The Slow Death Of Something GREAT…

The Slow Death Of Something GREAT... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States What is it with humanity? No, matter what it is. The cycle of life is always the same. No matter the cause, purpose or other. Things come together for a common good and end up ruined, destroyed and or dead. I say this with great liberty due to the fact that if anything history lessons are our indicators for our future. The Mayan, the Inca, Roman Empire, Vikings and so on... Yet, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again. These mistakes come to fruition due to greed, ignorance and in many cases as Freud would assume a hyper extension of ego. The ego is the conscious, organized part of the psyche that mediates between unrealistic, impulsive desires (the id) and the moral constraints of reality (the superego). The superego is the ethical, moralizing component of personality in Freud's structural model, acting as an internal conscience that strives for perfection, guilt-free behavior, and societal conformity. With the understanding of these concept one can begin to appredicate failure in just about every system ever created by man. We as human have a flaw in our psychic. It is as if we set up ourselves to fail. Look at the history of the Internet for example. An electronic invention that revolutionized humanity. I remember in it’s early stages. NO, one had computers and even less internet. The technology was reserved for higher education and government institutions. I remember bringing the internet to Durham. I could not give it away. I approached all municipal government. They did not want it due to cost of updating their outdated computers. During the early days, there were no browsers and no social media. ICQ was one of the first communication platforms. People could actually chat in live time. The internet during those days was self governed. People acted with respect and with civility. There was no commercialism. All operated on dial up modems with limited bandwidth. Then came the introduction of very primitive browser. This opened the door to commercialism.  People would sell books, booklets and self help books. One of the first to appear online as a business was small companies like PayPal. Companies that offered the ability to make transactions over the internet. This flooded the internet with porn site for pay. Online casinos running illegally. With the sudden surge in commercial interest online. The Google, Yahoo and many other browsers began investing millions in the development of their browsers. Offering a platform for start up, home, and small businesses to sell their wares. Then the Amazon, Craig List and the like. This realization of being able to make millions if not billions was the begging to the end of the internet. Today, the internet is nothing short of a commercial public toilet. Flooded with all kind of tracking devices that produce millions of pop up windows offering you all kinds of merchandize. The once internet that self governed and a marble for human communications has become a social public toilet. Superegos - expressing all kinds of misinformation that set patterns of information controlled by governments through further misinformation. The old belief use to be. The most successful governments are those that can keep their population ignorant of the facts and fighting among themselves. The internet is such arena. Now compounded by a false labeled Artificial Intelligence. We are doomed, as there is nothing intelligent about an artificial system set by our ignorance. AI is nothing but a new browser. A browser that can compose information faster than any human. This is not intelligence. This is just a show of our ignorance. The internet is slowly coming to it’s end. Misinformation, over saturation of commercialism and the human need for interaction will soon deem the net absolete. AI should be best labeled Artificial Ignorance of the facts.

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote. Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize. Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented. Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them. Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest. What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility. A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity. One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed. Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.

Gold Medals Are Not the Goal in Health

Gold Medals Are Not the Goal in Health Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The Olympics showcase people pushing to their limits. Athletes soar, leap, slide and score! Watching from the couch, feet up, drink in hand, we marvel at these feats. In the natural world, certain animals push their limits too. Some migratory birds can fly for days – sometimes weeks – without landing. The bar-tailed godwit, for example, travels more than 11,000 kilometres nonstop across the Pacific Ocean, fueled only by stored fat and instinct. No cheering crowds. No gold medals. Just a destination and the will to reach it. Such accomplishments are for the gifted. But what are the rest of us capable of doing? I attended an event last week designed to inspire university leaders to be more innovative. There, one of the speakers talked about the “magic 10%”. Wholesale change is rarely successful, but changing 10% of something is a good strategy for getting results over time. Many people fail to learn this lesson, even as history repeatedly teaches it. Lasting accomplishments, especially those related to health, tend to come not from heroic bursts of effort, but from setting a clear, achievable goal and working at it in increments. It used to be true in sport too. Take the first marathon runners in the late 19th century. They were not elite athletes by modern standards. Many were ordinary people with day jobs, inspired by the idea of testing their endurance over a long distance. Training methods were basic, nutrition was poorly understood, and injuries were common. Some failed spectacularly. Others quit. A few persevered. What separated them was not brilliance, but persistence. Change has come the same way in most medical advances, even when heroes should have won gold medals. When Edward Jenner proposed vaccination in the 1790s, he was ridiculed. When Ignaz Semmelweis insisted that handwashing could prevent deadly infections, his colleagues rejected him. Ultimately, it was the long accumulation of evidence that drove progress. When it comes to our own health, we err in strategies that are entirely self-driven – overhauling our diet overnight, acquiring a treadmill, cutting out alcohol, and so on. But all-or-nothing thinking is an obstacle to better health. The body responds best to steady and enduring signals, not sudden shocks. Lowering blood pressure by ten points, improving balance by daily practice, and enjoying one drink slowly instead of several in succession. These are not Olympic feats. But when adopted bit by bit and maintained, the benefits are cumulative. There is a famous line often attributed to Goethe: “Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” The key word is begin. Not finish. Not perfect. Just begin. Most people who successfully improve their health do so with help. A walking partner. A spouse who changes grocery habits. A health advocate who listens. Failures along the way are not signs to stop. They are part of the process. Athletes fall. Birds are blown off course. History’s innovators were dismissed before being vindicated. The goal matters, but the best achievements to celebrate are day-by-day good choices. We may never leap like Olympians or cross oceans on wings, but we can set goals that stretch us just enough to matter. Better sleep. Stronger muscles. More energy. Fewer pills. These are reasonable feats, and they are within reach. Extraordinary health does not arrive suddenly. It is built methodically, one decision at a time, by ordinary people who decide that the effort is worth it. Send me your examples of success with taking small, incremental steps to better health and I’ll post them at the end of the column at www.docgiff.com for your reference and inspiration.

What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?

