrying extra pounds. And I have zero concerns with saying that extra pounds take their toll. Furthermore, with few exceptions, we each have what it takes to shed those pounds. But people like to complain. They abandon their willpower. They don’t learn what they can do to get back in better form. And now they just pop another pill. When a large majority of people are succumbing to quick and artificial fixes, our society changes, and not for the better. I want to live in a world where the basics are held sacred, including moderate, clean, sustainable and healthy consumption of nutritious food. We need to fight back against trends undermining our personal responsibility for our own health. If the medical community won’t do it, then let’s explain basic physiology to children, teens, and any adults who don’t know it. Maintaining a trim waistline is a very good goal. Yet, many have let the middle region grow! But three times a day or more, we have opportunities to reduce the risk of developing a long list of diseases. The human body possesses mechanisms designed to prevent overeating. But a fast-paced and convenient lifestyle doesn’t give the mechanism a chance. Here’s how it works. As food is eaten, the walls of the stomach start to stretch. Sensors in the stomach detect that stretching and begin sending signals to the brain. These signals travel through the vagus nerve, a major communication highway between the gut and brain. As food reaches the small intestine, additional hormones including cholecystokinin, peptide YY and GLP-1 are released. These hormones have several jobs, but one is to tell the brain that nutrients have arrived and that more food is not required. GLP-1 and related signals also slow the movement of food through the digestive tract. The new generation of weight-loss drugs exploits this natural system. Semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, activates GLP-1 receptors, reducing appetite and slowing the emptying of the stomach. Tirzepatide, sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound, activates both GLP-1 and GIP receptors, reducing appetite and food intake while also slowing gastric emptying. One way or the other, the sensation is familiar to everyone who has pushed away a plate. Enough! But a person can eat a lot of food before those signals have had time to arrive and be interpreted. A fast eater can finish a big meal in ten minutes and still feel hungry. Another ten minutes and it would be different. Research has also revealed that the stomach responds to volume as well as calories. Stretch receptors respond when the stomach expands, regardless of high-calorie or low-calorie food. Distending the stomach activates neural pathways involved in feeling full. It’s the intestines that are keeping track of nutrients. This is an old piece of biology. Other mammals have the same basic gut-brain communication system. Mice and rats are routinely used to study it, and similar mechanisms have been demonstrated in other mammals. We should pay it our respect. If you’d like to lose weight naturally, step on the scale and record the number. For two weeks, serve smaller portions at every meal. Then, eat slowly. Give the body time to send signals. Two weeks later, step on the scale again.

IF YOU ARE PROMISING CHANGE, TELL US WHAT YOU ARE CHANGING

There is one word we are going to hear repeatedly throughout this municipal election: change. Candidates will talk about taxes, condos, development, infrastructure, farmland, spending and accountability. But before accepting anyone’s newly stated positions, I believe voters should ask a simple question: Where were you before you wanted the job? Pickering has made decisions over the last four years that will shape this city for generations — from Northeast Pickering and agricultural lands to the rapid expansion of high-density condominium development, major spending, infrastructure, the federal lands and Elexicon. These issues didn’t suddenly appear when nominations opened. Some candidates seeking office today had little or no visible involvement in these debates during most of this term. A couple have since appeared before Council and made delegations, but those appearances came after their names were already on the ballot. There is nothing wrong with becoming involved after deciding to run. But chronology matters when someone presents themselves as a voice for change. Can you show residents where you stood before your name was on the ballot? You didn’t have to sit in Council Chambers every week. Did you write Council, make a delegation, organize residents, attend public meetings or speak publicly? Were you engaged when the decisions were actually being made? A campaign tells us what someone wants us to know about them today. A record tells us what they were prepared to stand for when there was no election to win. That brings me to the bigger question: What does “change” actually mean? Over the last four years, the direction of Pickering was not set by the Mayor alone. Council members cast their own votes. But the Mayor is the head of Council, and on

