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.

Did Anyone Read Your Résumé?

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print You can spend an hour on a job application and never know if anyone actually looked at it. You adjust the résumé, change a few words so it fits the position, check the spelling, attach the file and hit submit. Then you wait. A week goes by, maybe two, and eventually the posting disappears. Most of the time, you’re left to assume somebody else got the job. The question you rarely get answered is even more basic: did a person ever see what you sent? Ontario has quietly answered part of that question this year. Since January. 1, new requirements under the Employment Standards Act say employers covered by the rules have to disclose when artificial intelligence is being used to screen, assess or select applicants. You may already have seen the sentence and scrolled right past it. The Ministry of Labour says employers don’t have to describe the system in detail or tell you exactly how it is being used. A statement that AI is involved can be enough. And these aren’t just words sitting in a regulation somewhere. A recent Staples posting for a sales position in Ajax included a notice saying artificial intelligence may be used at certain stages to screen, assess or select applicants, while adding that a human reviewer makes the final decisions. That one little paragraph in a job ad tells you quite a bit. The first set of eyes you imagine looking at your résumé may not actually be a set of eyes. Software could be part of deciding whether your application moves forward far enough for somebody to look at it. That doesn’t mean the machine necessarily hires or rejects you on its own, and the Staples posting specifically says a person makes the final call. But it does make you look at that submit button a little differently. There’s another part of the new rules that may matter even more. If an employer interviews you, it generally has to tell you within 45 days whether a hiring decision has been made. Anyone who has gone through a job search knows why that matters. You have the interview, think it went reasonably well, check your email for a few days and then for a few more. Eventually you realize you may never hear anything. Except the 45-day rule has a door in front of it. Under the regulation, preliminary screening doesn’t count as an interview. So the clock doesn’t start simply because you applied or because your résumé went through a screening process. It starts once you’ve actually been interviewed. If AI helps screen out your application before you ever get that far, the 45-day requirement never starts for you. That’s the part I think most people will care about. Someone applying for a warehouse job, a sales position or something at the local shopping centre probably isn’t going to research the artificial-intelligence system behind the application. They want to know whether their experience was considered, whether they have a chance and, eventually, whether somebody else got the job. The rules give applicants more information, but there are limits. Even after an interview, the employer only has to tell you whether a hiring decision has been made. You aren’t necessarily going to learn why you didn’t get the job, what role the software played or how your application was assessed. These particular requirements also apply only to employers with at least 25 employees on the day the job is posted. Before we get too sentimental about the person who used to read every résumé, the old system wasn’t exactly a fireside chat either. A manager with hundreds of applications could skim, miss good experience, favour something familiar or simply run out of time. Good people were overlooked long before anyone started calling the software AI. For an employer buried in applications, using technology to narrow things down isn’t particularly hard to understand. What has changed is that some of that machinery is becoming visible. That sentence buried near the bottom of a job ad is worth reading now, because it tells you something about what may happen to your résumé after you press submit. If you get through that first door and into an interview, Ontario now says you’re entitled to an answer of sorts. If you don’t, the old answer can still arrive the old-fashioned way.

Does Your Doctor Care?

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones If doctors depended like actors do on an ability to connect with their audience, the medical profession would get better reviews. But most patients will tell you the same thing about their doctor: they don’t make that connection at a human level. They are elusive – virtually impossible to reach for a discussion. When they appear at appointments, they pay more attention to the computer screen in the examining room than they do you, the patient, the person needing their care. Patients have been complaining about it for decades. In 1989, a major survey reported patients often felt “dehumanized,” and that doctors cared more about tests and procedures than about the person in front of them. Even earlier, in the 1960s, social researchers noted that patients described physicians as “curt” and “abrupt,” mechanical and impersonal. Studies ever since have confirmed that dissatisfaction with doctors is due to their lack of communication skills. Medical schools have tried to address this. Teaching interpersonal skills is now part of the curriculum. Students rehearse interviews, practice explaining diagnoses, and even role-play with actors posing as patients. Research shows that effective communication improves diagnostic accuracy, increases adherence to treatment plans, and enhances patient satisfaction. Yet many patients would be forgiven for wondering where those lessons went. Heavy workloads, computer screens between doctor and patient, and complex medical teams continue to create barriers. Medicine may be teaching communication better than ever, but the system often makes it hard for the patient to see the doctor doing it. Many patients assume they have no choice. “I’m lucky just to have a doctor,” they tell themselves. “There’s no way I could find another one.” This is a false narrative. Doctor shortages and the complexity of healthcare have people believing they must accept poor communication. You would not tolerate being ignored or dismissed in other parts of your life. Why accept it in medicine? Patients do have power. Does your doctor ask about your life, listen without interrupting, and explain clearly? If the answer is consistently “no,” action is warranted. Even if you stay with the same doctor, your preparation can transform a visit. Write down your list of concerns and what you think the doctor needs to know as background. Prioritize your questions and have them written down too. Ask for clarification. Ask if you have options. Be sure you understand instructions relating to medication. Communication matters immensely in consultations, where diagnoses are discussed, treatment plans explained, and long-term decisions made. But surgery is different. In the operating room, technical skills are what matter. A brusque surgeon may still be an exceptional technician. Reputation among colleagues, experience, and complication rates are more revealing than personality. Multiple opinions, careful questions about outcomes, and input from nurses or other professionals are the smartest safeguards. Walking out on a doctor may be right for some patients. But a practical alternative is a health advocate: a trusted companion who attends appointments with you. They can ensure questions are asked, take notes, track instructions, clarify confusing explanations, and follow up on tests or referrals. They act as an extra set of eyes and ears, guiding patients through complex care. There’s also the possibility that new artificial-intelligence tools capable of notetaking, translating medical jargon into plain language, and helping patients with treatment routines will take up the role of chief communicator. If managed wisely, these tools could make a big difference. But the relationship we all want still rests with two human beings: a doctor who cares and a patient who feels well cared for.

Whose Children?

By Wayne and Tamara Our firstborn adult son no longer allows us to visit at his house or see our only grandchild, now a teenager. It has been four years of being shunned for issues which he stated in a four page email and which I say did not happen. He knows what I presented are the truthful facts; however, he continues with the emotional extortion, certainly against us, and by example to his maturing child. His wife is a health professional who earns a high income. We have known her over 20 years, since she was 14. We don't want to go to court to secure grandparent visitation as the judge would probably ask the child if our visits would be acceptable. We feel the grandchild may say “no” so as not to upset the parents. We don't know what our son has told his child about why we no longer visit. We keep in touch with cards, and still send birthday and holiday gifts. However, we have not received a thank you from either of them. Gayle Gayle, regular readers of the column may sometimes be shocked by a letter we print, but the truly horrific letters never make it into the column. These letters about sexual, physical, and emotional abuse--and cases of huge neglect--are in a whole different category. Whatever your son is saying must be grave because you won’t repeat it and you won’t let it pass. Typically, when there is noteworthy abuse and the victim grows up and can voice it, the parents deny it. As proof of the denial, the parents go after the grandchildren and assert their “grandparents rights.” While it is true an adult child’s complaint may be no stronger than “you get on my nerves,” and in some cases the adult child may be mentally ill, we balance that against the greater evil of giving abusers lifetime access to their children and their children’s children. Serious abusers pursue the third generation as ruthlessly as they mistreated the second. There isn’t enough information in your letter for us to decide what happened, but one thing we know. This seldom happens with good parenting. Wayne & Tamara Clear Conscience About a year ago I met this great guy from India who was working on contract here. We started a relationship, and I fell in love. I kept my feelings from him, and he did the same. There is a reason I am like this--before we started going out I had an intimate relationship with another man. In India guys don't appreciate this from girls, so I never told him. Recently he went back to his country, and all communication stopped. After months of worrying if I will ever see him again, he finally contacted me. It felt good. I am not a liar. I was tired of keeping this from him and wanted to start a fresh life, so I decided to tell him the truth. When I did, he never replied to my email. Are we over? What should I do? Rani Rani, somewhere in an old file cabinet in the back of the male brain is a set of instructions on women. These directives tell a man not to accept a woman who has been intimate with another man. Biologists theorize the instructions were written by nature to ensure a man would at least take care of his own children. Though many men don’t believe the instructions, men from cultures which reinforce them usually do. Because we are better off living in reality, we are better off being honest. But there are a few exceptions. One would be when honesty is merely cruel. Another would be a woman’s sexual history. You will be happier with a man you can be honest with, but women should know many men will have a knee-jerk response to their intimate history. Wayne & Tamara