Dead and Gone… What Does the Price List Actually Tell You? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario When someone dies, families often hear a new term very quickly. The price list. It sounds simple enough. A document with prices. Clear. Straightforward. But if I were gone, and my family was sitting across from someone reviewing a funeral home’s General Price List for the first time, I would want them to know this. A price list can be helpful. It just doesn’t tell the whole story. In Ontario, funeral homes are required to provide written pricing information. That matters. Families should not have to guess. The list outlines professional fees, transportation, facilities, vehicles, merchandise, and optional services. On paper, it looks organized. Almost clinical. Grief rarely is. Most price lists are divided into sections. There is usually a basic professional fee. There may be transfer charges. Preparation fees. Facilities and staffing for visitation or ceremony. Casket and urn options. Items most families have never purchased before and may never have thought about until that moment. If I were sitting with my family in that room, I would want them to understand something simple. Not every line on that page applies to them. A price list shows what is available. It does not automatically reflect what a family will choose. And that is usually where uncertainty starts to creep in. Two funeral homes may present similar looking documents, yet the final totals can differ. One may bundle services together. Another may separate them. One may include certain third party costs in its estimate. Another may list them separately. Without context, the differences can feel bigger than they actually are. If I could leave my family one practical suggestion, it would be this. Ask which items are required and which are optional. That question alone can change the tone of the conversation. If a family is choosing direct cremation, for example, many line items simply do not apply. There may be no visitation. No chapel service. No hearse. No cemetery coordination. Those services remain on the list because they are part of the funeral home’s full range of offerings, not because they must be selected. A price list is meant to inform. Still, in the middle of grief, even straightforward information can feel heavy. I would also want my family to know it is completely reasonable to take that document home. To read it more than once. To compare it with another. To ask for a written estimate that reflects the specific choices being considered, not just the full menu. No family should feel rushed to decide from a single sheet of paper. There is another detail families sometimes discover later. A funeral home’s price list may not include cemetery fees, clergy fees, obituary notices, or flowers. Those costs often sit outside the funeral home itself. If that is not explained clearly, the final number can come as a surprise. Clarity rarely comes from the document alone. It comes from asking questions and taking a little time. If I were gone, what I would want most is for my family to feel comfortable speaking openly about cost without embarrassment. Talking about money at a time like this can feel uncomfortable, but it does not diminish love. It simply helps prevent confusion. The purpose of a price list is not to pressure anyone. It is there to show what exists. What families choose from it should feel thoughtful, not hurried. Next week, I will write about something many families quietly wonder about after a death. What government benefits may be available, and how those programs actually work in Ontario.

Don’t let them scare you

Don’t let them scare you A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak. There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side. If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to. So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family. The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose. Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.

By The Numbers

By The Numbers By Wayne and Tamara I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year. The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better. Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things. To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me? Daphne Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule. A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number. But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them. That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with. Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer. Wayne & Tamara Benched For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive. But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count. She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on? Greg Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman. Wayne & Tamara

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust. By Nick Kossovan The crux of all hiring decisions comes down to one word: trust. AI, combined with a growing number of malicious actors in the job market, has eroded trust between employers and job seekers, an issue that is worsening. Today, everyone's resume looks great. Same buzzwords. Same frameworks. Same: "I managed," "I built," "I scaled." Miraculously, every candidate is strategic, results-driven and cross-functional. With AI, it is easy to create a slick veneer of tripe, filled with buzzwords from the job posting, at best, making hollow promises. Most job seekers, especially bad actors, focus on looking smooth. In contrast, savvy job seekers focus on presenting evidence—quantifying their impact on their employer's business (read: profitability)—to build trust. ATSs and, to a large extent, humans struggle to distinguish between effort, outcomes, and mimicking the job posting; therefore, hiring managers and recruiters seek job seekers who do what most don't: quantify, with numbers, the friction they caused in their previous employer's business. What does "Led a team of inside sales reps to achieve sales quota" mean? What value does this sentence offer? Does it build any trust or credibility? The same for: · "Managed and maintained the organization's social media accounts to strengthen Wayne Enterprises' online presence." · "Managed the team calendar." · "Handled customer inquiries." · "Filed reports." · "Supported sales and marketing efforts." · "Improved office efficiency." · "Hard worker with a go-getter attitude." (Isn't every jobseeker?) These sentences list duties and opinions ("Employers don't hire opinions; they hire results") instead of what employers want to see: your accomplishments (read: results). Moreover, they fail to answer the critical "so what?" question. Hiring managers and recruiters aren't asking, "Is this candidate impressive?" They're asking, "Can I trust this person to deliver the results we need?" Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles don't fail screening. They fail trust. A highly effective job search strategy is to concentrate intensely on demonstrating to recruiters and employers that you are results-oriented. Candidates who come across as trustworthy, result-driven, and reliable, and who aren't afraid to own their results, are the ones employers swoon over. A common job search myth, perpetuated by a sense of entitlement, is that one's experience, which is subjective, speaks for itself. It doesn't. Experience only holds value for an employer if the person with the "experience" can be trusted to produce measurable results. Job seekers need to understand that hiring doesn't occur in a reflective environment that gives a job seeker, who's a stranger to the hiring manager, the benefit of the doubt. Hiring occurs under pressure. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles are rapidly scrutinized for evidence of impact at prior employers. When a resume or LinkedIn profile doesn't provide evidence of impact, it becomes, without a second thought, a "No." Hiring isn't mysterious, as many would like you to believe, especially those who benefit—make money—from you believing it is. It's layered. The first layer is answering the question every hiring manager asks themselves when scanning a resume: "What has this person achieved?" If what you've achieved leads the hiring manager to think, "[Name] could be someone we can use here," then the candidate moves on to the second layer, determining whether you can be trusted. AI or not, resumes never tell someone's full story. As I pointed out at the beginning, the job market abounds with bad actors and job seekers who exaggerate or outright lie about their experience and qualifications, or whose behaviour (personality traits) isn't conducive to being an employer's ideal employee. Nowadays, employers understandably seek a comprehensive view of a candidate, so they: · Google the candidate—check their digital footprint (read: behaviour)—and review their social media activity (articles, blogs, comments, posts), especially on LinkedIn, to determine whether they're interview-worthy. Does the candidate's online presence raise any questions? Are they associated with (written, commented on, reposted) any industry- or profession-related articles or blogs? What charitable activities do they engage in? Do any illicit or questionable activities appear? · Look them in the eye, listen, and observe how they communicate during the interview. Speaking for myself, a lack of communication skills—the ability to articulate with confidence—is a non-negotiable requirement when I hire. The way a candidate communicates with me—I'll also ask candidates to write something to gauge their written communication skills and how they think (writing is thinking)—is how they'll communicate with customers, prospects, and their colleagues. "The ability to communicate is critical to building relationships, to leadership, and to learning." Sheryl Sandberg, American technology executive, philanthropist and writer. · Ensure the applicant can walk their talk by asking them to take an assessment test or complete an assignment. I've lost count of how many candidates I've interviewed who talked a good game but didn't pass an assessment or submit a subpar assignment. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles have always contained a great deal of fluff, embellishments, and falsehoods. As employers grow increasingly weary of job seekers' claims, the core issue job seekers face is communicating their value in a few seconds and convincing employers they can be trusted. Job seekers who empathize with employers, have trust issues, and therefore focus on building credibility to gain trust will be far ahead of their competition.

