River Of Life

By Wayne and Tamara I am very blessed to have a wonderful and kind mother-in-law. I live 2000 miles away from my family, and she has always made me feel I have a supporting family right here. However, I worry about her a great deal. For 30 years she was a stay-at-home mother of three and took care of her husband. Four years ago he left her for another woman and moved out of the country. Because he has not paid the alimony the court decided on, she had to sell her house and buy a much smaller one. She got a job working retail, hoping to pay her bills. It’s a struggle. Her youngest just graduated from college and moved 300 miles away. When I spoke to her tonight, she said, "My children, and now you, are my life. You are what I am living for." This was not a melodramatic declaration, a cry for attention, or a guilt trip laid on because my husband and I are busy people and haven't spent as much time with her as we should. She meant it from the bottom of her heart. Her entire adult life was spent as a wife and mother, and now that she doesn't have these things she is depressed and lonely. It simply breaks my heart to watch her look so wistful when she asks about my parents and what they are doing with their retirement. How can I help her find something she is interested in, something to help her connect with other people? Jo Jo, we live our lives in the first person singular, which causes us to think things remain the same. But they never do. As the ancient writer Heraclitus observed, “We cannot step into the same river twice.” The river may be named the same, yet it is always different from the river we stepped into yesterday. Today we are a baby, tomorrow a toddler, a student, a teen, or a young adult making our own babies. Relatives die, we change houses and jobs, our children marry. Laws, heads of state, technology, and television shows all change. Ideas and trends shift in the breeze. Yet our life goes on, and each age of life comes with challenges. Your mother-in-law’s 30-year marriage changed, even though she didn’t notice. Now it’s not a matter of “when life hands you lemons, make lemonade.” It’s a matter of remaking her life to correspond to the pattern of life. Don’t be her crutch, and don’t make her your life’s work. Your role is more like the steady hand which helps a child ride the bicycle alone. You have to know the exact moment to pull your hand away so you can celebrate her transition. Be a helping hand, not training wheels. For starters, don’t neglect the practical. Your mother-in-law needs to talk to a lawyer. If her ex-husband ever returns, she needs to receive what she is legally entitled to. She should also continue applying for better paying jobs. But her real task is this. Her brain has established a stance, a way of addressing the

world. Yet study after study shows the brain, even in older adults, is capable of reinventing itself. Your mother-in-law needs to get out with other people doing new activities in fresh places. She needs to rediscover old interests and forge new ones. Help her explore the concept of aging well. Consider many options to find the handful which are right for her. This takes effort but it can be exhilarating, like the pretest nervousness which enables us to excel. The process will do you both good because just as circumstances transformed her life, so your life will be surprised by the unpredictable. We can never step in the same river twice. New water is always rushing past. Finding our poise in the midst of change is what life is about. Wayne & Tamara

Living Below Their Means

’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist The absolute foundation of wealth building is surprisingly simple: spend less than you earn. Wealthy individuals actively avoid the trap of lifestyle inflation—the tendency to increase spending as your income rises. Instead of financing depreciating assets like luxury cars or oversized houses, they find satisfaction in financial security and direct their surplus cash toward investments and savings. Prioritizing Continuous Learning Successful people are avid readers and lifelong learners. They understand that their single greatest asset is their own mind. Whether it is reading books, listening to financial podcasts, or learning new professional skills, they constantly seek out new information to improve their earning potential and make smarter financial decisions. Setting Clear, Actionable Goals Wealth doesn’t materialize from vague wishes like “I want to be rich.” Highly successful individuals set specific, measurable, and time-bound goals. They break down massive financial milestones into daily, weekly, and monthly tasks. This habit transforms an overwhelming dream like retiring comfortably into a realistic, step-by-step plan. Valuing Time Over Money Time is the one resource you cannot earn back, and wealthy people treat it accordingly. They recognize the difference between being “busy” and being “productive.” They intentionally focus their energy on high-impact activities that generate income, improve their health, or foster personal growth, rather than losing hours to mindless scrolling or distractions Making Money Work for Them Instead of trading time for money indefinitely, wealthy people focus on acquiring assets that generate passive income. They invest consistently in the stock market, real estate, or retirement accounts. They understand the mathematical power of compound interest and let their money do the heavy lifting over the long term. Building Multiple Streams of Income Relying on a single paycheck is a major financial vulnerability. Most wealthy people diversify their cash flow. For everyday people, this might look like a side hustle, investing in dividend-paying index funds, or selling a digital product. This diversification accelerates wealth creation and provides a sturdy safety net during economic downturns. Maintaining Financial Discipline Motivation gets you started, but discipline keeps you going. Financial discipline means sticking to a plan, avoiding impulsive purchases, and continuing to invest even when the market is down or life gets stressful. Wealthy people play the long game, routinely trading short-term gratification for long-term stability.