The Art of Finding Work - Where's the discussion that challenges the prevailing narrative

By Nick Kossovan Where's the discussion that challenges the prevailing narrative that employers are solely responsible for the dumpster fire the current job market has become? Job seekers are failing—or not wanting to—recognize their influence on the many nuances of the job market, including how employers hire. Employers have no choice but to constantly modify their hiring processes in response to job seekers' job search behaviour, such as exaggerating their skills and experience, spraying and praying their resume or ghosting (Ghosting isn't a hiring issue; it's a societal issue.), to name a few ways job seekers are negatively influencing the job market. Thanks to the ease with which technology enables mass application (e.g., AI auto-applying), employers are now dealing with more bad actors and resume spam than ever, because job seekers have the misguided belief that the idiom "Throwing spaghetti at the wall until something sticks" is an effective job search strategy. If the rage against today's job market is ever going to lessen, job seekers need to acknowledge four things: 1. There's growing frustration on both sides of the hiring desk. 2. Job candidates can only control their own actions. 3. The employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical. 4. Two wrongs don't make a right. (Just because a hiring manager does it, doesn't mean a job seeker should follow suit as an act of revenge.) Rightfully, employers are frustrated by their hiring funnel being clogged with AI bot applications, irrelevant resumes (Applying to 300 jobs in a month isn't a flex; it's spray-and-pray desperation), scammers, and the lack of professional effort in applications, and unrealistic expectations and demands. Today's job market is characterized by scarcity. Growing job scarcity is driving job seekers to approach their search out of desperation, often leading to irrational, emotional decisions. Job scarcity has made job seekers irritable and impatient. Empathy for employers, if it ever existed, has all but disappeared. However, neither a person's job search experiences, no matter how frustrating, nor their feelings can excuse or justify actions that fuel the job market dumpster fire. As a job seeker, your conduct is entirely your responsibility. Expressing emotional reactions or seeking revenge, especially on a public platform like LinkedIn, makes you unhirable. Carefully consider what you're revealing, on social media—which is permanent— about your personality, professionalism, maturity, and what employers might expect if they hire you. Employers are justified in considering online behaviour as part of their hiring process. As a job seeker, never adopt the mindset of retaliating against an employer because another employer did it to you. Your values, if they're genuinely a part of who you are, shouldn't be affected by other people's behaviour. It's childish to say, "Well, if they can do it, then so can I!" Employers don't hire people who show immaturity. A significant part of being a professional is managing your reaction to someone else's actions. How you conduct yourself during your job search reflects your professionalism and character. In the digital age, your reputation follows you—explaining why many job seekers don't receive responses to their applications. Few, if any, job seekers realize that employers only matter because they choose to make them matter. The importance you assign to an employer is your choice. Employers only have influence over you because you allow it, rather than understanding that an employer-employee relationship is transactional and not personal. As an employee, you're renting your job until you decide to leave, or your employer asks you to leave Employers don't owe you a job, feedback, or even closure to your interview. They only owe their business, current employees, investors, and shareholders. Therefore, when hiring, employers prioritize their own interests by using ATS and AI alongside knockout questions to reduce the number of applications to a manageable level. Conversely, job seekers are only responsible for their careers and earning an income. As a job seeker, by staying true to your values and not contributing to the rising discourse of the job market, you're not only looking after your interests; you're also looking after your fellow job seekers' interests, if that matters to you Mind you, as I pointed out, job seekers can only control on their side of the hiring desk, which is half of the job market "experience." When job seekers let the feelings and actions of hiring managers and recruiters dictate their own, it produces counterproductive consequences that contribute to today's dysfunctional job market. It's common today for job seekers to utter the unsubstantiated assertion, "When an employer treats candidates poorly, it hurts their brand." I've yet to see anyone provide empirical data showing that a company's profitability has suffered due to their hiring process or ghosting. Employers create and maintain jobs; job seekers sell their value-add; and employees, to minimize the possibility of being let go, need to consistently and visibly maintain their value-add to their employer. Even an asymmetrical relationship, such as the employer-employee relationship, has two sides. Job seekers own and control their side of the hiring process and therefore play a significant role in shaping the job market, which they can influence by following Mahatma Gandhi's words: Be the change that you wish to see in the world.

ARE CHRISTIANS BECOMING THE RELIGION NOBODY WANTS TO DEFEND?

  By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               People went to church to pray. They never came home. In parts of Africa, Christians are being murdered for their faith. In the West, the danger is very different. Hate crimes against Christians are documented, churches are closing and fewer people identify as Christian. Yet something unexpected is happening. Some young people, especially young men, appear to be looking toward Christianity again. So what is happening? Is Christianity disappearing, changing to survive, or beginning another chapter? Hatred against anyone because of religion is wrong. Attacking any place of worship is wrong. This column is about Christians. In July 2025, militants attacked a Catholic night vigil in Komanda in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Dozens were killed. They went to pray. Their families expected them home. Instead, they became another statistic. Open Doors reports that 4,849 Christians were killed for faith related reasons during its latest reporting period. Of those, 4,491 were killed in sub Saharan Africa. Nigeria alone accounted for 3,490. The violence has many causes. Terrorism, crime, land disputes, ethnic conflict and weak governments can overlap. But Christians are also deliberately targeted because they are Christian. In one part of the world, people are dying to keep their faith. A Different West England and Wales recorded 502 hate crimes targeting Christians in the year ending March 2025. Canada also records hate crimes against Christian groups, although its categories make a complete number for all Christian denominations difficult to isolate. Then there are the incidents police never hear about. Someone wearing a cross is threatened and walks away. Someone is harassed because of Christian beliefs and decides reporting it isn't worth the trouble. Nobody knows how often that happens. An incident nobody reports becomes a victim nobody counts. That leaves something worth investigating. Do Christian victims believe hostility toward their faith will be taken seriously? Look at the Buildings The next part of the story can be seen from the street. The cross is still on the roof. The FOR SALE sign is on the lawn. Churches that stood for generations are closing, merging or being sold. Others have burned to the ground, but that is a discussion for another article. In 2001, 77.1 per cent of Canadians identified as Christian. By 2021, it was 53.3 per cent. That is a major change in 20 years. The churches still open are trying to find their place in a society that has changed around them. Some have changed their music and language. Others have changed how they approach modern social issues. This is not about deciding which church is right. It is about observing what is happening. Some Christians call these changes renewal. Others worry Christianity is being changed to fit modern society. That brings the argument back to its centre. Is Christianity disappearing, or adapting? The Weight of the Past Christianity has a long history containing great good and terrible wrongs. Both should be taught honestly. But today's Christian child didn't create that history. A teenager wearing a cross is responsible for how that teenager behaves today, not for something done generations ago. If young Christians begin seeing their faith as something embarrassing to admit, the decline becomes about more than empty buildings. But just when the numbers appear to point in one direction, something else is happening. Young people may be coming back. Recent American research from Barna found increased church engagement among younger adults. In 2026, 40 per cent of Protestant pastors surveyed reported increased engagement among men aged 18 to 35. That does not prove a revival. But it makes Christianity's future much harder to predict. Some may be searching for faith. Others may be looking for belonging, discipline or meaning. Nobody knows where it leads. And that leaves two images. On one street, an old church stands nearly empty. The cross is still on the roof. The FOR SALE sign is on the lawn. Somewhere else, a young man walks into a church for the first time and sits down. One looks like an ending. The other could be a beginning.