When the Weather Becomes the Argument

When the Weather Becomes the Argument By Dale Jodoin Columnist I’ve been listening to the noise for years now. Every storm is proof of something. Every heat wave is a warning. Every cold snap is either evidence or denial depending on who’s talking. Snow falls in a place that “never” had snow before and suddenly it’s the end of the world. Then summer runs hot and dry and we’re told deserts are creeping closer. Turn on the television and it feels like the sky is either burning or about to freeze solid. It’s always urgent. Always dramatic. Always now. I’m not writing this as someone waving a sign. I’m writing this as someone who reads history before reading headlines. Because history has weather too. There was a time called the Little Ice Age. Winters stretched long and bitter across Europe. Rivers froze hard enough to walk across. Crops failed again and again. People starved quietly. In 1816, after Mount Tambora erupted, snow fell in June across parts of North America. They called it the Year Without a Summer. Farmers planted fields and watched everything die. Food prices soared. Anger followed hunger. That happened long before carbon taxes. Long before gas engines. Long before politicians learned how powerful environmental language could be. Then there were warmer centuries. The Medieval Warm Period allowed farming in places that later became too cold. Vikings settled Greenland. Vineyards stretched farther north. The planet has always moved in cycles, like breathing in and out. So when someone says the weather has never done this before, I slow down. That does not mean nothing is happening today. Temperatures have risen since the late 1800s. Arctic sea ice has declined in recent decades. Sea levels have edged upward. Satellites, surface readings, ice cores, they all show change. Most climate scientists agree that human industry, especially fossil fuel use, contributes to warming. That part deserves honesty. But honesty must run both ways. What unsettles people is not the data. It’s the tone. Every flood becomes proof of collapse. Every wildfire becomes a moral judgment. Every question becomes denial. Regular families are not sitting at kitchen tables debating atmospheric chemistry. They are trying to afford groceries. They are watching heating bills climb in winter. They are feeling fuel costs ripple through everything they buy. When policies meant to save the planet raise everyday costs, people notice. They notice when carbon pricing shows up on their bills. They notice when farmers say input costs are rising. They notice when governments speak of sacrifice while global emissions continue rising elsewhere. Canada tightens. Parts of Europe tighten. Meanwhile China emits more total carbon than any other nation. India grows. The United States remains high on a per person basis. Global emissions do not disappear just because one country sets targets. That tension fuels frustration. It is fair to ask whether policies are effective. It is fair to ask whether they are balanced. It is fair to ask whether working families are carrying more weight than large industrial players. What is not fair is shutting down those questions. Yes, the climate changes naturally. Yes, humans now influence it. Both can be true. Oceans shift heat across the planet. Solar cycles rise and fall. Volcanoes inject particles into the sky. These forces still exist. Climate systems are complex. They do not respond to one cause alone. We have also heard dire warnings before. Acid rain would destroy forests forever. The ozone hole would bring catastrophe. A coming ice age was once discussed. Some environmental concerns were real and addressed. Others were exaggerated. The world did not end. That history makes people cautious. There are claims about secret weather control programs spraying the skies. There is no solid, credible evidence supporting large scale secret operations controlling daily weather patterns. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Without that proof, they remain claims. There are debates about lab grown meat, methane from cattle, new technologies aimed at reducing emissions. Those discussions deserve transparency. Long term effects should be studied carefully. Innovation should not move faster than understanding. But fear should not be the engine. Fear makes people compliant. Fear moves markets. Fear wins elections. If you tell citizens the planet will collapse within a decade, they may accept policies without scrutiny. If you tell them disagreement equals ignorance, they may stop speaking. A healthy society does the opposite. It questions loudly. It reads broadly. It allows disagreement without exile. We are not fragile creatures waiting for extinction. Humanity has survived ice ages, plagues, revolutions, failed harvests, and wars. We have endured heat and cold, drought and flood. We adapt. We build differently. We learn from mistakes. What we cannot survive is intellectual laziness. Blind denial helps no one. Saying there is no warming at all ignores strong evidence. Blind acceptance helps no one either. Accepting every policy as necessary without examining costs and benefits weakens democracy. The truth lives in the middle, uncomfortable and complicated. The climate is changing. Humans influence it. Natural cycles continue. Governments respond. Some responses are sensible. Some are flawed. Some may be more about revenue than results. That deserves scrutiny. Plant a tree if you want. Recycle because you care. Conserve energy where it makes sense. Protect your land and water because they belong to your children. But keep your mind active. Read history. Read science. Read independent voices. Notice who profits from the alarm. Notice who profits from denial. Notice who becomes wealthier while ordinary people tighten their belts. Balance is strength. We will survive warming years and cooling years. We will survive new technologies and flawed policies. We will survive loud headlines and political speeches. But survival with dignity requires vigilance. A free country does not demand silence. It demands engagement. Ask questions never accept what a government is giving you because they're getting comfortable making money off your hard work

Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants Municipal governments in Ontario are widely regarded as financially disciplined. Balanced-budget requirements, strong audit practices and conservative debt management have created a culture of fiscal caution. That discipline has value. But in an era defined by housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and constrained revenue tools, caution alone is no longer sufficient. Most municipalities structure their finance departments around accounting expertise. Treasurers and chief financial officers are typically trained in audit compliance, financial reporting and budget administration. Their mandate is to ensure that spending aligns with revenues, that reserves are properly allocated and that statutory requirements are met. These functions are essential. But they are not economic modelling. Accounting is, by nature, retrospective. It records and categorizes what has occurred. Economic modelling, by contrast, attempts to forecast behavioural responses to policy decisions. An accountant asks whether the budget balances. An economist asks what will happen if a variable changes. The distinction matters. Municipal councils today are routinely making decisions about development charges, property-tax rates, infrastructure financing and long-term debt issuance. These decisions influence housing supply, business location, migration patterns and assessment growth. They shape the local economy for decades. Yet many municipalities approach these questions primarily through an accounting lens. Consider development charges. When rates are increased to fund capital projects, the financial logic is straightforward: growth should pay for growth. But what is the elasticity effect? At what point do higher charges suppress housing starts? How does that affect long-term assessment growth? Could a lower rate generate higher total revenue over time? These are economic questions. They require modelling. The same applies to property-tax policy. What level of increase begins to influence business investment decisions? How sensitive are commercial properties to tax differentials across municipal borders? How do households respond to cumulative cost pressures? Without economic forecasting, councils risk making technically balanced but economically inefficient decisions. The consequences are rarely immediate. A budget can be balanced while housing starts decline. Debt ratios can appear manageable while assessment growth slows. Tax rates can rise incrementally without recognizing the point at which competitiveness erodes. Over time, however, these effects compound. Senior levels of government routinely integrate economic modelling into fiscal policy decisions. Provincial and federal ministries publish forecasts, stress-test assumptions and examine behavioural impacts before implementing major changes. Municipal governments, which now manage increasingly complex infrastructure and growth mandates, should do the same. This does not mean replacing treasurers with economists. Accounting discipline remains indispensable. But municipalities would benefit from institutionalizing economic expertise alongside traditional finance functions. An in-house municipal economist – or a formalized economic modelling unit – could evaluate development-charge sensitivity, tax elasticity, infrastructure return on investment and long-term debt sustainability under varying growth and interest-rate scenarios. Major fiscal decisions would then be informed not only by compliance requirements, but by forward-looking analysis. Ontario’s municipalities are being asked to grow faster, build more housing and maintain affordability, often with limited fiscal tools. In that environment, optimizing spreadsheets is not enough. Municipal governance must evolve from budget management to economic strategy. Balancing the books is necessary. Modelling the future is essential.