Dead and Gone… The First Job

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print My first job was at the International Squash Club in Mississauga. I started there in 1987 and did a little bit of everything. I sold memberships and services, dealt with towels, showed people how to use the circuit-training equipment and, every once in a while, got to fill in during house league when somebody didn’t show up. Some parts of the job were interesting. Some parts involved towels. At the time, I didn’t think of any of it as training. It was just my first job. I was learning more than I realized. I had to talk to adults I didn’t know and explain things to people who needed help. I learned that if you said you were going to be somewhere, people expected you to be there. Some jobs were enjoyable and some simply had to get done. Nobody called any of that training. Nobody needed to. We usually think of a teenager’s first job as a way to make a few dollars. It might pay for gas, clothes, a phone bill or simply provide a little independence. But those jobs did something else too. They were where a lot of us first learned how to work, and that is why one number from Statistics Canada caught my attention. Among returning students aged 15 and 16, the unemployment rate this summer was 29.9 per cent. Almost three in 10 of the youngest students looking for work didn’t find it. The interesting part is that this wasn’t true across the board. Among returning students aged 20 to 24, unemployment fell to 9.2 per cent. The summer job market actually improved for older students, while the youngest group barely changed. If you had a 15-year-old sitting at the kitchen table this summer filling out applications, checking an inbox and wondering why nobody was calling back, that distinction probably didn’t offer much comfort. There isn’t one neat explanation for what is happening. The economy matters, and employers get cautious when business slows. It would be a stretch to look at the youth unemployment number and declare that artificial intelligence caused it. But AI is changing the kind of work available at the bottom of the ladder, and that may turn out to matter just as much. In April 2025, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke told employees that before asking for more headcount or resources, teams must demonstrate why they couldn’t get the work done using AI. He was talking about productivity, not teenagers. Still, think about the work that traditionally went to the new person: the first draft, the basic research, the spreadsheet cleanup, the simple customer follow-up and all the other jobs that more experienced people didn’t need to do themselves. It wasn’t glamorous work, but somebody more experienced could check it, correct it and send the new employee back to try again. The work got done, but something else was being produced at the same time: experience. AI is getting very good at exactly that kind of work. What makes Shopify interesting is that, even as it pushed employees to use AI more aggressively, it was also bringing more young people into the company. Its engineering leadership had already expanded its intern program and continued doing so after Lütke’s memo. The thinking was that younger workers brought something useful of their own: they were comfortable experimenting with new tools and approaching problems without years of habits behind them. In other words, one of the companies pushing hardest to use AI was also making a deliberate effort to keep bringing beginners through the door. The question isn’t whether a chatbot took a teenager’s summer job. It is what happens when more of the basic work people once learned on can be done without them. At the squash club, selling taught me how to deal with customers. Showing someone the circuit equipment taught me how to explain something clearly. Filling in during house league meant somebody trusted me enough to deal directly with members. Even the towels had a lesson in them. Not every part of a job is going to be interesting, and the uninteresting part still has to get done. The skilled trades have never lost sight of this. Nobody expects an apprentice to arrive with the judgment of someone who has been doing the job for 20 years. You watch, you try, somebody corrects you and you do it again. A lot of office and service jobs once worked that way too. We just didn’t call it an apprenticeship. Technology will change what the beginner does. It already has. The challenge is making sure we don’t confuse eliminating beginner tasks with eliminating the need to develop beginners. Somebody still has to learn how to deal with a customer, recover from a mistake, take instruction, earn trust and eventually become the person teaching the next one. When I started at the International Squash Club in 1987, I thought I was just working at a squash club. Looking back, I was learning how to work.

Your Nose Knows More Than You Think

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The nose is not our most attractive feature. No line of Shakespeare reads, “O blessed nose! Had Heaven made thee as comely as thine office is noble…” But the human snout deserves more attention. It is constantly paying attention for us. And we are learning astonishing things about what it can detect. Compared with a bloodhound, our noses are inadequate. Humans have 5-6 million scent receptors in the nose. A bloodhound has 300 million. The portion of a dog's brain devoted to analyzing smells is about 40 times larger than ours. Some birds also have remarkable beaks. Turkey Vultures can detect gases released by decaying carcasses. They have helped workers locate leaking natural gas pipelines, attracted by the sulfur compounds added to otherwise odorless gas. But now, emerging research may change perceptions of human olfactory skills. Scientists have discovered, for example, that when people are frightened or under stress, their body odour changes. Some scientists believe that other people can detect that odour without realizing it. An analysis of 26 studies involving more than 1,600 people found evidence that fear, stress and anxiety can be communicated through body odour. It might happen like this. You walk into a room. Someone is frightened. They haven't said anything or made eye contact. But somehow you become a little more alert yourself. Body odours are being rebranded as “chemosignals”. And we can sense these signals in instances of fear and stress. Some research suggests we can also sense positive emotional states, such as happiness, from detectable chemical information. How the molecular chemistry works isn’t yet clear. And critics point out that laboratory experiments are considerably more controlled than ordinary human life. But in thinking through your life, have there not been times when you “smelled” someone passing by in a peculiar way – not their odour, per se, but their emotions? Scientists are also learning new things about our noses and disease. Our bodies constantly release hundreds of volatile organic compounds – chemicals that can be detected in breath, sweat, skin, urine and other bodily materials. When metabolism changes because of infection or disease, the chemical mixture can change too. It’s possible that diseases have distinctive chemical fingerprints. This has produced extraordinary experiments involving dogs, electronic noses and laboratory instruments capable of identifying volatile compounds. Scientists are investigating whether these signatures could eventually help detect diseases earlier or more cheaply than conventional methods. Parkinson's disease provides an intriguing example. Loss or reduction of the sense of smell – called hyposmia – is common in Parkinson's disease and can appear before the better-known movement problems. Studies involving thousands of patients have found that smell testing can be effective in distinguishing Parkinson's disease from other conditions that can look similar. That doesn't mean a poor sense of smell diagnoses Parkinson's disease. Many healthy people have a poor sense of smell, especially as they get older. Nasal problems, medications, infections and other conditions can affect it. But it does mean that scientists are taking the nose seriously as a possible window into the brain. Helen Keller, renowned American humanitarian who was deaf and blind from early childhood, referred to the nose as “the fallen angel”. She’d be pleased that modern science is beginning to restore the nose to a central focus. So if you suddenly lose your sense of smell – or notice a substantial unexplained change – it may be nothing more than a cold, allergies, medication or aging. But you might want to mention it to your doctor. And if someone passes by, and you can’t explain your interest, for better or for worse, go get a better sniff.

