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.

Mr. X on Municipal Election-Year Advertising in Ontario

Mr. X on Municipal Election-Year Advertising in Ontario Executive Summary Municipal election timing in Ontario has changed over the years — from January nomination openings, to April, and now to May. While these procedural adjustments appear administrative, they have meaningful implications for governance, political fairness, and the appropriate use of public funds. One principle, however, has remained constant: Public funds must not be used to promote the electoral prospects of an incumbent. Even when not explicitly illegal, special advertising that highlights a sitting mayor during an election year has long been discouraged. The issue is not merely technical legality — it is public trust. 1. Legislative Framework Municipal elections in Ontario are governed by the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. Pre-2016: Nominations opened in January of the election year. 2016 Reform: Moved to May 1, lengthening the official campaign period. 2022 Reform: Nominations now open May 2 and close in August, with voting in October. These changes shortened the formal campaign window but extended the informal pre-nomination political period. That shift has heightened sensitivity around municipal communications in election years. 2. The Core Governance Principle While the Act may not explicitly prohibit all municipal advertising during an election year, public-sector ethics standards and best practices are clear: Municipal communications must inform — not promote. Municipalities commonly adopt election-year advertising blackout policies to avoid: - Perceived incumbency advantage - Misuse of public funds - Integrity Commissioner complaints - Reputational damage - Legal escalation 3. The Incumbency Advantage Problem Public Funds and Political Benefit: Taxpayer-funded communications must remain neutral. Advertising that highlights achievements, resembles campaign messaging, or focuses heavily on one elected official risks crossing into electioneering territory. Unequal Playing Field: Challengers must finance their own visibility. An incumbent benefiting from municipally funded exposure enjoys broader reach, enhanced credibility, and implicit institutional endorsement. Public Trust and Institutional Risk: Even when technically compliant, optics matter. Governance depends on neutrality, integrity, and separation between administration and politics. 4. What Is Generally Acceptable Typically allowed: - Routine operational communications - Emergency messaging - Statutory notices - Previously approved programs continuing without expansion Typically restricted: - New promotional campaigns - Achievement-based advertising - Mayor-focused visibility - Major announcements timed strategically in election year The dividing line is clear: Information is permissible. Promotion is not. 5. The Timing Shift: January to May While nominations now open in May, political sensitivity begins earlier. Prudent municipalities exercise restraint well before nominations officially open. The technical start date does not determine the ethical start of caution. 6. Strong Mayor Powers and Elevated Risk Where strong mayor authorities exist, communications tied to the mayor carry greater political weight. Restraint becomes even more important to preserve democratic fairness. 7. Governance Versus Campaigning There is a critical distinction between communicating municipal business and marketing the mayor. The former is governance. The latter is politics. 8. The Democratic Standard Municipal democracy relies upon equal opportunity to compete, clear separation between public administration and campaign activity, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds. Advertising that disproportionately benefits an incumbent undermines these principles — even if structured to avoid explicit violations.

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism…

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Dear readers. I have been doing this job for well over 30 years. During my time as the city editor I have learned many valuable lessons. I have seen administrations come and go. I have see all kind of activists make their point and slowly become oppressed by political policy and regulation. The protocol is always the same. Some great cause. Followed by protest in various forms, only to be squashed by policy or law. In these modern times. Anyone and everyone crowns themselves a journalist. This compromising the profession of journalism. It brings to shame those that are professionals in the field do to the action of those that have no qualification and or education in the field. To write does not make you a journalist. True journalist have standards. They have integrity and a responsibility to the community they represent. Journalism standards are a set of ethical principles—primarily accuracy, fairness, independence, and accountability—designed to ensure truthful reporting in the public interest. Key practices include verifying information before publication, separating opinion from news, disclosing conflicts of interest, and promptly correcting errors. These standards aim to maintain public trust and provide context to news events. If this stands true as a measure of any media/publication. Then what are we to think of those that are online only news posting sites? Clearly they are not journalist. They are not publications as most post slanted interest items. Look at organizations like ‘Rebel News’, for example. They claim to be a news organization. Yet, they do not adhere to the principles and standards of the profession. As a journalist we can’t take sides on any issue. We are there to report on the events at hand. No matter if we personally support it or not. Our job as a journalist is to report on the facts as they are presented at that point in time. Any other form of reporting is nothing short of and opinion piece and or column with quotes to substantiate a particular point. No matter the political slant. This is not journalism. This is activism. Journalist and publishers pay dearly for confusing the two concept. Take for example the most prominent recent case of a publisher being jailed in China involves Jimmy Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong. On February 9, 2026, a Hong Kong court sentenced Lai to 20 years in prison for convictions related to national security, marking the longest sentence handed down under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law to date. In this particular case. The journalistic standard was not applicable as by it’s name clearly reported from a bias perspective. They printed in news print....But did not qualify them as a ‘NEWSPAPER’. Newspaper are to be true to the community they represent by reporting what is taking place and letting the readers make up their own minds based on the information published in accordance to the journalism standards. In these modern time. Just because you post something online it does not make you a journalist. Just because you have a blog, a social media site and or a youtube account. It does not make you a journalist. At best, from a professional position. You are nothing more then a source. A voice, but far from a journalist. Even some main groups like CNN have lost the sense of the journalistic standards and have chosen to falsely give themselves the creditability that they are journalists. Sad times we live in that we are bombarded with misinformation confusing the world we live in.