At Sixty-One: The Maple Leaf and the Quiet Strength of a Nation

At Sixty-One: The Maple Leaf and the Quiet Strength of a Nation by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East At sixty-one, the Canadian flag is no longer a newcomer, nor quite an elder statesman. It stands in that rare space of mature confidence tested, familiar, and quietly resilient. On February 15, 1965, when the Maple Leaf first rose above Parliament Hill, it did so amid fierce debate. Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson believed Canada required a distinctive emblem; one that belonged wholly to Canadians. Opposition leader John Diefenbaker fought passionately to preserve the Red Ensign, arguing it represented sacrifice and continuity. The result was not rupture but renewal. The design proposed by George F. G. Stanley, a single red maple leaf framed by two red bars, carried no imperial crest, no overt ideology, no linguistic declaration. It was simple by intention. It asked Canadians not who they descended from, but what they shared. That simplicity remains its enduring strength. At sixty-one, the Maple Leaf has witnessed profound transformation. Canada today is more diverse, more urban, more digitally connected — and more globally exposed — than it was in 1965. Immigration has reshaped neighbourhoods. Indigenous reconciliation has moved from the margins to the centre of national conversation. Trade, technology, and geopolitics test economic resilience in ways the architects of the flag debate could scarcely have imagined. And yet the flag has not required reinterpretation. It has absorbed change without losing meaning. Unlike heraldic symbols rooted in monarchy — the lion and unicorn of the Royal Coat of Arms — the Maple Leaf reflects civic rather than ancestral identity. It belongs equally to a new citizen taking the oath this morning and to a veteran who wore it in uniform decades ago. It waves at Olympic podiums and at disaster relief sites. It appears at parades and at Remembrance Day ceremonies . Few national symbols maintain such breadth of ownership. This is not accidental. The Canadian flag was designed at a moment when the country sought to define itself apart from empire without abandoning constitutional continuity. It represented confidence without confrontation. Canada did not sever its parliamentary traditions; it simply chose a symbol that stood independently. In that choice lay a lesson. Canada’s evolution has rarely been revolutionary. We are a country of negotiated progress; between English and French, federal and provincial authority, newcomers and longstanding communities. The Maple Leaf embodies that temperament. It is bold but not boastful, clear but not strident. At sixty-one, it stands in contrast to a global climate where national symbols often serve as instruments of polarization. In many democracies, flags are claimed by factions. Patriotism becomes partisan. Symbols divide as much as they unite. Canada has not been immune to strain. Regional grievances, economic disparities, and political polarization test cohesion. However, the Maple Leaf has largely remained shared ground. It is as likely to appear at a peaceful protest as at a military commemoration. It is stitched on backpacks abroad and displayed in classrooms at home. That shared ground matters more than ever. A flag alone cannot guarantee democratic resilience. It cannot balance budgets, negotiate trade agreements, or heal historical injustice. However, it can anchor a sense of belonging that makes those tasks possible. When wildfires sweep through Western provinces, when floods batter Atlantic communities, when Canadians are evacuated from foreign conflict zones, the Maple Leaf signals something fundamental: institutions will respond. Imperfectly, perhaps. Slowly at times. However, responsively. That expectation of response — of civic obligation — is woven into the fabric of the flag itself. At sixty-one, the Maple Leaf also reminds us of generational responsibility. Those who remember the 1965 debate are fewer each year. For younger Canadians, the flag has always existed. Its contested birth is distant history. However, maturity requires memory. The courage shown in 1965 was not in the design alone; it was in Parliament’s willingness to decide. The debate was fierce. Emotions ran high. Yet after exhaustive argument, a democratic vote prevailed — and the country accepted the outcome. In today’s environment, that procedural respect may be the flag’s most powerful legacy. To honour the Maple Leaf at sixty-one is therefore to recommit to the habits that made it possible: vigorous debate without delegitimization, compromise without capitulation, patriotism without exclusion. The leaf itself — drawn with eleven points, stylized rather than botanical — symbolizes something organic yet ordered. It evokes nature and seasons, endurance and renewal. Each autumn, real leaves fall and regenerate. The symbol remains constant. So too with the country. Canada at sixty-one years under the Maple Leaf is not the Canada of 1965. It is wealthier in identity, more complex in its challenges, and more intertwined with global currents. Yet its core democratic architecture endures. In a century defined by acceleration and uncertainty, that continuity is not trivial. It is stabilizing. The Maple Leaf does not shout. It does not proclaim exceptionalism. It simply stands — red and white against sky — a reminder that unity can be quiet, that confidence can be restrained, and that identity can be shared. As the flag enters its sixty-second year, perhaps the most fitting tribute is neither ceremony nor nostalgia, but stewardship. To ensure that when Canadians look upon the Maple Leaf — at a citizenship ceremony, at a military memorial, at a community gathering — they see not division, but common ground. At sixty-one, the Canadian flag remains what it was designed to be: a symbol not of where we came from alone, but of how we choose to live together. And in an unsettled world, that choice remains Canada’s quiet strength.

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars. Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable. But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense. That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades. And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again. After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical. We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears. When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”? A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks? Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working. There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend. Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now? Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second. These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous. The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it. So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.” The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting. If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment. The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger. I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents. In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario When someone dies, the first day is about shock, phone calls, and trying to understand what just happened. Very quickly after that, another reality shows up, whether families are ready for it or not. Questions about cost start to appear, sometimes quietly, sometimes all at once. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this is normal, and that feeling uncomfortable talking about money at a time like this is something almost every family experiences. This is not always an easy topic to talk about. Cost and grief do not belong together, but in reality they often meet very quickly. I hear this from families across Durham more often than people might expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that price differences are common, and that they do not automatically mean something is wrong. When families first start asking about cost, this is usually where the conversation begins. In Durham Region, direct cremation is often one of the lower cost options families consider. In many cases, families may see prices starting somewhere in the lower thousands, but that number can change depending on timing, transportation, paperwork, and third party fees. Some providers include more services in their base price, while others separate them into individual line items. That alone can make two quotes look very different even if the final service feels similar. As families begin looking at other types of arrangements, costs usually increase simply because more is involved. Traditional burial or full service funeral arrangements often include visitation, staffing, facility use, vehicles, and coordination with cemeteries or churches. Cemetery costs in particular can vary widely depending on location, availability, and what is selected. That is why families sometimes see a total price that is several thousand dollars higher than what they expected when they first started asking questions. One thing I would want my family to know is that funeral homes do not control every cost. Crematorium fees, cemetery fees, clergy or celebrant fees, and government paperwork costs are often outside the funeral home itself. If one estimate includes those items and another does not, it can create confusion. It can feel like one provider is dramatically more expensive when in reality the quotes are simply structured differently. Timing can also matter more than people expect. After hours transfers, weekend arrangements, or urgent timelines can affect cost. Some providers build flexibility into their base pricing. Others only add charges if those services are needed. Neither approach is automatically better, but families deserve to understand how pricing works before making decisions. Many families I speak with are surprised by how normal it is to ask for written estimates and to take time to review them. There is no rule that says decisions must be made in a single conversation. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel comfortable asking for information in writing and taking a day to talk together before making final choices. If I could leave my family one practical piece of advice about cost, it would be this: ask which costs belong to the funeral home, and which costs are paid to someone else. That one question often makes quotes much easier to understand. I would also want them to remember that lower cost does not automatically mean lower care, and higher cost does not automatically mean better service. What matters most is whether the family feels supported, informed, and comfortable with the decisions they are making. These conversations are not about finding the cheapest option. They are about understanding choices clearly enough to make decisions without pressure or confusion. During grief, clarity matters more than anything else. Next week, I will write about something families often hear about but rarely understand clearly before they need it: how price lists work, what they are supposed to show, and how families can use them to compare options more confidently. ​