When Did Conservatism Stop Meaning Respecting the Taxpayer?

I have always believed government should mean respecting taxpayers, spending carefully, encouraging competition and allowing local communities to make decisions in their own best interests. That is why I am increasingly concerned about what we are seeing from both Queen’s Park and Ottawa. Too often, municipalities are offered money with strings attached: accept the conditions, change local policy or risk losing funding. Sometimes those conditions and their long-term consequences aren’t nearly as clear to residents as they should be when the money is announced. Ontario’s Development Charge Reduction Program is one example. On September 8, 2026, Pickering Council considered participating in the program, which requires participating municipalities to substantially reduce residential development charges for three years in exchange for access to infrastructure funding. Council supported moving forward. I was the only member of Council to vote against it. My concern was simple: development charges help pay for infrastructure required by growth. Reduce those charges and the roads, fire protection and other services still have to be provided. The bill doesn’t disappear. Government funding isn’t free money either. It is taxpayers’ money being returned to taxpayers — often with conditions attached. Sometimes, without even knowing what those conditions may be. Now Ontario is imposing “Buy Ontario” procurement requirements on municipalities. I support Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian manufacturing. But municipalities also have an obligation to obtain the best overall value for taxpayers. Price matters. Quality matters. Availability matters. Delivery time matters. Competition matters. If restricting competition increases costs, taxpayers ultimately pay the difference. There is also a larger contradiction Canadians are entitled to question. The federal government reported spending approximately $12.5 billion on international assistance in 2024–25, including hundreds of millions categorized specifically for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, along with funding for sexual and reproductive health initiatives abroad. Whatever one’s view of those programs, Canadians are entitled to ask about priorities. Municipalities are being told to find efficiencies, manage enormous infrastructure pressures and accommodate unprecedented growth. Families are struggling with affordability. Yet billions of Canadian tax dollars continue to be spent internationally. Before governments tell municipalities there isn’t enough money here at home, taxpayers deserve to know why their priorities are being placed elsewhere. This issue extends beyond money. When upper levels of government push aggressive housing and growth targets, municipalities are left dealing with what happens on the ground: traffic, roads, emergency response, infrastructure capacity and public safety. If development is moving faster than local infrastructure can safely support, municipal representatives should be prepared to say no. If residents overwhelmingly oppose a decision being pushed from above, their representatives should make their voices heard. Municipal government is closest to the people. We see the roads. We hear from residents. We know where infrastructure is failing and where communities are being stretched. That local knowledge should matter. Premier Ford and Prime Minister Mark Carney have both spoken about defending Canadian interests in the face of economic pressure from President Donald Trump. Prime Minister Carney has even said Canada should never accept “a deal at any price.” I agree with the principle. But it should apply at home too. Municipal leaders should be equally prepared to stand up to Queen’s Park and Ottawa when policies imposed from above don’t serve the communities we were elected to represent. That doesn’t mean fighting other governments for the sake of fighting. It means cooperation without surrender. If I have the privilege of serving as Pickering’s next mayor, I will work constructively with Queen’s Park and Ottawa. Those relationships matter. But my first responsibility will remain with the people of Pickering. Municipal leaders need to ask difficult questions, challenge bad deals and push back when decisions made elsewhere put local taxpayers, infrastructure or public safety at risk. Regardless of which political party controls Queen’s Park or Ottawa, one principle should never change: The people we represent come first.

The Art of Finding Work - What Being 'Qualified' Means to an Employer

By Nick Kossovan A recurring grievance among job seekers is, "I'm qualified, so why are employers not contacting me?" Asking this reveals a lack of understanding of what being "qualified" means from an employer's perspective. Being qualified involves more than just degrees and experience; it includes both tangible and intangible qualities. On one hand, you have tangible qualifications—degrees, certifications, hard skills, and quantifiable results. These are your baseline requirements. They're what get you interviews, hence the importance of showcasing them properly, throughout your résumé and LinkedIn profile, especially using numbers that demonstrate the impact you made on previous employers. On the other hand, you have intangible qualities, such as communication skills, adaptability, teamwork, problem-solving skills, time management skills, leadership skills, and creativity, to name a few, that make you truly qualified. When you don't consider these intangible qualities as part of being actually qualified, you fail to recognize what "being qualified" means to an employer; therefore, you might not be as qualified as you believe. Employers will not view you as being qualified when... Your written and verbal communication skills are substandard. All workplaces require effective communication. An all-too-common scenario is a candidate with an impressive résumé, which they have paid to have written, making it seem they have strong writing skills. However, when they interview, they struggle to articulate their career story and effectively sell themselves. Your communication skills are the most important factor influencing your job search and career. If you can't express yourself confidently, you're not qualified. An aside: Communication is primarily about word choice. When selecting words, less is more. The key to powerful and persuasive communication, whether written or spoken, is clarity and, whenever possible, brevity. You don't provide numerical proof of how you impacted your employers. Numbers, the language of business, provide tangible proof of your contributions. When a job seeker fails to support their claims with specific numbers, they're simply boasting. Making unsubstantiated claims about yourself doesn't make you qualified. Your digital footprint is controversial. Employers will Google you and review your LinkedIn activity when assessing your candidacy. Don't cross your fingers hoping they won't. If they find inappropriate comments or questionable behaviour, you're not qualified. I can't emphasize enough how crucial it is to align your online presence with the professional image you want to project. You're unwilling to work on-site. If you want to prolong your job search, insist on working from home. Companies are enforcing a return-to-office mandate, which is well within their right to do so. A candidate who tries to negotiate working from home when the job description states the job is on-site shows a sense of entitlement and, regardless of their skills, isn't qualified. Failing to consider these aspects, along with many others I haven't listed, explains why many job seekers meet the skills and experience requirements in the job posting, secure an interview, and then receive a rejection email. When you get the standard "We decided to go with another candidate" response, it's not about your qualifications on your résumé and LinkedIn profile; you wouldn't have been invited for an interview if you didn't appear to be qualified. Essentially, the employer is saying, "The candidate we hired has your education and experience, more or less; in addition, they have attributes and evidence that make us want to work with them." From speaking with hiring managers, it would be safe to say that employers don't have a hard time finding tangible, qualified candidates, which in today's job market are 'a dime a dozen.' The challenge employers are facing is finding candidates who meet the intangible, non-measurable aspects of being genuinely qualified. While there's no guaranteed method of getting hired, being a candidate that the employer and those who'd be your colleagues want to work with is as close to a guarantee as you can get, since, from an employer's point of view, this is the essence of being "qualified. Every day, job seekers share with me, or on LinkedIn, which isn't a good look, as it shows employers that they can't manage their emotions, their "woe is me" story. They claim they're an accomplished professional who's following all the job search advice given by self-proclaiming career experts. Yet, they can't figure out why they're missing out on opportunities for which they believe they're qualified. They naively assume their track record, which isn't unique, will speak for itself. Most job seekers lead with their skills and experience, believing this is what makes them "qualified." Savvy job seekers, those getting hired, show employers how they'll fit into the company's culture and be a value-add employee. Since no one achieves corporate goals alone, they understand the importance of demonstrating interpersonal skills. Above all, they come across as someone who'd be easy to manage and not a headache for the business or their colleagues. The truth is, employers don't focus solely on hiring the "most qualified" candidate; their priority is to hire the safest one, who'll make the hiring manager's life easier. Therefore, getting hired involves demonstrating not only that you have the qualifications that secured you the interview, but also that you pos