Why Thinking About Auschwitz Still Matters in a World Sliding Toward Conflagration

Why Thinking About Auschwitz Still Matters in a World Sliding Toward Conflagration by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In an age marked by war in Europe, violence in the Middle East, strategic rivalry in Asia, and the steady erosion of trust between great powers, it may seem counterintuitive—almost indulgent—to pause and reflect on Auschwitz. Yet it is precisely in moments of rising global tension that Auschwitz must remain present in our collective mind. Not as a symbol of the past, but as a warning about how the modern world breaks down. The liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on 27 January 1945 revealed not only the depths of human cruelty, but something far more unsettling: that industrialized mass murder emerged from a world that considered itself civilized, rational, and technologically advanced. Auschwitz was not the product of chaos. It was the product of order without ethics, power without restraint, and politics divorced from human dignity. Those conditions are not relics of history. Today’s international environment is increasingly shaped by fear, grievance, and zero-sum thinking. Nations are rearming. Alliances are hardening. Compromise is portrayed as weakness. Political leaders speak less of shared responsibility and more of existential threats. This atmosphere—if left unchecked—does not simply raise the risk of war; it erodes the moral guardrails that prevent war from becoming something far worse. Auschwitz teaches us that global conflagration does not begin with tanks crossing borders. It begins with the slow normalization of dehumanization. From Dehumanization to Destruction The Holocaust did not start with gas chambers. It began with language that divided societies into “us” and “them,” with laws that excluded minorities from civic life, and with propaganda that framed human beings as dangers rather than neighbors. Once people are reduced to categories—racial, ethnic, religious, ideological—violence becomes administratively manageable. In today’s world, we see troubling echoes. Entire populations are described as collective threats. Civilian suffering is dismissed as inevitable. Atrocities are justified as necessities of security or history. Social media accelerates outrage while flattening nuance, rewarding the most extreme voices and punishing restraint. This is not to suggest equivalence with the Holocaust. History does not repeat itself mechanically. However, it does rhyme in dangerous ways. Auschwitz reminds us that once moral language collapses, technical arguments take over—and human lives become abstractions. Power Without Restraint Is the Real Enemy One of the most enduring lessons of Auschwitz is that the greatest danger to humanity is not ideology alone, but power unconstrained by law, ethics, and accountability. Nazi Germany did not lack institutions; it captured them. Courts, police, doctors, engineers, and civil servants all played roles in sustaining a system of mass murder. In today’s geopolitical climate, restraint is again under pressure. International law is treated selectively. Civilian protections are blurred. Human rights are framed as obstacles to security rather than its foundation. The erosion is gradual, but cumulative. Auschwitz stands as proof that when restraint collapses—when “necessity” overrides humanity—there is no natural stopping point. Violence escalates because nothing remains to contain it. Indifference and Delay Are Strategic Failures Another hard lesson of Auschwitz is that indifference is not neutral. The world did not lack information. Reports of mass killings circulated well before 1945. What was lacking was urgency and resolve. Today, early warnings of mass violence and humanitarian catastrophe are again plentiful. What remains inconsistent is the willingness to act early—before conflicts metastasize, before identities harden, before revenge becomes self-justifying. In a nuclear-armed world, this failure is no longer merely tragic; it is existential. Global conflagration today would not unfold over years. It could unfold in days. Remembering Auschwitz is therefore not an act of mourning alone. It is a strategic imperative. Democracy, Dignity, and Global Stability Auschwitz also exposes a dangerous illusion: that stability can be achieved by sacrificing dignity. History shows the opposite. When minorities are excluded, when dissent is crushed, when truth is subordinated to power, societies do not become stronger—they become brittle. Democracy is not just a domestic arrangement; it is a stabilizing force internationally. Systems that respect human dignity, minority rights, and the rule of law are less likely to externalize internal tensions through aggression. When those safeguards erode, conflict becomes a political instrument. The world’s current tensions are not only geopolitical; they are moral. The erosion of democratic norms and human rights is directly linked to rising instability. Memory as a Guardrail, Not a Ritual Commemorating Auschwitz—particularly through International Holocaust Remembrance Day—risks becoming hollow if it is confined to ritual. Memory matters only if it disciplines present behavior. This means resisting historical amnesia and denial, but also resisting complacency. The Holocaust was not inevitable. It was the result of decisions made—and not made—by individuals and states. That remains true of today’s crises. Education, honest public discourse, and institutional accountability are not luxuries in tense times. They are preventative tools. “Never Again” in an Age of Fragility “Never again” was never meant as a guarantee. It was meant as a warning that the conditions for catastrophe are always closer than we think. Auschwitz stands as the most extreme proof of what happens when fear, power, and ideology overwhelm restraint. In a world edging toward fragmentation, remembering Auschwitz is not about living in the past. It is about recognizing how quickly the present can unravel. The choice facing today’s leaders and citizens alike is stark: either recommit to human dignity as the foundation of security, or continue down a path where force replaces law and fear replaces responsibility. Auschwitz reminds us where that path leads. And in an age where global conflagration is no longer unthinkable, that reminder may be more urgent than ever.