many major issues where I challenged the direction being taken, I repeatedly found myself on the losing end of 6–1 votes. There was very little willingness around that Council table to challenge the direction being led from the Mayor’s chair. On many of the major issues facing Pickering, the current Mayor and I have represented fundamentally different directions. That makes the word “change” particularly important in this election. So let’s make it simple. If you believe the direction Council has taken over the past four years is the direction Pickering should continue, say so. If you support the current leadership and its direction, explain why. But if you are campaigning because you believe Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, then you cannot avoid the obvious question: Does the leadership at the head of Council need to change too? If your answer is no, explain how maintaining the same leadership produces the fundamentally different direction you are promising. You cannot have it both ways without explaining the contradiction. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with every individual vote. It is about the overall direction of our city. And this is where independence matters. I understand the political calculation at the doorstep. One resident may want change while the next supports the current Mayor. Giving a straight answer could cost you a vote. A candidate may also be thinking, “What if the current Mayor is re-elected and I have to work with him? Maybe I should play nice now.” Perhaps that is politically safer. But leadership isn’t supposed to be an exercise in political safety. If you believe something, tell residents. If they disagree, respect that. But don’t change the answer depending on whose doorstep you’re standing on. If you are already afraid to rock the boat before you have even been elected, why should residents believe you will suddenly become courageous once you are sitting in the boat? You don’t demonstrate independence by waiting until it is politically safe to have an opinion. There is a difference between working together and going along to get along. Working together should mean seven independent people bringing their own judgment to the table, asking difficult questions, debating issues and then working professionally with one another regardless of how they voted. It should also mean that no member of Council is penalized simply for being the dissenting vote. Disagreement should never be treated as disloyalty. If elected Mayor, that is not how I would lead. I may strongly disagree with a councillor’s position, but I would respect their right — and responsibility — to exercise independent judgment. No councillor should fear consequences simply because they challenged the Mayor or stood alone on a vote. The same scrutiny should apply across the ballot. Incumbents should defend what they did with the four years residents already gave them. Challengers should explain where they were during those four years and what they stood for before becoming candidates. A new name alone doesn’t guarantee a new direction, just as holding office doesn’t automatically justify another term. So when someone tells you they represent change, ask what they mean. Where were they before their name appeared on the ballot? What would they actually change? And if they say Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, ask the question that matters: Does your definition of change include changing the leadership at the head of Council? Because changing the names around the Council table while preserving the same leadership and direction isn’t necessarily change. Working together should never mean going along to get along. Unity should never require conformity. And if you’re promising a different destination, voters deserve to know whether you believe Pickering needs someone different steering the ship.

Less Canada, More Foreign Capital: The Hypocrisy of Carney's Quest for Foreign Investment

By Nick Kossovan At Tuesday's inaugural Canada Investment Summit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a masterclass in political sleight of hand, unveiling his headline capital expenditure tax policy. Carney pitched Canada as a secure economic safe harbour, now, to no one's surprise, aggressively seeking to attract global capital, including deep-pocketed American investors, to Canadian megaprojects. Carney hailed his fiscal package as a patriotic step toward true national independence. The truth, however, becomes clear once you strip away the rhetoric. While technically applicable to any business currently operating in Canada, Carney's asset-stripper tax write-off maneuver is an exercise in appeasing Canadians' anxieties about the Canadian economy's direction. In contrast to Carney's claims of bolstering the domestic economy, his initiative is an extravagant, multimillion-dollar corporate handout to foreign private equity firms and multinational corporations capable of initiating massive capital-expenditure surges on their own, funded by Canadians and businesses that elected Carney to look after their best interests. A key component of Carney's corporate welfare opus is the Productivity Mega Deduction. This policy aims to turbocharge capital spending through sweeping fiscal measures: · Instant Write-Offs: Instead of writing off major equipment and building costs over many years, companies can now deduct 100% of the cost in the first year. · Everything Covered: Approximately 65% of business assets are eligible for write-off, including oil pipelines, corporate jets, and factory machinery. · Permanent Tax Breaks: These write-offs will remain permanent, creating a structural tax shelter. · The Lowest Tax Rate: Under this plan, Canada will have the lowest tax rate in the G7 at 6.4%, half that of the US. · A $36-Billion Gamble: Canadian taxpayers are expected to pay $36 billion over five years to chase $1 trillion in investment. At a post-announcement press conference, Carney defended this staggering giveaway with a rationalization that revealed a profound disconnect from everyday economic reality: "If we're in a race… we're ahead on the incentives, but we have ground to catch up. And what does this mean for Canadians and catching up to that ground? It means more jobs. It means a stronger country. It means more resilience, more independence, more sovereignty." It's a neat trick to equate corporate welfare for foreign multinationals with national pride. In an interview after the summit, Centre for Future Work economist Jim Stanford bluntly noted that foreign investment should not be the goal, adding, "we should be looking at these opportunities, carefully, judging them, negotiating with foreign investors to make sure the net benefit to Canada is as positive as it can be." Instead of cautious pragmatism, Carney has opened the vault. A $36 billion tax write-off for multinational private equity firms and Wall Street asset managers, many of whom would have deployed capital anyway, amounts to a reckless corporate handout. Consequently, billionaire balance sheets are financed by Canadian taxpayers and struggling families, while public services are underfunded. Furthermore, claiming "national sovereignty" while selling off Canada's economic infrastructure to foreigners is exceedingly hypocritical. Carney's strategy of trading the US, Canada's primary external economic master since Confederation, for multiple others is his bid to mitigate American trade friction while locking Canada into a permanent state of offshore dependency. By rolling out the red carpet for foreign conglomerates while leaving domestic businesses to grapple with persistent inflation, high operating costs, trade and tariff uncertainty, and regulatory burdens, Carney is engaging in nothing more than empty economic tokenism. He wants the political optics of standing up to Washington while pandering to foreign boardrooms—"Look at what I'm doing for Canadians!"—ensuring that Canada remains structurally and economically "less Canada." If Carney truly wanted to build a resilient economy, he'd look inward. Canadian prosperity won't come from the transient whims of global asset allocators; rather, it will come from entrepreneurs, business owners, employers, and Canadians who don't feel as financially stressed as they do today. Providing aggressive tax incentives and deep tax cuts for established Canadian businesses would build organic, homegrown wealth that stays within Canada's borders. Instead, Canadian businesses watch with frustration and anger as Carney grants preferential treatment and fast-tracked reviews to foreign corporations, while treating Canadians like second-class citizens in their own country. The math doesn't add up. Canadian taxpayers will ultimately bear the $36 billion shortfall through reduced public services or future tax hikes. However, Carney's tax enticement has one major problem: Because he failed to secure a long-term trade deal with the US, exporting goods across the border has, for the most part, become cost-prohibitive, a significant deterrent. No amount of tax wizardry can hide the fact that foreign companies have little substantive reason to set up shop in Canada beyond skimming short-term subsidies and flying away. Ultimately, Carney is playing a shell game, trading taxpayer money and national sovereignty for foreign approval. By prioritizing foreign conglomerates over Canadian companies, he's locking Canada into permanent economic subordination. As long as Ottawa chases global capital ghosts instead of supporting Canadians who live, work, and bleed here, the Canadian economy will remain nothing more than a branch of foreign boardrooms.