The Unsung Heroes With a Toolbox

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               My knees made a decision for me recently. I needed some trees trimmed around my Oshawa home. A few years ago, I probably would have grabbed the tools and tried doing it myself. Not this time. I called someone local. He showed up, did the work, cleaned everything up and headed to his next job. That should have been the end of the story. Instead, I wondered how many handymen and handywomen work around Oshawa every day without most of us noticing. Look around Oshawa's older neighbourhoods. There are people living in homes where they raised their children 30, 40 or even 50 years ago. Many want to stay there. Houses age along with the people inside them. Steps crack. Railings loosen. Faucets leak. Doors stick. Trees need trimming. For a handyman with the right tools, it might be a twenty minute job. For an older person with bad knees, it could sit there for months. These local handymen and handy women are not simply fixing houses. Sometimes they are helping people remain independent. It is not only seniors. People with disabilities may need help with ordinary repairs. Single parents are balancing work, children, bills and a home where something always seems to need fixing. Widows and widowers may suddenly face jobs their spouse once handled. Sometimes you just need a trustworthy handyman who knows what to do and is willing to take the smaller job. There is another part worth thinking about. We hear a lot about buying Canadian. But supporting Canadians does not stop at the checkout counter. Hiring Canadians counts too. Hire a handyman, handywoman or small tradesperson from Oshawa or Durham Region and you support a Canadian worker and local business at the same time. They buy fuel, tools and supplies and spend money at other local businesses. Money paid to repair a railing or trim a tree can continue moving through the community. That small job helps more than one person. There is a caution here. A few years ago, I was ripped off because I failed to properly check references. I am normally pretty hard nosed about checking people out, but I let my guard down. That should not make us afraid to hire a local handyman. It should remind us to be sensible. Ask neighbours who they trust. Check references. Get the price and work in writing when appropriate. Good handymen and handywomen understand reasonable questions. Be especially careful when someone unexpectedly comes to your door offering work and pressures you for an immediate decision or payment. If you believe you have been the victim of fraud, theft or another crime, contact police. But dishonest operators should not define the many honest handymen and handywomen doing good work. Find someone reliable, keep the number and tell a neighbour. Reputation remains one of the best advertisements a small business can have. There are also people, young and old, who were simply never taught household repairs. There is no shame in not knowing something nobody taught you. A good handyman or handywoman can fill that gap and sometimes pass along a little knowledge too. Now think beyond Oshawa. Handymen and handywomen are everywhere. Across Canada and around the world, they move from one job to another, helping people they may never see again. They help seniors remain independent. They help families. They keep homes from falling into disrepair. They spend locally and help keep community economies moving. Here is the question I keep coming back to. What would happen if they all stopped showing up tomorrow? Who fixes the elderly neighbour's steps? Who repairs the single mother's gate? Who changes the light for someone who cannot climb a ladder? Who takes the small job nobody else wants? Maybe we would finally notice how much our local handymen and handywomen actually do. They rarely make headlines. Nobody puts their name on a plaque. They finish the job, put the tools away and move on. Yet somewhere tonight, an older person can safely use the front steps because a handyman fixed them. Somewhere a family can close its gate again. Somewhere a person can remain in the home they love because somebody took care of those little jobs. Little jobs? Maybe we have been calling them that for too long. Look around your own community and think about the handyman or handywoman quietly keeping things working. You might be surprised by just how much we need them.