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones In 1982, PubMed, a research database, indexed 740 papers with “vitamin D” in the title. In 2020, there were 5,566. Clearly interest has increased. Today, vitamin D is studied as a system-wide regulator and an essential component of skeletal, immune, metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, and inflammatory processes. But even a century ago, nutritionists feared the dangers of vitamin D deficiency. Warnings were dismissed as “alternative thinking.” Vitamin D was discovered in the early 20th century, when researchers noticed that children deprived of sunlight developed rickets, a bone-softening disease that left them bow-legged and deformed. In 1903, Niels Ryberg Finsen, a Danish physician with Icelandic roots, received a Nobel prize for pioneering the therapeutic use of concentrated light. Sanatoriums, which emphasized sunlight exposure, and cod liver oil, rich in D, were common treatments for tuberculosis and other infections, but Finsen’s work explained it. For decades afterward, vitamin D was viewed narrowly as a “bone vitamin” in spite of the success of sanatoriums. Once rickets was largely eliminated through supplementation of food, the medical profession lost interest. Blood levels were rarely tested. The assumption was that a normal diet and a bit of sunshine were enough. More recent research has shown D is not just a vitamin, but a hormone, influencing hundreds of genes involved in immune function, inflammation, muscle strength, and brain health. Across the human lifespan, as much as 3-4% of the human genome is influenced by vitamin D. It’s confirmed what early advocates suspected – deficiency is the norm, not the exception. With aging, skin becomes far less efficient at producing D from sunlight. An 80-year-old produces only a fraction that a 20-year-old can make with the same sun exposure. And if you live north of Atlanta, GA, you aren’t making enough D from sunlight in winter, period. Vitamin D is vital for mothers and developing children too. Diet alone often isn’t enough. Very few foods naturally contain meaningful amounts of vitamin D. Unless someone regularly eats fatty fish or takes supplements, intake is usually inadequate. That means blood levels fall well below what researchers now associate with optimal health, 40 – 100 ng/mL. Low vitamin D levels are strongly associated with increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis; loss of muscle strength and balance, leading to falls; impaired immune function and higher susceptibility to infections; chronic inflammation, which underlies heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis; and cognitive decline and mood disorders, including depression. In other words, vitamin D deficiency worsens many of the conditions we attribute to “normal aging.” Perhaps the greatest irony is this: vitamin D deficiency is easy to detect and inexpensive to correct. A simple blood test can reveal deficiency. Sensible supplementation can restore healthy levels. Yet many elderly patients are never tested, and when they are, the “acceptable” levels recommended by some authorities are likely too low to provide full protection. 2000 – 5000 IU or 50 – 125 mcg of D3 per day is a good start, guided by testing blood levels. Magnesium and Vitamin K2 are important companion nutrients to optimize vitamin D metabolism. Medicine is very good at treating disease once it appears, but far less interested in preventing it. Vitamin D deficiency is a textbook example of this failure. No vitamin is a magic bullet, and vitamin D is no exception. But ignoring a widespread deficiency that affects bones, muscles, immunity, and brain health makes no sense. If there is a lesson here, it is one that’s been repeated in this column many times: when common sense, biology, and well-conducted research point in the same direction, it’s time to pay attention, no matter how long it takes conventional thinking to catch up.