Canada’s tariff retaliation is a losing strategy

By Roslyn Kunin Tariffs meant to punish the United States risk hurting Canadian businesses and consumers more than Americans. They say we have to hear something seven times before we believe it. If it is an idea that upsets some long-held beliefs, we may pull the adult equivalent of the childish trick of putting our hands over our ears and hollering “la la la” so we do not have to hear it at all. There is one area in which such wilful deafness has been particularly noticeable: tariffs. We have all heard it before, but too many are still reluctant to believe that tariffs do more harm than good. They harm the country that imposes them by making imports more expensive and less available, increasing both the cost of living for consumers and the cost of doing business. Trump and other tariff supporters believe taxing imports will encourage American production and create jobs. Tariffs can encourage domestic production by making competing imports more expensive. But making more things does not necessarily mean creating many more jobs. Modern manufacturing relies heavily on machines, automation and software, so it takes fewer workers to produce many goods than it once did. Canada has just provided another example. On Sept. 8, Canadian counter-tariffs took effect on $27.6 billion worth of imports from the United States, including steel, dairy products, appliances, agricultural equipment and electronics. Ottawa says it is matching the latest U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar, with Canadian rates ranging from 15 per cent to 50 per cent. The desire to hit back is understandable. When someone hits you, it is almost instinctive to hit back. But psychologically satisfying as retaliation may be, that does not make it good economic policy. Canadian businesses are already being hurt by U.S. tariffs that make it more difficult and expensive to sell into their largest foreign market. Canadian counter-tariffs can add another problem by making American equipment, components and other inputs more expensive. Ottawa also argues the tariffs will help Canadian producers compete against American goods in the Canadian market. But any protection they provide comes at a cost to businesses and consumers that rely on those imports. Canadian tariffs are paid by Canadian importers when American goods enter the country. Those costs can then show up in higher prices, while consumers may also face less choice and, in some cases, goods disappearing from the Canadian market altogether. The argument for counter-tariffs is that they will put enough economic and political pressure on the United States to persuade Washington to change course. But for that strategy to work, the pain we impose on the Americans has to be worth the pain we impose on ourselves. Our economy is much smaller than that of the United States, and we are far more reliant on the American market than the United States is on ours. Almost 72 per cent of Canadian merchandise exports went to the United States last year. Canadian tariffs can hurt particular American industries and may create some political pressure. But we have to ask whether that pressure is worth what the tariffs cost Canadians. That is a poor bet. Our tariffs are more like mosquito bites. They may sting and annoy, but we are likely to hurt ourselves more than we hurt the United States. History also warns against escalating tariff wars. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, countries tried to protect their industries with tariffs. Other countries retaliated with tariffs of their own, helping drive a severe contraction in international trade and making an already terrible economic situation worse. There is a lesson there that should not require seven repetitions. Canada should resist Trump’s attempt to use access to the American market as leverage against us. But resisting does not require us to copy his economic policies. There is a better way to fight back. Canada needs to become less vulnerable to American economic pressure. That means building needed infrastructure as quickly as possible, removing obstacles to trade within Canada and finding more suppliers and customers outside the United States. None of this means turning our backs on the Americans. Geography and the enormous size of their economy will always make the United States a natural and important trading partner. But trade and dependence are not the same thing. The less dependent we are on one market, the less power that market has over us. Individuals, businesses and governments are already beginning to move in this direction. It will take time and it will cost money. But money spent making Canada more competitive and less dependent buys us something that retaliatory tariffs do not: greater economic freedom. Perhaps, after hearing the lesson enough times, we will finally believe it.

Data Centre Capital of Canada But Where Are the Jobs?

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE There has been considerable excitement at Clarington Town Hall about the possibility of making our municipality the “data centre capital of Canada.” It certainly makes for a good headline. But before we start handing over some of the most strategically important employment land in Ontario, I think taxpayers deserve answers to a few much less glamorous questions. How many permanent jobs will these data centres actually create? How many jobs will they create per hectare of employment land they consume? How much electricity will they require? How much water will they consume? And perhaps most importantly: What are we giving up by putting them there? Let me make something clear from the beginning. I am not opposed to data centres. They are an important part of the modern economy. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing and virtually every part of our increasingly digital economy require them. Data centres can also represent billions of dollars of private-sector investment and significant additions to the municipal assessment base. My concern isn't whether data centres should come to Clarington. My concern is where we put them. Our Employment Lands Were Created to Create Employment Clarington's own Official Plan describes Employment Areas as strategic assets. More importantly, the Official Plan establishes a minimum employment-density target of 30 jobs per gross hectare, especially on Prestige Employment, Business Park and Light Industrial lands adjacent to the Highway 401 and 418 corridors. There was a reason for that. Municipalities don't designate employment lands simply because they want large industrial buildings. We designate them because we need somewhere for people to work. Now consider what happens when a very land-intensive development produces relatively few permanent jobs. If 100 hectares of employment land were developed at 30 jobs per hectare, the planning benchmark represents approximately 3,000 jobs. If a development occupying those same 100 hectares produced only 500 permanent jobs, it would achieve just 5 jobs per hectare. The municipality would effectively be 2,500 jobs short of the employment capacity represented by the 30-jobs-per-hectare benchmark. Those jobs then have to be accommodated somewhere else. And unlike an annual budget problem, you can't fix this one next year. The land is gone. And This Isn't Just Any Employment Land Immediately beside the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station sits the Clarington Energy Business Park. It comprises approximately 129 hectares - 318 acres. Clarington's own Secondary Plan says these lands were identified as an appropriate location for prestige employment uses that benefit from proximity to Darlington and other major employers within the energy and environment sectors. The Plan says the site has the attributes to become a focal point for new development within the Durham Energy Cluster. Think about how extraordinary that opportunity has become. Darlington is now at the centre of Ontario's nuclear expansion. Around it, Clarington has an opportunity to attract nuclear engineering companies, component manufacturers, robotics companies, SMR suppliers, research and development operations, engineering consultants, training institutions, advanced manufacturers and corporate offices. Those businesses create something more important than individual buildings. They create a cluster. One supplier attracts another. Engineering talent attracts research. Research attracts investment. Manufacturers attract their suppliers. And suddenly Clarington isn't simply the municipality where the nuclear plant happens to be located. Clarington becomes Canada's nuclear-energy capital. Why would we want to trade that opportunity for the title of data centre capital without first understanding the consequences? A Canadian Reality Check: Meta's Alberta Data Centre Here is why this question deserves more than slogans. In July 2026, Meta announced a new 1-gigawatt data centre in Sturgeon County, Alberta. Meta says the completed project will represent an investment of more than C$13 billion and employ approximately 3,000 construction workers at peak construction. But once operational, Meta says the data centre will support more than 300 jobs. That is an enormous investment and those jobs are valuable. But it illustrates why municipalities must distinguish temporary construction employment from permanent operational employment when deciding how to use scarce employment land. Clarington's 129-hectare Energy Business Park, measured against the Official Plan's 30-jobs-per-gross-hectare benchmark, represents 3,870 jobs of employment capacity at that density. We do not know that a Clarington data centre would employ 300 people, nor should anyone pretend the Alberta project and Clarington's Energy Business Park are identical. But the Canadian example gives Council a very good reason to demand a project-specific jobs-per-hectare calculation before approving a hyperscale facility on strategic employment land. Clarington Energy Business Park -129 ha. Official Plan employment-density benchmark - 30 jobs/ha. Employment represented at that density - 3,870 jobs. Illustrative hyperscale operational employment - 300 jobs*. Illustrative density if 300 jobs occupied -129 ha 2.3 jobs/ha. Illustrative difference from benchmark - 3,570 jobs. Share of benchmark employment - 7.8%. *The 300-job figure is an illustration using Meta's current Sturgeon County, Alberta hyperscale example. It is not a forecast for any specific Clarington proposal. Put another way: at Clarington's 30-jobs-per-hectare benchmark, just 10 hectares represents 300 jobs. That is why jobs per hectare matters. Other Municipalities Are Asking Exactly These Questions We wouldn't be the first municipality to be cautious. Oakville Council has used an Interim Control By-law to pause and study new data centres and similar high-intensity digital processing facilities on employment lands. Mississauga has also moved toward an Interim Control By-law and a comprehensive policy review examining issues such as employment, economic benefits, infrastructure, energy and water consumption, noise, heat and environmental impacts. In other words, the sensible approach is not necessarily to say no. It is to say: show us the numbers first. Then There Is Water The water question deserves considerably more attention. Data centres produce tremendous quantities of heat. How that heat is removed depends upon the technology used in a particular facility. Some systems can substantially reduce direct water consumption; others can use significant water for cooling.Meta's Alberta project is a useful reminder not to generalize: Meta says its Sturgeon County facility will use a closed-loop liquid-cooled system with dry cooling and projects no operational water use in the cooling system. That is exactly why Clarington should require disclosure rather than rely on assumptions. Before approving a major data centre, Clarington should know its projected annual water consumption, peak water demand, cooling technology, electricity requirement and whether municipal drinking water is being used for cooling. If a developer proposes a low-water or closed-loop system, terrific. Show us. If it proposes substantial use of treated municipal water, taxpayers deserve to know that too.Then there is the elephant in the room: power. The reason Clarington is attractive to data-centre developers isn't difficult to understand. We have Darlington and an enormous concentration of electricity infrastructure. But access to power is itself becoming an economic-development asset. If hundreds of megawatts of available electrical capacity are committed to data centres, could that constrain our ability to attract advanced manufacturing, nuclear suppliers or other major employers later? I don't know the answer. But before declaring ourselves the data centre capital of Canada, somebody had better find out. Put Every Proposal Through Four Tests I think Clarington Council should establish four simple tests before approving major data centres on strategic employment lands. 1. The Jobs Test How many permanent full-time jobs will the facility create, and what does that equal in jobs per gross hectare? Compare it directly with the employment-density assumptions in our Official Plan. 2. The Water Test How much water will the facility consume annually and at peak demand? What cooling technology will be used? Where will that water come from? 3. The Power Test What will the facility's ultimate electrical demand be? What upgrades will be required? Does allocating that capacity affect Clarington's ability to attract other employment-intensive industries? 4. The Opportunity-Cost Test What land is being consumed? If it is Prestige Employment land beside Darlington, could that property reasonably accommodate nuclear suppliers, advanced manufacturing, research facilities, engineering companies or other higher-employment uses? Maybe Clarington Should Hit the Pause Button Oakville has paused to study the issue. Mississauga is examining a similar precautionary approach. Perhaps Clarington should consider an Interim Control By-law of its own while it completes a proper Data Centre Land Use and Infrastructure Study. Not because we're anti-business. Quite the opposite.