Karmageddon MR. X: Two Mayor's Races - And Two Candidates Worth Watching

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington Election campaigns have a funny way of looking predictable - right up until they aren't. Over the past several weeks, I have been following municipal races across Durham Region, looking at everything from candidate experience and organization to issues, historical voting patterns and what appears to be happening on the ground. Two races particularly interest me: Oshawa and Clarington. And I'll disclose something right at the beginning. While I intend to continue analyzing these races based on the evidence, I have a positive view of Tito-Dante Marimpietri in Oshawa and Tom Dingwall in Clarington. Readers can decide for themselves whether they agree. Oshawa: Nine Candidates, One Chair. Oshawa's election is fascinating because Mayor Dan Carter isn't seeking another term and nine candidates are competing to replace him. The certified field includes Sherland Chhangur, Michael Coons, Derek Giberson, Jeremy Large, Jim Lee, Tito-Dante Marimpietri, Henry Onwuachu, Joseph Tomlins and Dave Westlake. That is an extraordinarily fragmented ballot. And it is one reason I keep coming back to Tito-Dante Marimpietri. Whatever your opinion of Tito, nobody can reasonably describe him as inexperienced in municipal government. He has spent more than two decades in Oshawa municipal politics and currently serves as a Regional and City Councillor. There is something else I believe matters. Oshawa is sitting beside one of the greatest economic opportunities this region has seen in generations: Ontario's nuclear expansion. OPG, Darlington, the SMR program, nuclear supply-chain investment and thousands of skilled-trades and professional jobs are transforming Durham's economic landscape. The next Mayor of Oshawa should be asking a very simple question: How much of that investment can Oshawa capture? That means offices. Engineering companies. Nuclear suppliers. Professional employment. Skilled trades. Restaurants and businesses serving those workers. And, particularly in my view, an opportunity to bring high-quality employment into downtown Oshawa. Our earlier assessment identified economic development as one of Marimpietri's stronger areas, while also recognizing the obvious vulnerability that accompanies a long record in office: voters wanting change can hold that record against him. That's the kind of trade-off voters should actually examine. Clarington: No Place to Hide. Cross the municipal boundary and the mathematics change completely. Clarington voters have only two choices for mayor: Tom Dingwall and Adrian Foster. Foster isn't a newcomer. He is serving his fourth term as mayor, so voters have a substantial record on which to judge him. And that's precisely why I find Dingwall's candidacy interesting. A two-person election strips away most of the usual electoral noise. There is no third candidate to split the opposition vote. No fourth candidate to absorb protest votes. No complicated mathematical path involving somebody winning with 30 percent. Clarington voters get a straightforward choice between an incumbent administration and an alternative. I have known municipal government from both sides of the council table, and one thing I have learned is that elections shouldn't simply be about personalities. They should be about what municipal government actually does with your money. What are the core services? What should they cost? Are taxpayers receiving value? Which programs are required, which are discretionary, and are there things municipalities continue doing simply because they've always done them? Those are questions I believe deserve much more attention in municipal politics. And they are among the reasons I am interested in the direction Dingwall is presenting. Analysis Isn't Polling - There is one other point I want to make because readers are going to see more election analysis from me over the coming weeks. I've developed analytical models for several municipal races. They are not polls. My September Oshawa analysis, for example, specifically described its percentages as analytical probabilities rather than voter-intention polling or projected vote share. That's an important distinction. I don't intend to manufacture a poll and tell you that 37 percent of Oshawa supports Candidate X when nobody actually surveyed Oshawa voters. Instead, I look at measurable information: previous election results, candidate experience, campaign organization, issues, endorsements, public visibility and developments during the campaign. Then I update the analysis as the evidence changes. And Here's Where I Stand So I'll make my own perspective transparent. I like what I see in Tito-Dante Marimpietri's potential to capitalize on Oshawa's economic opportunities. And in Clarington, I like the discussion Tom Dingwall is bringing about municipal priorities, services and the direction of local government. That doesn't mean either candidate gets a free pass in this column. If they stumble, I'll say so. If their opponents make a good proposal, I'll say that too. And when the evidence changes, the analysis should change with it. Because there's a difference between having an opinion and manipulating the numbers to support it. Readers deserve to know which is which. Between now and election day, these two neighbouring municipalities are going to give political junkies two very different elections to watch. Oshawa has nine candidates fighting to emerge from the crowd. Clarington has two candidates fighting over the direction of the municipality. And I'll be watching both.

Home security starting from the inside out

By Tom Reimer Home security starting from the inside out Here’s a fresh, original story centered on home security and protecting valuables—no recycled plot, no clichés, just a clean narrative with practical ideas woven into the fiction. The house sat quietly at the end of the cul‑de‑sac, its windows glowing with warm evening light. Inside, Marissa moved through each room with a deliberate calm, checking the small details most people overlooked. She wasn’t paranoid—just prepared. After a break‑in on her street last winter, she’d decided her home would never be an easy target. She started in the living room, where her grandmother’s jewelry box rested inside a cabinet. It looked ordinary enough, but the cabinet itself was anchored to the wall, and the jewelry box was empty. The real heirlooms—rings, brooches, and a delicate gold necklace—were locked in a fire‑rated safe bolted to the floor in her upstairs closet. A thief could smash every drawer in the house and still walk away with nothing but splinters. Next, she checked the windows. Each one had security film, nearly invisible but strong enough to slow down anyone trying to smash their way in. The sensors blinked softly, armed and ready. She tested the latch on the back sliding door, then tugged gently on the dowel rod she kept in the track. Simple, cheap, effective. Her phone buzzed. A notification from her camera system: motion detected in the driveway. She glanced at the screen—just a raccoon waddling past the car. Still, she appreciated the reminder that her cameras were always watching, always recording. The system uploaded footage to the cloud automatically, so even if someone tried to destroy the cameras, the evidence would survive. She walked into the hallway and paused at the console table. Beneath it, hidden behind a decorative basket, was a small lockbox containing her passport, birth certificate, and spare credit card. Not exactly a fortress, but enough to keep important documents from being snatched in a quick grab‑and‑go burglary. Upstairs, she opened the closet and checked the safe. Solid steel, digital keypad, anchored into the studs. Inside were her valuables—but also a USB drive with scanned copies of every important document she owned. If disaster ever struck, she’d have backups ready. As she closed the safe, she heard a soft chime from the front door. Someone had opened it. Her heart jumped, but only for a moment—she recognized the pattern. Her neighbor, Daniel, had come by to borrow the ladder she kept in the garage. She’d given him a temporary access code earlier that day. “Just grabbing the ladder,” he called out. “No problem,” she replied, smiling. Even trust had layers. Temporary codes expired automatically, and her system logged every entry. When he left, she locked the door behind him and glanced around her home. It wasn’t a fortress, and she didn’t want it to feel like one. But it was secure—quietly, intelligently, confidently secure. Marissa turned off the lights, set the alarm, and headed upstairs. Her home wasn’t just where she lived. It was where her memories lived, where her future lived, where everything she valued was protected. And she intended to keep it that way.