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Which investment option is best for you! When it comes time to decide which mix of savings is best for you, your options can look quite confusing. There are registered retirement saving plans (RRSP’s) Tax free saving accounts (TFSA’s and First Home Buyers saving accounts (FHSA). Establishing which plan or combination of plans works best for you depends on your own personal, goals and financial situation. RRSP’s, TFSA, s FHSA’s Most Canadians hold RRSP’s where they can claim deduction and then the deferral of tax until they withdraw funds at retirement. RRSP’s have numerous other benefits and as Canadians many do not use these upon reaching retirement. Something you may wish to discuss in your preretirement years. The introduction of TFSA has provided another powerful saving tool that allows investments to grow tax free with the opportunity to withdraw funds when need. This does have some restrictions if funds are withdrawn same year of contributions. The withdrawal of TFSA can create costly penalties if funds are repaid to quick. First Homebuyers saving accounts FHSA is the newest registered plans that gives first time home buyers the opportunity to invest up to $40,000.00 in a lifetime for the purchase of a first homeowner tax free basis. This plan be open if you are over the age of 18. This plan is a great tool for grandparents that wish to help kids and grandkids with saving for a first home. Ask a qualified investment advisor how to arrange suggest a plan. Like RRSP contributions are tax deductible and withdrawals for the purchase of a new home are non taxable like a TFSA All plans have limits and maximum contribution limits, and you should always confirm your contribution limit in you CRA my Account. Before making contributions discuss your options with a qualified investment advisor to ensure you are in vesting in plans that follow your risk tolerance. Simple planning gets you where you need to go never chase the larger returns can bring larger loses.

The Politics in a Paintbrush The Power of Political Art Within our Society

The Politics in a Paintbrush The Power of Political Art Within our Society By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Art is integrated into nearly every aspect of our society, from the clothes we wear to the movies we watch and the music we listen to. Over time, the history of art has evolved, however the purpose has stood consistent. Historically, art has been used to express emotion, illustrate global issues, and highlight an important event. Regardless of the format, style, or intention, there is one common theme which has always been prominent within the arts: political intention. Regardless of the genre or medium of art, every piece created makes a statement. An attractive landscape says something about beauty and peace, while professional portraits make a comment about power dynamics and hierarchy. Even abstract art speaks of atypical interpretation and works to challenge normality. All these forms are political, not because they focus on government itself, but because they engage in society, power dynamics, and social ideals. A piece does not need to revolve around a political system itself, but to question the systems and everyday influences which govern our individuality. Although all art contains political meaning, this can be expressed in many different ways, both upfront and more symbolic. Committed art presents an obvious, evident meaning to the viewer, often addressing themes regarding environmental issues, societal pressures, and social justice. This contrasts with avant-garde art, which pushes boundaries but may not have a clear meaning. Avant-garde art includes more room for personal interpretation, asking the viewer questions which may otherwise be ignored. Both styles leave viewers questioning our society and its systems, which is what makes the politics in art so significant. Arthur Miller's The Crucible, first published in the 1950s, is a powerful example of political art. Through the play, Miller tells the story of the Salem Witch Trials, while commenting on the Second Red Scare and political fear in his time. The warnings and morals are clear, making it a piece of committed art, while continuing to be an interesting and entertaining play. Modern films and books have an equal political meaning, some more obvious than others. For example, the fictional nation Panem from The Hunger Games is not just a fictional world, but a society which reflects some of the most dystopian ideas which we have today. This includes extreme inequality, political control, and misinformation. Despite the light-hearted mood, the 2023 Barbie movie is another strong example, as it reached the hearts of countless people by highlighting misogyny and sexism still prevalent today. Even less obvious media, such as superhero movies, talk of helping those with lower socioeconomic status, supporting refugees, and fighting against inequality. The halftime show at the 2026 Superbowl shows the power of political activism through artwork. Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican singer, performed at the halftime show, a performance that upset millions of football fans. Despite the resistance, Bad Bunny used this platform to promote his message of equity and peace, displaying messages such as “the only thing more powerful than love is hate.” His performance inspired countless individuals to stand up for what they believe in and fight for social justice. When discussing art, it is important to understand the wider scope of the influence. Art is not just classical paintings of flowers or ancient sculptures, but also the fashion we wear and the songs we hear. Every art piece of it says something about our society, and about who we are as individuals. In the wrong hands, art can be used as propaganda to lead the misinformed or to spread hate, however it can also be used to fight against this exact corruption. The right paintbrush, guitar, or script in the right hand can be a powerful weapon against injustice worldwide. Art is a universal language of protest, of change, and of love, and it has been used as such for thousands of years. One good painting can touch our hearts, souls, and entire nations.

It Is Not What It Seems!!!

It Is Not What It Seems!!! A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist This may seem like a personal rant but after speaking with several of my neighbours over the last couple of weeks I can guarantee you it is not. What I am referring to is communication, or to be more precise, the lack there of between the public and their elected City Councillors. Why is it that some Councillors are master communicators and others are missing in action? Take Rick Kerr and Brian Nicholson for example, they are both known for responding to their constituents. Actually, because they both communicate so well, a lot of people that are not residents of their wards will ask questions of them on Facebook regarding community matters and they will respond. One Councillor in particular, Derek Giberson, who has been basically invisible for the last three years has now predicably started posting on Facebook that he is doing this or that in the hopes of having people think that he’s been doing this community work since he got elected three years ago, but he has been for the most part unseen and unheard. Now all of a sudden, he has taken to Facebook to post that he is hosting a series of meetings on the housing crisis, like he’s some kind of rock star. Well, the housing crisis is not new. In fact, the only thing that is new in this whole situation is that he is talking to the public. I happened to notice a post that Derek Giberson made on Facebook a few weeks ago and it really irritated me. It irritated me because he is a Councillor that is well known for next to no interaction with his constituents. The people who elected him. His post on Facebook had the commenting turned off. It prompted me to make a post myself asking what kind of Councillor makes a post and turns commenting off? Well, the kind that is not interested in what the public has to say. That’s exactly who does that. Within one hour, Derek Giberson had the commenting turned on. Hmm…looks like someone took notice. Just the other day my post received a message from another constituent. He said that he had hand delivered two letters to this Councillor at City Hall and made a few phone calls. This gentleman got no response to his hand delivered letters nor did he receive a return phone call. Why does any Councillor anywhere think that that type of behaviour is alright? Moreover, why in the world would someone think they stand a chance of being reelected by people that they’ve ignored for their entire term in office? It certainly makes one wonder.