5 Minutes can change your life

By Tom Reimer Sly returned—because of course he did. A man like him didn’t accept defeat easily. He moved through your yard with the slow, deliberate confidence of someone who believed persistence was a skill. But tonight, as he crept toward your home, he felt something different in the air. Not danger. Not an opportunity. Just… irritation. Your house had embarrassed him twice already, and he wasn’t about to let a building get the better of him. He started with the obvious: the doors. The back patio door stood there like a smug sentinel, gleaming under the motion-activated floodlight that snapped on the moment he stepped within range. Sly froze, teeth clenched. The light wasn’t just bright—it was theatrical, like a spotlight calling out his presence. He backed away, shielding his eyes, muttering curses under his breath. Fine. Doors were out. Again. He moved to the windows, hoping maybe—just maybe—you’d overlooked one. But every single one had a visual deterrent staring back at him. Reinforced frames. Security film stickers. Alarm decals. Even the blinds were closed tight, giving him nothing to study, nothing to exploit. He tapped one pane lightly. That same dull, dead thud. He hated that sound. He circled the house twice, growing more annoyed each time. No door. No window. No chance. So, he started thinking like a desperate man. Alternatives. He scanned the yard, looking for anything he could use. A shed? No. Locked. A ladder? You’d secured it with a chain. A garbage bin he could climb? Too far from the house—and you’d placed it under a camera. He spotted the camera’s blinking blue LED and hissed through his teeth. You weren’t just protecting your home; you were taunting him with every visual cue imaginable. He moved toward the side of the house, hoping for a blind spot. Instead, he found a sign mounted neatly on the wall: 24/7 Surveillance. Audio & Video Recording. He stared at it, wondering if it was real. Then he noticed the tiny reflection of the IR camera lens catching the moonlight. Real. He backed away again. He tried the backyard fence next, thinking maybe he could climb it and access the roof. But you’d installed anti-climb spikes—small, discreet, but unmistakable. He ran a gloved hand along them and felt his stomach sink. Even the fence was telling him to go home. He looked up at the roofline, considering a desperate scramble. But then he saw them: two fake security cameras angled downward, blinking red. Fake or not, they worked. They made him hesitate. They made him doubt. They made him feel watched. And that was enough. Sly stood in the middle of your yard, surrounded by lights, signs, cameras, spikes, reinforced frames, and every visual deterrent you could imagine. It wasn’t just a house—it was a message. A loud, clear, unavoidable message. Not here. Not tonight. Not ever. He exhaled, defeated yet again, and slipped back into the shadows. He wasn’t used to losing, but your home had turned him into a spectator—someone who could only look, never touch. As he disappeared into the night, one thought lingered in his mind: You hadn’t just secured your home. You’d secured his surrender. Not on my watch. Sly, not today, not ever—you have been outsmarted. Next week, we are going inside because crime prevention is not only about the ones that you don’t know, but an unsuspecting homeowner can fall victim and you need to be informed. Till then.

#1 MUNICIPAL ISSUE ‘TAXES’

I have met many of the candidates running in the 2026 elections. There are many really good choices—and some, well... One thing I find concerning is the lack of understanding about the importance of municipal taxes: how they are calculated and what they actually cover.For voters, TAXES have to be the number one issue on which to base your vote. Taxes are calculated using the mill rate multiplied by the assessed value—not the market value. Taxes are a reflection of the success of the administration responsible for managing them. It has become fashionable across the region to increase taxes every year—increases that do not take into consideration the financial hardships many people are facing. People don’t understand taxes. They just pay them and hope for the best. The sad reality is that life keeps getting worse. Many families are losing their homes, and for many, rent has become something they simply cannot afford. People working two or three jobs can barely make ends meet. Rents have become a runaway train with no real mechanism in place to help maintain some sort of sustainable lifestyle. For this reason, question your candidate. When they knock on your door, ask them: What will you do to freeze or cut taxes? What will you do to control rents and attract businesses? If, on the first question, they tell you, “Oh, well, we can’t just cut taxes...” — BIG NO. On the second question, if they give you a general answer without any solid proposals — BIG NO. The candidate you should be looking for is one who, on the first question, will tell you: “As a member of council, I promise to work hard to bring any waste of tax dollars before council. I will ensure that current and future projects are capped, postponed, or put on the shelf when necessary, and that those savings are used to help freeze taxes. “I will go department by department and examine where these budgets keep increasing. I want to conduct an analysis of productivity and responsibility based on job descriptions.” As it stands, there are many people being paid huge amounts of money to work half days and/or sit on their hands until their department is called upon to look into something.Other departments have taken the attitude of not going out of their way because doing so may bring scrutiny and potentially threaten jobs. We are not running municipal offices like well-orchestrated corporations.In many cases, municipalities are operated on a budget-mandate basis. This means each department maxes out its budget, only to turn around and ask for more the following year. Every municipality is grappling with one current or future project that could have a major impact on taxes. These projects need to be put on ice and reconsidered when the economy is doing better. As for the second part—what to do about rents—municipalities have taxation tools available to them.Many property owners, especially commercial property owners, are paying extremely high taxes. As a municipal representative, you have the option of developing a plan that gives tax discounts to property owners as long as they pass those savings on to their tenants. Here is an example:If a landlord enters into an agreement with the municipality, the landlord could receive a 30% tax discount. In return, the landlord agrees to cap rental rates at a pre-set amount per square foot. What could this mean? If you are now paying $2,000 per month, under such a municipal program you could potentially be paying $800/mth. Think about the potential for economic growth. Think about how this could help families and businesses across the municipality. Affordability would be put back into taxpayers’ hands. This is the type of program that could be explored and implemented. Why is it not being done? Well, many elected officials don’t have a clue where to even begin. Many elected officials do not have the understanding, the historical perspective and/or the administrative insight it takes to put something like this together. Many people currently elected promised the world to get into office. Once elected, they quickly found out what the job really involves. Due to intimidation, lack of experience, or limits in their understanding of municipal administration, some do the bare minimum and, in many cases, depend on peer cooperation in order to get things passed. This right here is one of the main reasons taxes keep going up.Staff asks. No one questions. No one looks deeply enough into the request.Budgets get passed. Tax dollars get wasted on pie-in-the-sky projects that do not benefit taxpayers. Look at Oshawa. Millions have been committed to major projects, while taxpayers continue to face increased costs. Whether it is support for major industrial projects, recreational facilities, parks, or other large capital projects, voters should be asking one simple question: What is the long-term cost to the taxpayer, and what measurable benefit are we actually receiving? VOTERS, BE AWARE. In 2026, don’t vote based on a sign, a smile, or a campaign slogan. Ask questions. Demand numbers. Demand answers. And above all—ask what your candidate is going to do about your taxes.