Oshawa Convergence Music & Art Fest ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

By Joe Ingino Another event ‘BITES THE DUST’. The question that always lingers... WHY? Well, the answer is as simple as day. Those that organize events including many at Oshawa tourism and City hall have no clue how to promote events. They are entrenched in the idea that they know best that even when reality hits them in the face. They still call failed events a success.... and this is because they have no real ruler to compare a real big success... or for Oshawa a little success. Today we sit on the eve of what could be something great for Oshawa. We are loosing about 4 seats out of the 11. If we push enough we can possibly have 10 seats replaced including the mayor. This would be a great start. Unfortunately there are so many scoundrels int he pack/former councillors wanting to get back to the easy money at City Hall. I say easy money because those wanting to come back. When in office did nothing short of collect tax payer pay cheques. People like Bouma, Jane Hurts, Doug Sanders and they in my opinion should not be elected back. Tito, Giberson, Lee, Gray, Kerr, Nicholson, McConkey, Mark, Chapman should not be considered as experienced as they are in part responsible for the run away taxes, the many people forced to live on the streets. The open drug use on our streets and the distant relationship between the City and Durham Regional Police Services. Not to mention that they do not support local businesses. I along with many others... have been shun and ignored. You would think that the only in print newspaper serving the City and Region for over 34 years... that the City would approach to do business with. NO. They reason is not that The Central is not accredited, proven and or known...  The problem is that those elected are afraid... due to political stand. Staff supports council... they hire in my opinion under experienced people that do not understand the market, the people and or basic principles of marketing and advertising.... Events come and go. These events hold a very important key to the revival of our core. These events could be multi million dollar revenue generators for the entire region.  NO. Instead the same people keep promoting to no one. No vision. No plan. No marketing. No advertising. You reading this. You are probably thinking. Boy, you are harsh Joe. How would you do it.? Well. The answer is simple. In this recent event... Oshawa Convergence. First and foremost. I would change the name.... to something more catchy. I would Invite one or two major acts to come to Oshawa. I would use the local media including the only in print city newspaper. The local radio station and all the promoters that circulate. I would offer them free sponsorship in return to enter in a contra agreement to assist in broadcasting the event months before. This is something that is unheard of today by the city and or event promoters. No tax payer money used... A MESSAGE TO THE ORGANIZERS... ‘THE INTERNET IS DEAD.’ Because it is cheap/free it does not work unless you have it as part of a marketing strategy. Something that organizers of these events have no clue on how to compose. Once the advertising is put in place. We need an attraction. Four local artists and a few artsy farcys type does not cut it. I would invite some big name ‘STREET ARTISTS’. A Graffiti master. I would encourage municipalities to enter in to an arts competition. Representatives from all municipalities could enter. The winning artwork would be featured and advertised across Durham. I would also enter a pay a flat fee and tour participating restaurants.... Much like a ‘buffet’ operates... But in a control basis... that would allow people from outside Oshawa to sample our local restaurants for a flat rate. I would work on local hotels to host special events that would promote the event.... Such as each hotel host it’s own party for visitors. Possibly showcasing some of the art produced. Food, music fun events apart from the main event. As it stands... the event is nothing short but a red-neck make shift shit show. . When you look at the turn out of this event. You can’t help to note the number of candidates working the crowds. You can’t help to notice the far from few people attending from outside Durham. Why? NO or poor promotion. You may be wondering.... why can’t they get it right. The City does not promote local businesses.... The Central is living proof. Sad. Oshawa has such potential...