Case Closed

Case Closed By Wayne and Tamara I met my boyfriend on an online dating service four months ago. About a month ago I went to the dating service website to take my profile off. Out of curiosity I looked his up, and it was still there. When I mentioned it to him, he said he would take his profile off because he wanted to be with me. Now I know I should have trusted him, but something told me to test him. So I created a fake profile with a picture of an attractive woman and e-mailed him as the other woman. When he didn't respond, I e-mailed again. He still didn't respond. I realized then he must have canceled his membership, so I looked him up and inquired if he was the guy on the dating site. I told him I was new to the site, thought he was attractive, and maybe we could meet for a drink sometime. When I asked if he was seeing someone, he said he met someone who could be serious and had a lot of potential. I asked again if he wanted to meet, and eventually he said maybe. That broke my heart. I got my girlfriend to phone him as the other girl. When she got him on the line, he was suspicious but hesitantly agreed to meet her for a drink. At that point I told him I was the girl who didn't exist. He said he thought it was either me or some kind of prank. I am not a jealous person by any means, but I wonder if we can get past this. Eva Eva, the law does not permit entrapment. Entrapment occurs when the idea for a crime is suggested by the police, the police talk a person into committing the crime, and the person was not previously willing to commit the crime. Once you realized your boyfriend canceled his membership you should have stopped. He is innocent of any crime, but you have proven you are by nature a jealous person. Tamara Favorite Son My husband's parents own a dairy farm, and his brother works full-time on the farm and draws a wage. My husband has a very demanding job, yet he is expected to work on the farm each weekend, count cattle in the morning, and does not get paid even for gas. Our family time is nonexistent. The phone rings and my husband runs. The only time we get together is when I book a holiday. I really think my husband is frightened of his parents. They say his brother needs time with his child, but what about me and our children? When we go away, my husband is so burnt out he is ill for the first few days of our break. But when we are away, he is like a different person. I'd do anything to save my marriage, but I'm not sure how much more I can take. Mona Mona, there is a South American bird with two subspecies, one which builds a nest on the ground and one which nests in a tree. Occasionally a male of one subspecies will get together with a female of the other. When this happens the birds live in great confusion. One puts nesting material on the ground, while the other continually moves it to the branch of a tree. The two never succeed in building a proper nest and usually this results in a mating failure. Occasionally, however, they do struggle and successfully raise chicks. Good parents raise their children to be independent and self-sufficient, knowing that love is the bond which will hold their children to them always. Some parents, however, use demands and obligations to tether their children. That is your husband's problem. There is no resolution to this problem unless your husband decides he wants to build his nest with you. Wayne

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst Durham Region has launched what it calls a “Community-Based Hate Reporting Program,” and it is being sold to residents as a progressive step toward safety and inclusion. But I’m going to say what too many politicians are too afrai

d to say: this program is Orwellian, dangerous, and an insult to every Canadian who believes in freedom, due process, and democratic accountability. As a Pickering Councillor, I am 100% opposed to it, and I believe Durham residents should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to create a system that encourages anonymous accusations, bureaucratic surveillance, and the quiet erosion of our rights. Let’s be clear about something. Canada already has laws that deal with hate crimes. We already have a Criminal Code. We already have police services and courts that investigate and prosecute actual criminal conduct. Assault is illegal. Harassment is illegal. Threats are illegal. Vandalism is illegal. The promotion of hatred toward identifiable groups is illegal. If someone commits a crime, police can lay charges, evidence is reviewed, and the justice system determines guilt or innocence. That is how a free society functions. So the obvious question is this: what exactly is Durham Region solving here? Because there is no legal gap. There is no crisis that requires municipal staff to collect anonymous complaints about speech, opinions, “bias,” or interpersonal disagreements. This program doesn’t prevent violence, it doesn’t stop criminals, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. What it does do is create a government-run system for tracking allegations against ordinary residents without evidence, without verification, and without accountability. The most alarming feature is that it encourages anonymous reporting. Think about the implications of that for even a moment. Anyone can report anyone. A neighbour feud. A workplace disagreement. A political argument. A social media comment. A complaint from someone who simply dislikes you. With a few clicks, an accusation can be filed, logged, analyzed, and stored. The accused may never even know it happened, and they will certainly never be given the opportunity to respond, defend themselves, or challenge the claim. That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not Canadian. That is a system designed to normalize suspicion and fear, where the government quietly collects unverified allegations about its own citizens. And who is reviewing these complaints? Bureaucrats. Municipal staff. Victim services administrators. Unelected individuals who are not accountable to the public in any meaningful way. These are not police officers. These are not judges. These are not trained legal authorities. They are government employees being put in the position of deciding what qualifies as “hate,” what qualifies as “bias,” and what qualifies as a reportable “incident.” That is ideological policing by bureaucracy, and it is exactly how free societies begin to rot from within. People begin to self-censor. They stop speaking freely. They stop questioning. They stop criticizing government. They stop debating controversial topics. Not because they are guilty of a crime, but because they are afraid of being reported, labeled, and quietly added to a database. Durham Region is now creating a government-held repository of unverified accusations about residents. We are told this is for “trend analysis,” but that phrase should alarm every thinking person. Governments do not build databases and then keep them small. They expand them. They integrate them. They share them. And they eventually justify their existence by claiming they need more power, more funding, and more authority. Today this program is presented as separate from other municipal services, but anyone who understands modern data systems knows how quickly that can change. Integration is not some far-fetched conspiracy. It is the natural evolution of government bureaucracy. A complaint logged today could become an internal profile tomorrow. A pattern of anonymous reports could become a “risk assessment.” And once a government begins collecting subjective accusations, the line between “public safety” and “citizen monitoring” disappears faster than people realize. Even more disturbing is the complete lack of consequences for false reporting. There are no penalties. No accountability. No safeguards. In a real justice system, making false accusations can carry serious consequences. But in this program, anyone can anonymously accuse someone of being hateful, bigoted, or biased, and there is no legal consequence because it is not a formal criminal process. That means this program is wide open to abuse. It can be weaponized for revenge, harassment, and political targeting. And if you don’t think political targeting is possible in today’s climate, you haven’t been paying attention to what has happened across this country over the last several years, where dissent is increasingly treated as dangerous and disagreement is increasingly treated as hate. This is where history matters. Because we have seen this before. Anyone who has studied Nazi Germany understands that authoritarianism did not begin with camps and uniforms. It began with propaganda, fear, and citizen reporting systems. It began with governments encouraging neighbours to report neighbours. It began with people being labeled as “problematic” or “dangerous” for speech, opinions, or associations. It began with the normalization of surveillance culture, justified in the name of “public good.” It began with bureaucrats collecting information and quietly building files. That is how totalitarian systems grow: not all at once, but step by step, policy by policy, database by database, until citizens no longer speak freely because they fear the consequences of being reported. That is why this program should not be dismissed as harmless. The infrastructure of authoritarianism is always built under the banner of safety and morality. That is exactly what makes it so dangerous. And make no mistake, this program raises serious Charter concerns. Freedom of expression is not protected only when speech is popular. It is protected precisely because people must be allowed to hold and express opinions that others may dislike. Freedom of association matters because citizens must be able to gather, organize, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked. Privacy matters because the state should not be building databases about its residents based on anonymous allegations. Due process matters because no person should be accused, recorded, and categorized without being given a chance to respond. Even if Durham Region claims this is “non-criminal,” the chilling effect is the same. People will stop speaking. They will stop engaging. They will stop questioning. That is how democracy dies—not through force, but through fear and compliance. And all of this is being done with taxpayer money—approximately $89,000 over two years—for a program that does not stop crime and does not prosecute criminals. At a time when families are struggling to afford groceries, housing, and fuel, Durham Region has decided to spend public money creating a bureaucratic pipeline for anonymous complaints. That should outrage every resident, regardless of political affiliation. Government should be focused on real public safety, real crime prevention, and real support for victims—not building reporting portals that act as a mechanism for social control. If Durham Region truly wanted to combat hate and violence, there are real solutions: stronger policing, better mental health supports, outreach programs, education initiatives, and direct support for vulnerable communities. But instead of focusing on criminal conduct and real threats, they have chosen to create a system that encourages grievance reporting and expands government monitoring. This program does not protect the public. It trains the public to spy on each other. It creates distrust. It chills speech. It empowers bureaucracy. And it lays the groundwork for future expansion. Durham residents should be demanding immediate transparency and accountability. Who oversees this database? Who has access? How long is the data stored? What prevents integration with other municipal systems? What safeguards exist against malicious reporting? What rights do accused individuals have? What oversight exists to ensure this program is not weaponized politically? These questions are not optional. They are essential. Because once a government builds the infrastructure to monitor its own citizens, it rarely gives that power back. This is not about safety. This is not about inclusion. This is about control. And as a Pickering Councillor, I will oppose any initiative that moves our communities closer to a culture of surveillance, anonymous reporting, and bureaucratic profiling. History has already shown us where these systems lead, and Canadians should not tolerate them at any level of government. Not federally. Not provincially. And certainly not locally. If we want a safe society, we enforce laws against real crime. We do not build Orwellian programs that encourage residents to report each other in the shadows. That is not progress. That is regression. And if we do not stop it now, we will one day look back and wonder how we let it happen. So I ask the people of Durham: when is enough enough? How many red flags do you need before you recognize the direction we are heading? Because the slow demise of Durham will not happen overnight — it will happen one program, one policy, and one surrendered freedom at a time.