Canada Must Build Its Way to Economic Independence

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The Canada–United States tariff war is no longer a temporary commercial dispute that can be managed through patient diplomacy and selective retaliation. It represents a fundamental change in the relationship between two countries whose economies have been closely integrated for generations. Canada did not choose this confrontation. Nor should Canadians mistake opposition to American tariffs for hostility toward the American people. The United States will remain our neighbour, ally and largest trading partner. But friendship cannot substitute for national preparedness. When access to another country’s market can be restricted by presidential order, Canada must possess the infrastructure required to trade, produce, defend and prosper independently. The lesson is unmistakable: economic sovereignty cannot exist without physical infrastructure. For decades, Canada constructed an economy that overwhelmingly moves north to south. Our highways, railways, pipelines, electrical connections and supply chains were designed principally to serve the American market. That arrangement generated prosperity while relations were stable. It has now become a strategic vulnerability. Although approximately 85 per cent of Canada–U.S. trade remained tariff-free under CUSMA when the federal government presented Budget 2025, tariffs and repeated threats affecting steel, aluminum, automobiles, lumber and other strategic sectors demonstrated that even a formal trade agreement cannot eliminate political risk. Canada must respond with more than counter-tariffs, subsidies and emergency assistance to affected industries. These may be necessary defensive measures, but they do not change the structure of our economy. Canada must undertake the greatest program of nation-building infrastructure since the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. First, Canada needs genuine east-west trade corridors. Producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba must be able to move energy, minerals, agricultural products and manufactured goods efficiently to ports on the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic coasts. Ontario and Quebec manufacturers need reliable access to Canadian ports without depending excessively upon American transportation networks. Rail capacity must be expanded, highways modernized and ports enlarged. Bottlenecks at Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, Halifax and Saint John must be treated as national economic-security concerns. The federal government has already begun examining proposals to strengthen trade corridors and modernize port governance. That work must now move rapidly from consultation to construction. Second, Canada must build the energy infrastructure necessary to serve both Canadians and international customers. It is extraordinary that a country possessing some of the world’s largest oil and natural-gas reserves still lacks sufficient capacity to deliver its energy to multiple global markets. Canada needs additional pipelines, liquefied-natural-gas facilities, expanded electricity grids and transmission lines connecting provinces. It also needs new nuclear generation, including proven large reactors and emerging small modular reactors. Energy security is not an ideological question. It is the foundation of industrial strength, affordability and national independence. Projects must meet serious environmental standards and respect Indigenous rights. But consultation cannot become permanent paralysis. Predictable approval deadlines, clear responsibilities and early Indigenous participation would produce better decisions than today’s overlapping and uncertain processes. Third, Canada must establish a complete critical-minerals supply chain. Possessing deposits of lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, graphite, uranium and rare-earth elements is not enough. If minerals must leave Canada for processing and return as finished components, we remain dependent upon foreign industrial capacity. Mines must be connected to roads, railways, electricity and ports. Canada must build refining and processing plants and manufacture batteries, electrical equipment, defence systems and advanced technologies domestically. Indigenous communities in northern and remote regions should become equity partners, workers and long-term beneficiaries—not observers whose territories are approached only after decisions have effectively been made. Fourth, infrastructure policy must include defence. The Arctic is becoming more accessible, more commercially important and more strategically contested. Canada cannot credibly claim sovereignty over the North without ports, airfields, radar, telecommunications, icebreakers and permanent transportation links. Dual-purpose infrastructure would serve northern communities while supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. A deep-water port can accommodate commercial shipping and naval vessels. An expanded runway can support civilian transportation, emergency response and military aircraft. Reliable broadband and energy systems can strengthen communities while improving surveillance and security. Fifth, Canada must eliminate its internal economic barriers. It makes little sense to demand access to international markets while allowing provincial regulations to obstruct trade within our own country. Labour qualifications, trucking requirements, procurement rules and product standards should be mutually recognized wherever legitimate health and safety considerations permit. Canada should become one effective national market of more than 40 million people. Removing internal barriers is among the fastest and least expensive ways to increase productivity and strengthen Canadian businesses. Financing this transformation will require discipline and imagination. Public money should be concentrated on infrastructure that increases productive capacity rather than scattered among politically convenient announcements. Pension funds, Indigenous investment corporations and private capital can participate where projects have clear rules and credible revenue models. The Canada Infrastructure Bank can contribute, but governments must remain accountable for selecting projects according to national importance. Strategic procurement should favour Canadian steel, aluminum, lumber, engineering and technology when consistent with our international obligations. If taxpayers finance a bridge, railway, power plant or defence installation, the project should help develop Canadian industrial capacity and skilled employment. The danger is that governments will respond to the tariff crisis with slogans, retaliatory gestures and a collection of disconnected projects. Canada needs something more ambitious: a national infrastructure strategy supported across party lines and extending over several decades. The Canadian Pacific Railway was once considered financially reckless and physically impossible. Yet it united the country and gave political Confederation an economic foundation. The St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, hydroelectric developments and nuclear power stations similarly transformed Canada’s possibilities. Our generation faces another nation-building moment. Canada should continue negotiating firmly with Washington and defending the rules of continental trade. However, we must never again assume that unrestricted American market access is guaranteed. We need the ability to reach Europe, Asia and other markets through Canadian territory and Canadian ports. Tariffs are intended to make Canadians feel vulnerable and compel concessions. Our answer must be neither panic nor empty nationalism. It must be construction. Build the ports. Build the railways. Build the pipelines and power plants. Build the northern roads, defence installations and digital networks. Connect our provinces, develop our resources and manufacture more of what Canada needs. National independence is not preserved by declarations alone. It is secured by the tools, institutions and infrastructure that allow a country to make its own choices. Canada must now build those tools—urgently, confidently and together.