TIFF Is More Than a Film Festival—It Is a Canadian Institution

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Every September, Toronto becomes one of the centres of the international film world. Actors, directors, producers, distributors, journalists and moviegoers gather for the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), transforming theatres and streets into meeting places for art, commerce and public conversation. The 51st edition of TIFF, taking place from September 10 to 20, 2026, presents nearly 300 films. The program combines major premieres with independent productions, documentaries, international cinema and the work of emerging filmmakers. At a time when streaming services, artificial intelligence and changing audience habits are disrupting the industry, TIFF’s continuing importance should not be underestimated. TIFF is not merely a celebrity event. It is an economic engine, an instrument of cultural diplomacy and one of Canada’s most recognizable international institutions. Founded in 1976 as the Festival of Festivals, TIFF grew without the advantages enjoyed by older European festivals. Cannes had Mediterranean glamour, Venice had history, and Berlin had geopolitical importance. Toronto developed something different: an accessible festival supported by enthusiastic and knowledgeable audiences. That public participation became TIFF’s distinguishing characteristic. Unlike festivals organized primarily for invited industry professionals, TIFF gives ordinary moviegoers an important role. Audiences attend premieres, question filmmakers and help determine which productions generate momentum. The People’s Choice Award has frequently helped identify films that later achieved substantial commercial and awards-season success. This democratic quality reflects Toronto itself. The city’s extraordinary diversity makes it an ideal place to test films intended for international audiences. Within the Greater Toronto Area are communities connected to virtually every region of the world. A Romanian, Korean, Italian, Iranian, Hungarian, Indian or African film can find spectators who understand its language and cultural references, as well as Canadians encountering that culture for the first time. TIFF therefore performs a valuable social function. Films allow audiences to enter other lives and see political conflicts, migration, family relationships and historical events from unfamiliar perspectives. In a fragmented world, cinema remains capable of generating empathy in ways that statistics and political speeches frequently cannot. The festival is also immensely important for Canadian filmmakers. Canada shares a language and media market with the United States, whose entertainment industry possesses vastly greater financial and promotional resources. Without strong Canadian cultural institutions, our stories can easily be overwhelmed. TIFF gives Canadian directors, actors, writers and producers an international stage. A Canadian production screened in Toronto can attract foreign distributors, obtain financing for future projects and reach audiences that might otherwise never discover it. This is particularly valuable for independent, Indigenous, French-language and culturally diverse filmmakers who do not have the promotional machinery of major studios. Canada’s identity cannot be protected solely through laws, flags or government declarations. A country also expresses itself through the stories it tells. Canadian cinema records our landscapes, history, humour, conflicts and changing population. TIFF helps ensure that Canadians are not simply consumers of other countries’ cultural products but creators whose work travels internationally. The economic importance is equally significant. TIFF estimates that its activities generate approximately $240 million in annual economic impact. The benefits extend beyond the festival’s 11 days. International attention strengthens Toronto’s reputation as a location for film and television production. Producers attending TIFF can see the city’s studios, skilled crews, technical expertise and diverse architecture. Toronto can represent New York, Chicago or a European city on screen, but it can also appear confidently as itself. Canada’s screen industry provides employment to performers and directors, but also to carpenters, electricians, engineers, costume designers, caterers, computer specialists and construction workers. Supporting cinema is therefore not a luxury reserved for artists. It is an industrial strategy connected to technology, tourism, education and skilled employment. The launch of an official TIFF content market in 2026 represents an important development. Festivals exhibit films; markets help finance, purchase and distribute them. By connecting creators with buyers and investors, Toronto can capture more of the commercial activity surrounding the productions it presents. This could strengthen Canada’s position between the established European film markets and the enormous American entertainment industry. However, success should not be measured simply by the number of deals completed. The market must create genuine opportunities for Canadian companies and help them retain intellectual property rather than surrendering ownership at the earliest financing stage. TIFF also contributes to Canada’s international influence. Canada does not possess the military or economic weight of the world’s largest powers, but it exercises considerable soft power through culture, education and diplomacy. A respected international festival presents Canada as open, creative, pluralistic and capable of bringing different societies together. At a time of tariffs, geopolitical confrontation cultural connections are especially valuable. Governments may disagree, but artists and audiences can continue communicating. A film festival cannot resolve international conflicts, but it can preserve a space in which people encounter one another as human beings rather than merely as political categories. Nevertheless, TIFF must address significant challenges if it is to maintain public trust. Ticket prices and the concentration of screenings in downtown Toronto can make the festival feel inaccessible to many residents. TIFF should expand affordable screenings, student programs and community partnerships throughout the Greater Toronto Area. A festival that depends upon public enthusiasm must ensure that the public is not gradually priced out of participation. The organization must also balance celebrity premieres with its responsibility to discover original voices. Famous actors attract attention, sponsors and international media, but TIFF’s cultural purpose would be weakened if glamour displaced artistic merit. Independent films, documentaries and first-time directors need more than symbolic inclusion; they need good screening times, promotion and access to industry decision-makers. Political controversy presents another test. Films inevitably address war, injustice, identity and historical memory. TIFF should not avoid difficult subjects merely because they may provoke protests or criticism. Its responsibility is to apply transparent standards, respect lawful expression and create conditions for serious discussion. Freedom of artistic expression does not mean that every film is beyond criticism. It means that controversial work should normally be answered through debate, analysis and other artistic work—not through intimidation or opaque cancellation. The survival of theatrical cinema is itself at stake. Streaming platforms provide convenience and have broadened access to international productions, but watching alone at home is different from experiencing a film with hundreds of people. A collective audience laughs, falls silent and reacts together. The conversation afterward becomes part of the experience. TIFF reminds us that cinema is not merely digital content delivered to an individual device. It is a communal art form. Toronto should therefore regard TIFF as essential cultural infrastructure. Governments and sponsors should support it, while respecting its artistic independence. TIFF, in return, must remain accountable, accessible and firmly committed to Canadian talent. The festival’s red carpets will disappear after September 20, and international visitors will depart. Its real influence, however, will continue through the films discovered, agreements concluded, careers launched and conversations begun. TIFF matters because it brings the world to Canada while carrying Canadian creativity to the world. It strengthens Toronto’s economy, supports a national industry and gives Canadians an opportunity to understand themselves and others through storytelling. TIFF is an enduring investment in Canada’s culture, identity and international standing.