Canada Will Find Its Way Back

Canada Will Find Its Way Back By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canada is in a rough place right now. You can feel it when you talk to people at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, or waiting for the bus. Folks are tired. Not just tired from work, but tired in their bones. Tired of being talked down to. Tired of being told they are the problem. The job market keeps shrinking. Tens of thousands of Canadians have stopped looking for work because they see no future in it. Young people are stuck bouncing between short contracts and low pay. Seniors, people who worked their whole lives, are now showing up in shelters. Food banks are busier than ever. These are not rumors. They are happening right now. At the same time, billions of taxpayer dollars are leaving the country. We are told there is no money for housing, health care, or seniors, but there always seems to be money for something else. That makes people angry, and it should. Many Canadians feel like they no longer recognize their own country. If you speak up, you are labeled. If you ask questions, you are attacked. Disagree with the government and you are called names instead of being answered. That is not how a healthy country works. There is also a growing feeling that some groups are allowed to be openly targeted. Christians are mocked. White people are told they are guilty just for existing. Many people are afraid to even say that out loud because they do not want to lose their job or friends. But pretending it is not happening does not fix it. Canada was built on the idea that you earn your keep. You work hard. You help your neighbors. You raise your kids. You do not expect special treatment, but you expect fairness. That idea is being pushed aside and replaced with something else. Something that says your value depends on which group you belong to. That way of thinking will not last forever. History shows this again and again. Movements built on division always burn out. They get loud. They get angry. Then they collapse under their own weight. It may not happen fast. It may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen. Canada has been through worse times than this. The Great Depression nearly broke families. Two world wars sent young men overseas and left scars that never healed. People suffered. People went hungry. But the country pulled together because families stuck together. That is what matters now. Pull your family closer. Talk to your kids. Eat meals together when you can. If one of your children has been deeply influenced by a university or online world that teaches them to hate their own country or family, be patient. That is hard. They may say things that hurt. They may call you names. They may tell you that you are everything wrong with the world. Stay calm. In time, many of them will learn who really cares. It will not be activist groups. It will not be loud online movements. It will be the people who showed up when life got hard. Family always matters in the end. Do not stop loving each other. Love is not weakness. It is what holds people steady when everything else is shaking. You can be strong and still care. You can fight for your country and still be kind. There is a lot of talk about hate these days. But most regular Canadians are not hateful. They are worried. They are stressed. They are trying to protect their kids and hold onto something familiar in a fast changing world. That does not make them bad people. It makes them human. Canada does not need saving by outsiders. Nobody is coming to rescue us. The only thing we have is each other. Neighbors. Families. Communities. That is how this country was built in the first place. We also need to stop being afraid of our friends. The United States is not our enemy. Americans are just people, same as us. They argue. They vote. They make mistakes. Whoever is leading them at any moment does not change that. Fear helps no one. What Canada needs now is honesty. Honest debate. Honest media. Honest leaders who remember who they work for. Not activists. Not donors. Not loud online crowds. Regular people. This period will pass. The anger will burn itself out. New generations will look back and ask how things got so divided. They will also rebuild. My hope is that my grandchildren will live in a Canada that remembers fairness, hard work, and respect again. That future will not be handed to them. It has to be protected, talked about, and fought for. Calmly. Clearly. Without hatred. Stay chill, Canada. Do not turn on each other. Hold your ground without losing your heart. That is how countries survive hard times. We have done it before. We will do it again.

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura”