Human trafficking

Human trafficking is the kind of crime many of us prefer to imagine happens somewhere else In another city. Another neighbourhood. Another family. But the evidence tells us something far more uncomfortable: it is happening here. Between 2021 and 2025, Durham Regional Police’s Human Trafficking Unit conducted 1,332 investigations involving elements of human trafficking. Police identified 531 accused persons or persons of interest, laid 754 trafficking-related charges and assisted 1,175 people identified as victims or at risk of exploitation. Those numbers should stop every parent in Durham in their tracks. Perhaps the most dangerous misconception about human trafficking is the image we have created in our minds of what it looks like. We imagine kidnapping. A stranger. A van. Someone being taken across a border. Sometimes trafficking can involve those things. But often it begins much more quietly. It can begin with affection. Attention. A gift. A new relationship. A message on social media. Someone recognizing that a young person is lonely, insecure, struggling at home or desperate to belong — and deliberately exploiting that vulnerability. Ontario's Anti-Human Trafficking Strategy says the average age of recruitment into sex trafficking is just 13 years old. Thirteen. At that age, children should be thinking about school, friendships, sports and what they are doing on the weekend. They should not need to understand how a predator can slowly transform affection into manipulation, isolation, threats and control. That is what makes grooming so dangerous. It often does not look dangerous in the beginning. And this is not merely a provincial or national problem. In March, Durham Regional Police announced arrests following an investigation involving allegations that a woman had been groomed into escorting, threatened with violence and forced to work in the sex trade across Durham and the GTA. Police executed a search warrant at a residence in Pickering and said they were concerned there could be additional victims. A month earlier, police announced the results of Project Firebird, an initiative targeting people allegedly seeking sexual services from minors in Durham Region. Six men were charged with 19 offences. Those allegations, of course, must still be proven in court. The point is not to frighten parents. It is to inform them. Parents need to have uncomfortable conversations with their children about healthy relationships, online safety, consent, boundaries and controlling behaviour. Young people need to understand that someone demanding passwords, isolating them from friends, controlling their money or threatening them with private photographs is not demonstrating love. And perhaps most importantly, children need to know that if they get themselves into a frightening situation, they can come home and tell us. Without judgement. Without shame. Without fearing that the first question will be, “What were you thinking?” Because sometimes the question adults need to ask is not, “Why didn't they leave?” It is: “How did someone manage to gain this much control over them?” We should also learn the warning signs without assuming every troubling behaviour means trafficking. Sudden isolation, unexplained expensive belongings, another person controlling someone's money, frequent hotel stays, injuries, fear or dramatic behavioural changes can all warrant attention. Awareness is not paranoia. It is paying attention. It is staying connected. It is asking questions. And it is making sure help is visible. The Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline operates confidentially, 24 hours a day, in more than 200 languages at 1-833-900-1010. In an emergency, call 911. Human trafficking thrives in secrecy, manipulation and silence. So we should make noise. Talk to your children. Share the hotline number. Learn the warning signs. Pay attention to the young people around you. You may never need that knowledge. But someone you love might.

Why Do All People Experiencing Homelessness Always Sleep During the Day? Well they don’t all sleep during the day but let me explain why some do …..

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support Daytime sleeping is rarely about laziness or a lack of ambition. More often, it is the visible result of a long, exhausting night spent trying to survive. It is important to begin by challenging the word “always.” People experiencing homelessness do not always sleep during the day, nor do they all share the same circumstances. Each person has a different history, different needs, and different reasons for being without stable housing. However, many unhoused people do sleep during daylight hours because it may be the only time they feel safe enough to close their eyes. For most of us, nighttime means locking the door, turning off the lights, and going to sleep in a place where we expect to remain safe until morning. A person who is homeless may not have that protection. They may be sleeping outside, in a vehicle, in a stairwell, on public transit, in a tent, or in another temporary location where they could be robbed, assaulted, harassed, or ordered to leave. Personal belongings must also be protected. When everything a person owns is carried in a backpack, cart, or a few bags, falling asleep can mean risking the loss of identification, medication, clothing, food, and other essential possessions. Replacing these items can be extremely difficult without money, transportation, or a permanent address. Remaining awake becomes a form of self-protection. Some people walk throughout the night to stay warm. Others move repeatedly because they are told they cannot remain in one location. A person living in a vehicle may need to relocate several times to avoid tickets, complaints, or unwanted attention. Someone staying in an emergency shelter may be surrounded by noise, movement, bright lights, illness, or unfamiliar people. Even when a bed is available, it does not necessarily mean restful sleep is possible. Trauma can make sleeping even more difficult. Many people experiencing homelessness have survived violence, abuse, loss, exploitation, or other deeply distressing events. Their bodies and minds may remain in a constant state of alertness. When a person does not feel secure, the body may resist sleep even when it is desperately exhausted. Physical and mental health can also affect sleep. Chronic pain, untreated illness, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, medication side effects, and addiction challenges may all disrupt a person’s natural sleep cycle. Living outdoors exposes people to extreme temperatures, rain, insects, and constant noise. Hunger also interferes with the body’s ability to settle and rest. By the time morning arrives, a person may have been awake for most or in some cases all night. Daytime can therefore feel safer. Public spaces are open, other people are nearby, temperatures may be warmer, and services are more accessible. A library, meal program, drop-in centre, or outreach location may provide the first calm and protected environment a person has encountered in hours. When someone falls asleep there, it may be because their body has finally decided that it is safe to rest. Unfortunately, this survival response is frequently misinterpreted. Someone sleeping on a bench or at a table may be judged as irresponsible, unmotivated, or unwilling to help themselves. What observers do not see is the night that came before. They don’t see the walking, the fear, the cold, the interruptions, and the constant need to remain alert. Sleep deprivation has serious consequences. It can affect memory, concentration, emotional regulation, and decision-making. It can make completing forms, attending appointments, or following complicated instructions extremely difficult. A person who appears disengaged may simply be physically and mentally depleted. Expecting someone to make major life decisions while severely sleep-deprived is neither reasonable nor compassionate. A lack of sleep can also create a harmful cycle. Exhaustion may cause someone to miss an appointment, lose a shelter bed, or struggle during a meeting. That missed opportunity may then be interpreted as non-compliance or a lack of interest. In reality, the individual may be trying to navigate complex systems while operating in survival mode. At DARS, we believe behaviour must be understood in context. Instead of asking, “Why is this person sleeping during the day?” we should ask:“What happened during the night?”“Did this person have anywhere safe to go?” “When did they last experience uninterrupted sleep?” “What support would help them feel secure?” This trauma-informed approach replaces judgment with curiosity and compassion. It recognizes that sleep is not a reward people must earn. It is a basic human need, essential to physical health, mental wellness, and the ability to move forward. Sometimes the most helpful thing we can offer is a meal, a warm drink, clean clothing, a shower, or assistance finding housing. At other times, the most meaningful support is simply a safe and welcoming place where someone can sit down, stop watching over their shoulder, and rest. Sleeping during the day is not the real problem. The real problem is that too many people do not have a safe place to sleep at night. At DARS, we work to see the person behind the circumstance. We understand that homelessness is not a character flaw, and exhaustion is not laziness. Before judging someone whose eyes are closed during the day, we should consider how long they may have needed to keep them open simply to survive the night. I want to thank “J,” a resident at our farmhouse, for educating me about this topic. I too questioned it several years ago, and he patiently explained it to me. Now I know, and now I won’t judge. If you want to help someone who is unhoused, share J’s

What Does a City Councillor Do in Pickering, Ontario?