More Than a Day at the Farm: How Community Events Help End the Stigma of Homelessness

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support Community events such as the recent DARS Family Fun Farm Day are about much more than food, games and an afternoon outdoors. They create opportunities for people from different circumstances to meet one another as neighbours. In doing so, they help challenge the assumptions and stigma that too often surround homelessness. Homelessness is frequently discussed through statistics, headlines and images of people at their most vulnerable. Although public awareness is important, this limited picture can cause society to see homelessness as a person’s identity rather than a difficult circumstance they are experiencing. At DARS, we truly believe a person should never be defined by where they sleep or their current living situation. I remind our team often that many people are closer to becoming unhoused than they may realize, and that we must all remember: “There but for the grace of God go I.” People experiencing homelessness are parents, grandparents, friends, workers, veterans, artists, animal lovers and community members. They have talents, humour, hopes and stories. Many have experienced circumstances that could happen to almost anyone: the loss of employment, rising housing costs, illness, family breakdown, domestic violence, trauma or the death of someone they depended upon. The DARS Family Fun Farm Day, held last weekend, provided a welcoming space where those labels began to disappear. When people gather around a corn roast, meet the farm animals, listen to music, play games or watch children participate in activities, they are not divided into categories of “housed” and “homeless.” They are simply people sharing an experience. Conversations begin naturally, common interests emerge and relationships form. This kind of personal connection is one of the most effective ways to challenge stigma. It is much harder to hold onto a stereotype after sitting beside someone, sharing a meal, laughing together or hearing part of their story. Fear and judgment can be replaced by understanding. The person who may once have been viewed only as “a homeless individual” becomes a neighbour with a name, a personality and something meaningful to contribute. The farm itself plays an important role. It offers open space, fresh air, animals, shared crops, honey from our hives and purposeful activities in a setting that feels less formal than an office or social-service environment. During this special day, people participated at their own comfort level. There was no pressure to explain their circumstances or identify themselves as needing assistance. Everyone was welcomed with dignity. Events like Family Fun Farm Day are also valuable for children and young people. They offer families a gentle and age-appropriate opportunity to talk about homelessness, compassion and inclusion. Children learn that people experiencing hardship should not be feared, ignored or blamed. They learn that kindness includes saying hello, sharing space and recognizing that every person deserves safety and respect. For people who have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity, being genuinely included in a community event can be deeply meaningful. Stigma often creates isolation and can make individuals feel invisible or unwelcome. A warm greeting, a shared activity or an invitation to sit at the same table can help rebuild confidence and restore a sense of belonging. During the event, someone even asked one of our residents how he came to volunteer at DARS. Consider what that moment means. He woke up that morning as a resident of the DARS Farmhouse—a home for people transitioning out of homelessness—and went to sleep that night knowing that a neighbour had seen him not as someone experiencing homelessness, but as a valued member of the volunteer community. These events also show the broader community what DARS represents. DARS does not simply respond to immediate needs. We work to create relationships, rebuild trust and remind people that they remain part of the community, regardless of their housing status. At the DARS Farmhouse, support is grounded in dignity, participation and the belief that everyone has strengths to offer. The person a visitor assumed was one of our volunteers? He is a resident—and a grill master. Our honey bee demonstrator is a resident. The person greeting neighbours at the front gate is another cherished member of the DARS household. They were not simply recipients of support that day. They were hosts, teachers, volunteers and contributors to their community. Community events cannot solve homelessness on their own. We still need affordable housing, adequate income supports, accessible health care and properly funded community services. However, lasting solutions also require a change in how people experiencing homelessness are perceived and treated.

Pickering’s Next Council Must Be Ready for the Bill That’s Coming

By John Meloche Municipal budgets rarely make exciting reading. I know because I recently spent a considerable amount of time going through Pickering’s capital budget and long-term forecasts. But buried inside hundreds of pages of numbers is a conversation I believe Pickering residents need to be having now: how do we continue building the city we want without losing control of what it costs? Pickering’s approved 2026 capital investment is approximately $73.2 million. The City’s own financing summary shows that 17.7 per cent is financed through debt, with another 10.3 per cent identified as development-charge debt. Debt itself is not automatically bad. Cities borrow to build infrastructure that will last for decades. Roads, fire stations, recreation facilities and major civic infrastructure should not necessarily be paid entirely by the taxpayers who happen to live here in the year they are constructed. The concern is capacity. Pickering is growing rapidly, and our list of capital requirements is growing with it. The City’s Asset Management Plan identifies significant capital spending during the 2027–2029 period, including major renovations and rehabilitation of existing facilities. At the same time, we are undertaking major new projects. The Seaton Recreation Complex and Library is a perfect example. I support investing in recreation and community infrastructure. A growing city needs these facilities. But Council has already directed staff to seek additional government funding, naming-rights revenue, efficiencies and other funding sources specifically to reduce the project’s reliance on debt and property taxes. That tells us something important: affordability matters even when the project itself is worthwhile. Pickering has also benefited enormously from casino revenue. The City received $16.38 million from OLG during the 2025–26 fiscal year and nearly $76 million since the Pickering Casino Resort opened in July 2021. That is an extraordinary advantage, but advantages should be used strategically, not treated as an excuse to become less disciplined. My approach is simple. Before approving major expenditures, Council should be asking: What is the full lifecycle cost? What will we borrow? What will the interest ultimately cost? What other projects are coming behind it? What happens if a forecasted revenue source changes? Could grants, sponsorships, naming rights or partnerships reduce the burden? And most importantly, what does this decision mean for the taxpayer five or ten years from now? Residents should not need an accounting degree and several evenings of research to answer those questions. I want Pickering to provide far more accessible, plain-language financial reporting — including understandable capital forecasts, debt projections and explanations showing residents not merely what something costs today, but how it will be financed tomorrow. That reflects the broader commitment I have made to transparent government and measurable taxpayer value. Johns-Platform-ideas.txt Fiscal responsibility does not mean saying no to everything. It means knowing when to say yes, understanding exactly what that yes will cost, and making sure tomorrow’s taxpayers can afford the decisions we make today. Pickering has tremendous opportunities ahead of it. Growth can bring new homes, new employers, better amenities and a stronger tax base. But opportunity without financial discipline can become obligation very quickly. The next Council will inherit some consequential financial decisions. Residents deserve councillors prepared to read beyond the headline numbers, ask difficult questions and explain the answers clearly. That is the standard I believe every taxpayer should expect from City Hall.

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.