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura” By Nick Kossovan Nothing kills attraction faster than the smell of effort. When you appear to be trying to impress, you've already lost; people can smell your desperation, which most job seekers show signs of. Rare is the job seeker who controls their emotions and whose actions appear fluid. The Italians call it sprezzatura, the art of making "the difficult" seem effortless. In his 1528 work The Book of the Courtier, Renaissance author Baldassare Castiglione described sprezzatura as "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it". Essentially, sprezzatura is the art of "studied carelessness," making difficult actions look effortless. Worth noting: with consistent practice and patience, any art can be learned and even mastered. Sprezzatura practitioners maintain a relaxed style that seems unintentional, never revealing the effort behind their actions. When you display "struggle," such as complaining about your job search on LinkedIn or criticizing how employers hire for their business, you publicly display that you can't manage your emotions, which diminishes your status. Remaining silent is better than saying or writing something that could negatively reflect on you, particularly with employers. Moreover, a nonchalant attitude—it'll be what it'll be—is much more appealing than desperate action or the display of frustration and anger. Not to undermine Castiglione, the first step in applying the art of sprezzatura to your job search is to adopt a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude, a mindset that's critical to confidence and, in the context of job searching, reduces anxiety and helps you cope with the frustrations of job searching, such as ghosting, long hiring processes, rejection, and months of silence. Those you admire and respect are likely individuals who embody a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude. Caring less about external validation, trivial opinions, critics, haters, and uncontrollable outcomes, such as whether you're ghosted, receive feedback, or get hired, frees up much-needed mental energy for self-trust (read: increase your confidence). Ultimately, not caring about what's out of your control, which is the majority of your job search, allows you to concentrate on what you can control: your actions. A job seeker who exhibits sprezzatura makes a strong first impression. Rather than appearing overly anxious or desperate, their nonchalant demeanour conveys self-assurance—a sense of calm control—a trait valued by employers. They approach networking, undeniably the most effective job search strategy, and interviews with a poised attitude. As I mentioned, any art can be learned and even mastered, including sprezzatura. 1. Stop being emotionally attached. I know this'll come across as a cliché; however, having spent decades navigating the corporate world, experiencing different workplaces more than most, I can confidently say that business is never personal. It took me years to realize that being emotionally attached to my work wasn't benefiting my well-being, and that I needed to detach myself from outcomes. In other words, do my best work, put it out there, and let the chips fall where they may (read: f*ck it). When job hunting, view applications as a numbers game rather than a measure of your self-worth. While submitting quality applications to jobs that align with your skills and experience is important, don't let perfectionism get in the way; ignore the "perfect candidate" narrative. The most effective way to capture an employer's attention is to hyper-focus on your resume and LinkedIn, highlighting how you contributed to your previous employer's profitability. 2. Stop drowning in execution. Avoid spending time tailoring your resume for every application. Instead, craft a single, impactful resume that highlights the value you delivered to previous employers, which is what employers look for when assessing candidates. The same applies to your cover letter, which you should always include. Write one cover letter that can be easily personalized with a few quick edits, that provides the reader with compelling reasons why you're the perfect candidate for the job, hence why they should read your resume. 3. Stop over-preparing for initial screening calls. Treat first-round interviews as conversations to determine whether the opportunity is one you want to pursue. Shifting from a "please pick me" energy to a "is this a fit for me?" approach levels the playing field and helps you spot red flags before you're in too deep. 4. Stop expecting. Expectations are just scripts you've written for others to follow, a recipe for frustration and anger, since many people don't read their lines. Stop "expecting," and you'll start releasing the tension that comes from waiting for others to meet your expectations. Employers don't owe job seekers, who freely participated in their hiring process, anything. Commenting on LinkedIn that employers need to "do better" doesn't change anything. While it would be nice not to be ghosted, social norms have shifted. Ghosting is now common in and outside the workplace. As for feedback, our litigious society has made giving it a liability concern. A not-giving-a-f*ck attitude coupled with "zero-expectations" is the foundation for cultivating sprezzatura, the most powerful, liberating, and empowering mental shift you adopt as a job seeker, which'll keep you moving with little mental friction from one opportunity to the next until you hear "You're hired!"

BUT LOVE LEAVES A MEMORY NO ONE CAN STEAL

BUT LOVE LEAVES A MEMORY NO ONE CAN STEAL IF I CAN DESCRIBE HUMAN NATURE as a menagerie of thoughts and ideas, then human nature, as it has lately subsisted in me, has been much too detached from the harshness that is manifesting itself all around us. The mass shooting that occurred recently in the remote town of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, resulting in the deaths of eight victims plus the perpetrator, is a prime example. It ranks as one of the deadliest mass shootings in Canadian history, yet with literally thousands of reported shootings in the U.S. and overseas during the last ten years, the degree to which I have become desensitized is almost frightening. In an age dominated by 24-hour cable news networks and the constant sharing of violent images on all manner of social media platforms, it’s easy to simply say to oneself “How unfortunate for those people” then turn our attention quickly away, just as we turn the pages of a newspaper. There will always be yet another in a never-ending succession of unhappy events where one or more people have suffered greatly. It becomes routine to hear about them. The world witnessed an absolute barbaric attack on October 7, 2023 carried out by Hamas – resulting in the killing of at least 1,219 Israeli citizens and the taking of 251 hostages. Since that time, we have watched the slow destruction of an entire region and the deaths of over 70,000 people due to the religious ideology and nationalist goals held by those same Islamic terrorists. Then there is the war in Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale Russian invasion four years ago. That ongoing conflict is characterized by a grinding war of attrition on the ground, and the total death toll is now estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. Daily images of war-torn cities are on a scale too large to fully comprehend. Added to all of this are the countless deaths due to other events such as natural disasters. In the last ten years, approximately 221,000 people have perished worldwide. This can be brought much closer to home as we think of friends and neighbours having lost their lives due to structure fires and even automobile accidents. The American writer, Madeleine L'Engle, once said “Death is contagious; it is contracted the moment we are conceived.” That may well be true for everyone, but until it touches us personally – and profoundly – we carry on in a collective effort to erase much of what we see happening around us, and we forget just how precious, and vulnerable, life on this plant actually is. To that end, certain realities recently came crashing through a portion of the emotional wall which has so far been a capable protector of my overall well-being. I experienced the sudden and unexpected loss of a trusted companion – someone who needed my influence as much as I needed hers. Gradually the circumstances of my friend’s death, which at first I was totally unable to grasp, began to acquire a lasting coherence in my mind. That quality of formulating a unified whole has manifested itself in several ways, not least of which is my sudden concern for everyone who has lost anyone – whether in war, sickness, or that inescapable reality, old age. On my most recent Facebook news feed since the Tumbler Ridge tragedy in B.C. was an image of one of the parents of a 12-year old shooting victim holding a framed photograph of her daughter. The look on the mother’s face made its way straight through my pupils and into that part of my brain where compassion is stored. I can only imagine how awful the loss of a child so young could actually be. Then I realized the same must be said for the family in Ukraine whose child was the victim of a Russian drone attack, or the parents of someone killed by a collapsing building in Gaza. My own recent experience has turned these unfortunate victims of war into actual human beings – far from being seen as just another in a series of statistics from far-away nations over conflicts I have no ability to change. Nevertheless, there is a flip-side to all of this. As a man of faith, it gives me great discomfort to say there are many people in this world of today who simply do not deserve to live, and whose lives should be taken away from them. That’s a direct contradiction from accepting that we are all God’s creation, and that to wantonly take a life is in fact a sin, but the concept of evil exists throughout humanity, whether you believe in a higher power or not. Each of us has the ability to make hard choices – either for the benefit of mankind or for something sinister, often resulting in the deaths of innocent people. We all know who the worst among us are, and they usually carry guns. Our planet has long since become a series of armed camps, and there will be a great deal more deaths among us in the days, years, and even generations to come. Whether it is the loss of someone special in peacetime or in the agony of war, the following words written by British author Vera Brittain are timeless: I hear your voice in the whispering trees, I see your footprints on each grassy track, Your laughter echoes gaily down the breeze But you will not be coming back. The twilight skies are tender with your smile, The stars look down with eyes for which I yearn, I dream that you are with me all the while But you will not return. The flowers are gay in gardens that you knew, The woods you loved are sweet with summer rain, The fields you trod are empty now – but you Will never come again.