When the Right to Strike Is on the Table

 Oshawa is a union town. We know what a picket line looks like. For generations, families here have lived through strikes, layoffs and long talks between workers and companies. Sometimes people supported the union. Sometimes they blamed the union. Sometimes they blamed the company. But people talked about it. Now there is another labour issue Canadians should be talking about. The federal government is preparing changes to Canada's labour laws. Those changes could affect what happens when workers in federally regulated workplaces go on strike or employers lock them out. Unions are worried. The Canadian Labour Congress has warned Ottawa not to weaken the right to strike. It is especially concerned about Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. That section gives the federal labour minister broad powers during a labour dispute. Ottawa has used it during several major disputes in recent years. The Canadian Labour Congress says Section 107 has been used eight times since 2024 in ways that ended strikes or lockouts and sent disputes toward binding arbitration. Think about what that could mean at the bargaining table. Workers go on strike because they want pressure put on the employer. They stop getting their regular pay. The company may lose money. Nobody really wins during a long strike. That pressure is part of bargaining. But what happens if workers believe Ottawa will eventually order them back? Then turn the question around. What happens if a company believes the government will eventually step in and end the strike? Would that company feel the same pressure to settle? Those are fair questions. We saw how serious that got in the 2025 strike of the Air Canada flight attendants. Ottawa used Section 107 and directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board toward binding arbitration. The dispute became about more than Air Canada. Canadians started arguing about the government's power to intervene in a legal strike. But there is another side to this. Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu says the government's coming changes are supposed to reduce government intervention, not increase it. She says employers and workers should settle their own disputes whenever possible. Ottawa has been looking at changes involving bargaining periods, mediation, strike and lockout notices, arbitration and Section 107 itself. And the government has a problem unions do not have to solve alone. Imagine Canada's railways shutting down. A farmer needs to ship grain. A factory in Oshawa is waiting for parts. Stores are waiting for products. A small business has customers waiting for orders. None of those people are sitting at the bargaining table. The same thing happens when a major airline or port shuts down. A fight between workers and an employer can quickly become everybody's problem. So when should the government step in? That is where this gets interesting. If Ottawa moves too quickly, workers may wonder whether they really have a right to strike. If Ottawa waits too long, millions of Canadians and businesses could pay the price for a dispute they had nothing to do with. There is no easy answer. That is especially worth remembering here in Oshawa. This city was built by working people. Many belonged to unions. They fought for better wages, safer workplaces, pensions and benefits. Some of those fights were not pretty. But they changed working life. We also have to be careful about saying something has happened before it actually has. The final legislation has not been presented, so we do not know exactly what Parliament will eventually approve. For now, the government says it wants fewer interventions. Unions are worried the changes could weaken their bargaining power. Both sides know something important is coming. So maybe this is one for the coffee table. When a strike begins hurting the rest of the country, should Ottawa step in? And if the government can end a strike when the pressure becomes too great, how much power does a strike really have? Pull up a chair. I have a feeling this conversation is just getting started.