By Frank McGillan Columnist                                               A City Councillor in Pickering is an elected representative whose job is to serve the residents of the city. Councillors are elected to listen to the concerns of the people in their ward, make decisions on behalf of the community, and help guide the future growth and development of Pickering. A councillor's job is much more than attending meetings. They are responsible for representing the interests of residents while working with the Mayor, other councillors, City staff, and the community. 1. Representing Residents One of the most important responsibilities of a councillor is representing the people who elected them. Residents may contact their councillor about issues such as roads, traffic, development, parks, garbage collection, property concerns, zoning, public safety, or other municipal services. A councillor should listen to these concerns, communicate with City staff when appropriate, and bring important community issues forward to Council. 2. Making Decisions for the City Pickering City Council makes decisions that affect the entire community. Councillors debate proposals, ask questions, review reports from City staff, and vote on matters before Council. These decisions can involve: City budgets and spending - Property taxes -Roads and transportation - Parks and recreation - Planning and development - Zoning and land use - Community facilities - Environmental issues - Economic development - Municipal services - Long-term plans for the City Councillors have a responsibility to make informed decisions based on the information available to them and the interests of the community. 3. Approving the Municipal Budget Council is responsible for approving Pickering's municipal budget. This determines how City money is spent and helps establish the level of municipal taxes and services. Councillors must consider whether spending proposals are necessary, affordable, and in the best interests of Pickering taxpayers. 4. Planning and Development Pickering is a growing community, and Council plays an important role in deciding how the city develops. Councillors deal with matters involving residential development, commercial development, industrial properties, roads, parks, community facilities, and land-use planning. However, councillors do not personally design or approve every development. Much of the technical work is done by professional City staff, planners, engineers, and other experts. Council makes decisions within the authority given to municipalities under Ontario law. 5. Attending Council and Committee Meetings Councillors are expected to attend City Council meetings and committee meetings, review reports, participate in discussions, ask questions, and vote on matters before Council. They also may serve on committees, boards, or other municipal organizations. Being prepared for meetings is an important part of the job because councillors are making decisions that can have long-term consequences for residents and taxpayers. 6. Working With City Staff A councillor does not personally run City departments or direct individual employees. Pickering has professional City staff who administer municipal programs and services. The City Manager and department heads are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the municipality. Council's role is primarily to establish policies, approve budgets, provide direction at the Council level, and hold the administration accountable. 7. Looking at the Bigger Picture A councillor has to balance individual concerns with the needs of the entire community. For example, one resident may want a particular development stopped, while another resident may support it. A councillor must consider the facts, planning rules, City policies, legislation, financial implications, and the broader public interest before voting. A councillor cannot simply vote on every issue according to whichever resident contacts them first. 8. Being Accountable to Taxpayers Councillors are elected officials and should be accountable to the residents of Pickering. That means residents should expect their councillors to be accessible, transparent, prepared, respectful, and willing to explain the reasons behind their decisions. Councillors should also understand that they are spending public money and making decisions that affect the community for years to come. What a Councillor Is NOT It is also important to understand what a councillor's job is not. A councillor is not the mayor, the City Manager, a City employee, a police officer, a building inspector, or a City department manager. A councillor generally cannot personally order City employees to perform work, change a planning decision on their own, waive municipal rules, or spend City money without the proper Council process. Their authority comes from their position as a member of Council and from the powers and responsibilities given to municipalities under Ontario law. In Simple Terms The job of a Pickering City Councillor is to represent residents, make responsible decisions, help set municipal policy, approve spending and budgets, participate in planning for the City's future, and hold the municipal administration accountable. The councillor's ultimate responsibility is to the people of Pickering. A good councillor should listen to residents, understand the issues, do their homework, ask difficult questions when necessary, and make decisions based on what is best for the community—not simply what is easiest or most popular at the moment. Being elected to City Council is a public responsibility. It means being entrusted with taxpayers' money, the future development of the community, and decisions that can affect residents and businesses throughout Pickering.

The Paperwork Doesn't Die

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print A week or two after a funeral, somebody usually ends up at the kitchen table with a folder that was never supposed to become a project. There is the will, a death certificate, a bank statement, maybe something from an insurance company and a growing collection of notes about things that still need to be done. The folder gets opened, closed, moved out of the way for dinner and opened again the next morning. Eventually it stops looking temporary. We talk a lot about grief after someone dies, and rightly so, but not nearly as much about the administrative job that arrives with it. Someone who is still trying to absorb what happened may suddenly be calling banks, cancelling accounts and trying to understand government forms they had no reason to know existed a month earlier. You become the person handling it because your name is on the will, because you live closest or because everyone else has quietly decided you’re the one who can figure these things out. The mail keeps coming, which is one of the stranger parts. Renewal notices arrive. Bills show up. A company writes to the person who died because, as far as its computer is concerned, nothing has happened. You call, explain the situation and write down the name of whoever you spoke to because there’s a fair chance you’ll need it later. Before long there are dates in the margins, confirmation numbers on scraps of paper and reminders to call somebody back Tuesday. That kind of mess is actually where I can see AI being useful. Not because it knows how to settle an estate, but because it’s quite good at helping organize information when six browser tabs are open and you’re trying to remember what somebody at the bank said yesterday. It can turn a page of notes into a list, help sort what’s finished from what isn’t and explain a piece of bureaucratic writing that doesn’t make much sense on the third reading either. The important part is deciding where the facts come from. In Ontario, the Ministry of Finance says an Estate Information Return generally has to be filed within 180 days after the estate certificate is issued. Service Canada says the executor should apply for the CPP death benefit within 60 days of the death. The federal government’s Canada.ca site can also build a checklist based on someone’s circumstances. Those are useful facts, but I’d rather have AI read those pages than ask it to remember the rules on its own. That’s the same distinction I’ve come back to before: point, don’t answer. Open the Ontario page and ask, “What does this say I have to file, and when?” Give it the Canada.ca checklist and ask which steps might still need attention. If a bank sends a letter written in the peculiar dialect of financial institutions, let the machine translate the wording into ordinary English. The source stays in front of you. There’s a privacy wrinkle here too. An estate folder may contain account numbers, tax information and other details that don’t belong in an AI prompt simply because you want help understanding one paragraph. Remove what isn’t needed. In most cases, the useful question is about the wording or the process, not the dead person’s account number. That leaves AI in a less exciting role than some of the ones we hear about, but probably a more useful one. It isn’t the executor, it isn’t the government and it isn’t the accountant. It’s something you can use while doing a job you never expected to have, mostly to make the pile a little easier to understand. If its answer disagrees with the document in front of you, the document wins. There’s something odd about how little the administrative world notices a death. A person can be gone and yet the statements still arrive, the forms still have dates on them and somebody still has to close the account. Eventually the folder comes back onto the kitchen table and gets opened again. The paperwork doesn’t disappear when the person does. It changes hands. *Gary Payne is the founder of CVORReady.ca, a compliance platform for Ontario trucking companies.

More Information, Less Judgment

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It has been more than a year since I began writing this column on my own. When I first put my name alone at the top of the page, I was conscious of the responsibility. I was following my father, Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, whose name had appeared above this column for more than five decades. That responsibility has not diminished. With time, it is also evolving. At first, I was thinking about how to honour my father's work. Now, I find myself thinking more about what it means to observe the world through my own eyes. That may seem obvious, but it has taken me a year of writing to appreciate what it means. I inherited a commitment to evidence, scepticism of medical fashion and the belief that patients should ask questions. I inherited a conviction that doctors and medical authorities can, at times, be dead wrong. Readers familiar with my father’s column will recall that not everyone aligned with his views on controversial topics. Yet, most would agree he opened debate, and in doing so he informed his readers on many of the pressing issues of the day – ranging from reproductive rights to pain management to the travesty of a drugged-out society. I took on the column because I feel deeply connected to the tradition of the newspaper columnist. I enjoy investigating a subject, reading the research, making up my own mind, and telling readers what I think. I have no interest in what influencers do with their instant opinions and online lures. I prefer the discipline of being accountable for what I put on the page. In the year since I assumed sole responsibility for this column, I have explored subjects spanning nutrition and preventive health, artificial intelligence and medicine, cardiovascular disease, dementia, longevity, and the evolving relationship between scientific evidence and everyday decision-making. My starting point is the thousands of columns my father wrote over more than five decades (archived at www.docgiff.com). It’s the fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle that he underscored again and again. Eat well, exercise, don’t smoke, and maintain a healthy weight. Like my father, I will share cautionary tales of humans making grave errors. Sometimes it is negligence. Other times, blind trust in people and systems. But don't surrender responsibility for your health to someone else. This is especially important as the health landscape is dramatically changing. Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape medicine. New drugs promise remarkable results for obesity and chronic disease. Genetic information is increasingly available to ordinary consumers. At the same time, social media has turned health advice into an endless stream of claims, counterclaims, anecdotes and advertisements. More information has not produced better judgement. In fact, it’s a Gifford-Jones mantra that common sense remains a rare commodity. Paying attention and using good judgment will yield results. Across Canada and around the world, researchers are increasingly talking not about lifespan, but "healthspan" – the number of years we remain healthy, active, independent, and engaged. Living longer isn’t worth your time if you are not living well. The goal to live better for longer resonates with me because it reflects the example my father set. He remained intellectually curious, professionally active, and passionately engaged with readers into his second century of life. In future columns, I will continue exploring nutrition, exercise, prevention, medical research, aging, and public health. I will bring my own perspective on what ordinary Canadians should heed amid the information flooding us. Thank you for including me in your weekly reading. I look forward to the conversations ahead.

A Plan

By Wayne and Tamara I've been in a job that is wrecking my happiness, but I am afraid to trust my perspective in case I am missing something. I fear leaving, lest it turn out to be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Also, pay here is a little higher than similar jobs I've seen lately. My boss, the head of the whole organization, used to be self-employed. Until a year ago she never worked for a company before, let alone held a position at the top. Suddenly, through some people she knows from volunteering on the same board of directors, she was recruited for this head-honcho job and installed at the top. I consider myself a monk-like person and spend my free time in spiritual pursuits and trying to be psychologically healthy. I felt my job was to support this boss as she dealt with huge new responsibilities. I felt my calmness and support was a great thing to offer her. I also have valuable skills and am a good worker. Over the past year my optimism and confidence have eroded drastically. This boss seemed wonderful and constructive for the first six months, with a respectful attitude toward her staff and a healthy ability to look for advice and admit when she was wrong. I felt my reality and hers were on the same page. But somewhere after those first six months, she became abusive. She lashes out, blames others, and makes up lies instead of taking responsibility for her own mistakes. This resulted in staff members quitting or being let go once she built a case against them for "too many mistakes." It gives me knots in my stomach, although I try to rebalance myself through prayer and affirmations on the way home. One day she will call me sweetheart and thank me profusely for all I do. The next day she will speak through clenched teeth and insist she told me to do something one way when I know she told me to do it another. Sometimes it seems she is trying to push her employees until someone fights back, although we don't. She holds the thread that connects us to our paychecks, and she also holds the scissors that could snip this thread. Barb Barb, centuries ago Blaise Pascal asked why people like your boss are obeyed. Is it because they have more merit, he wondered? No. It is simply because they have more power. As Pascal observed, power without justice is tyranny. We would like to believe if we do our job well and have good intentions, it matters. But with some people it doesn’t matter. Why should it matter to your boss when she obtained her position not through merit but through connections? The directors of your company are on her side and will do nothing to protect the employees. They consider her their social equal, and the employees social inferiors, though they will never say that. In addition, they won’t admit they hired someone unqualified. How wearing is it for your boss to go to work every day knowing she lacks the skills for the job? She is an imposter on her emotional edge. At least unconsciously, she wants all the people who knew she couldn’t do the job, and all the people who taught her what she knows, gone. The fallacy of all communication techniques is the other person has to be willing to play. Usually, that is exactly the problem. They won’t play. Weigh the tradeoff between having a bad boss and having less money. Then proceed from the basis of the power you possess. You have the power to be a good employee. You have the power to document what occurs in the workplace. You have the power to increase your skills. Most of all, you have the power to devise a plan to land on your feet, if the worst occurs. Wayne & Tamara

Canada Has Bigger Problems Than What Donald Trump Calls Lake Ontario

Canada is having a meltdown over a lake. President Donald Trump put “Lake America” on a map, and judging by the reaction in this country, you would think he had driven a truck across the border and hauled the water away. Politicians were outraged. Commentators were outraged. Social media was outraged. But here is the part nobody seems willing to say: The water did not move. It is still Lake Ontario. Canadians still call it Lake Ontario. We can teach our children it is Lake Ontario. We can print it on our maps tomorrow. Problem solved. What should concern Canadians is not what an American president calls our lake. What should concern us is how quickly this country can manufacture outrage over two words on a map while remaining remarkably quiet about problems that actually threaten our sovereignty, our safety and our future. And there is another hypocrisy here that is impossible to ignore. For years, Canadians have been told that names can change. We renamed universities. We renamed streets. We renamed public squares. We took down statues. We were told language evolves, identity evolves and that anyone who questioned it simply needed to catch up. And we are now living in a country where we are told that a man can become a woman, that biological reality can be rewritten through language, and that anyone who objects is the problem. But suddenly Donald Trump changes two words on a map and Ottawa acts as though Canadian sovereignty has collapsed. Why? Because it was never really about the name. It was about who said it. That is not leadership. That is political theatre. While Canadians were being encouraged to rage about a lake, what were we not talking about? Foreign interference in our elections. Our own public inquiry confirmed that the People’s Republic of China carried out interference operations aimed at Canadian democratic institutions. That deserves outrage. A government that cannot accurately tell Canadians how many people remain in this country after visas and permits expire should concern every citizen. That deserves outrage. Human trafficking should outrage us. Women and children are moved across this country for sexual exploitation and forced labour while governments issue reports, create committees and then return to business as usual. Fentanyl should outrage us. Parents are burying sons and daughters while politicians offer carefully polished statements and move on to the next headline. Families unable to afford their mortgage, rent, gas or groceries should outrage us. Canadians living in tents in the middle of one of the wealthiest countries on Earth should outrage us. Violent repeat offenders being returned to our streets should outrage us. Yet somehow we can summon more national fury over a foreign president’s map than over the failures happening inside our own borders. That tells us something. We have confused politics with priorities. Politics is what people scream about on Tuesday because it is trending. Priorities are what still matter when the cameras go home. Foreign interference is a priority. Border security is a priority. Human trafficking is a priority. Fentanyl deaths are a priority. Housing is a priority. Affordability is a priority. Crime is a priority. A word on somebody else’s map is not. The same confusion exists in our approach to crime. Our governments too often go after the easiest people to regulate rather than the hardest criminals to catch. Law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters are treated like the problem while criminal gun smugglers and gang members continue operating. Criminals do not register their firearms. They never have. So when government makes it harder for a lawful Canadian to own a firearm while failing to stop illegal guns crossing the border, Canadians are entitled to ask who the policy is actually disarming. And then there is Medical Assistance in Dying. I know the preferred language. I know we are supposed to call it “medical assistance in dying.” I call it what it is when government helps a person end their own life: assisted suicide. When we are expanding who qualifies, when people who are poor, disabled, mentally ill or simply exhausted are being presented with death as an option, we should stop hiding behind euphemisms and start asking what kind of country we are becoming. When a society finds it easier to help someone die than to help them live, that is not compassion. That is a moral question, and Canadians deserve an honest debate about it. And while all of this happens, Ottawa has plenty of time for outrage aimed south of the border. That is convenient. Getting angry at Donald Trump costs Ottawa nothing. It lets politicians point somewhere else. It lets them say, “Look over there.” Look at Washington. Look at Trump. Look at the map. Anything except the failures happening here. But our government is the one Canadians elect. Our government is the one responsible for our border. Our government is the one responsible for enforcing our laws. Our government is the one responsible for protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. Our government is the one that must answer for whether Canadians can afford to live in their own country. And our government is the one that should answer for the decisions it makes. Not Washington. Not Beijing. Ottawa. Real leadership does not need a foreign president to give it something to be angry about. Real leadership identifies its own problems and fixes them whether the cameras are there or not. Real leadership looks at foreign interference and acts. Real leadership looks at a broken immigration system and says we are going to know who is here, why they are here and whether they have the legal right to remain. Real leadership looks at human trafficking and refuses to treat it as a side issue. Real leadership looks at fentanyl deaths and goes after the supply, the traffickers and the money. Real leadership looks at homelessness and asks why citizens of a G7 country are sleeping in tents and doorways. And real leadership looks at the most vulnerable Canadians — the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and those struggling mentally — and asks whether we have built a system that helps them live, or one that has quietly made it easier to help them die. Those are the debates worthy of a serious country. So yes, call it Lake Ontario. I will. I always will. But Canada’s identity does not disappear because Donald Trump prints something different on a map. The greater danger is what happens when a country becomes so distracted by symbolic outrage that it stops demanding accountability from the people actually governing it. Have a meltdown over foreign interference. Have a meltdown over human trafficking. Have a meltdown over fentanyl taking our children. Have a meltdown over families who cannot pay their mortgage, rent or grocery bill. Have a meltdown over homelessness. Have a meltdown over violent crime. Have a meltdown over a government offering death where Canadians should be demanding life, treatment, support and hope. Those are arguments worth having. But stop letting the President of the United States decide what dominates the Canadian conversation. Every hour we spend raging about a map is an hour Ottawa does not have to answer for the border, the cost of living, crime, drugs, trafficking, foreign interference and the erosion of our own national confidence. The problem is not what Donald Trump calls our lake. The problem is what our own government has stopped answering for. And Canadians should be far more angry about that.