Dead And Gone… So Now What?

Dead And Gone... So Now What? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario If I Died Tomorrow: What I’d Want My Family to Know in the First 24 Hours? This is not an easy thing to write about, but it may be one of the most useful conversations we can have. If I died tomorrow, I know the first thing my family would feel is shock. Nothing prepares the people you love for that phone call. And in the middle of grief, there is often an added burden - the feeling that decisions need to be made immediately. So if I could leave behind one small piece of guidance, it would be this: the first 24 hours don’t have to be rushed. Here’s what I would want my family to know. First, take a breath I would want them to pause before doing anything else. The world will not fall apart if they sit down for a moment, call someone close, and simply breathe. I hope they wouldn’t try to handle the first day alone. A friend, a neighbour, a sibling - just having another person present can make everything feel less overwhelming. Where I died would shape the next steps If I passed away in a hospital or care facility, I would want them to know that staff will guide them. The process is familiar to them, even if it’s unfamiliar to my family. They will explain what needs to happen next. If I died at home, I would want my family to understand that things can feel less clear, but support still exists. In an expected situation, they may call a doctor or nurse. If it were unexpected, emergency services may need to be involved. Either way, they wouldn’t need to solve everything in the first hour. There is an official step before arrangements begin One thing many people don’t realize is that an official pronouncement of death is required. In a facility, that is handled automatically. At home, a medical professional takes care of it. I would want my family to know that paperwork and legal steps follow a sequence, and they don’t need to force the process forward before it’s ready. Choosing a funeral home can wait a little I think many families believe they must contact a funeral home immediately. If I were gone, I would want my family to know they usually have time. They could take a day to speak together, to think about what kind of arrangements fit our values, and to include the people who need to be included. The first conversation with a funeral home does not need to cover every detail. It can start simply. They don’t need every document on day one I would not want my family tearing through drawers looking for paperwork in the middle of grief. Yes, they will eventually be asked for basic information - full legal name, date of birth, health card details - but those things can come together gradually. If anything, I would want them to write down the names and numbers of the people they speak with, because the first day is often a blur. I would want them to slow down when decisions and costs come up In the days after a death, families begin hearing about service options, timelines, and pricing. Funeral professionals can be helpful, but no one should feel rushed. If I could leave one clear instruction, it would be: ask questions, request written information, and take time. The first day is hard enough without pressure layered on top of grief. A final thought If I died tomorrow, what I would want most is not a perfect plan. I would want my family to feel supported, to move slowly, and to know that they don’t have to do everything at once. The first 24 hours are about taking the next step - not all the steps. Next week, I’ll write about a question many Durham families face early on: what funeral and cremation costs typically look like in our region, and why prices can vary so widely.

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Technology is woven into nearly every aspect of modern life, from daily texting to virtual ELearn classes to social media. While technology itself is not always negative, one of its most damaging uses is seen with its constant use by young children. Over the past few years, children have begun using electronic devices at much younger ages, which has reached a troubling point. Many children grow up addicted and immersed in screens, forming digital dependencies before they can walk. Living in a digital world from such a young age can make technology feel impossible to step away from, creating an unbreakable bond. These children, who are practically raised by technology, are often referred to as “IPad Kids.” These are the children who cry when their devices get taken away, or throw a tantrum the moment they feel bored. Although these behaviors may be upsetting to see, they have become commonplace in our society. They are something so normalized, yet so new. These reactions are not simply bad behavior, however habits enforced by years of learning and a system set up for addiction. It is important to understand where this dependence comes from without placing blame on individual parents. Many parents turn to technology as a tool for education, entertainment, or daily survival in a chaotic household. It’s used to fill the busy moments and occupy kids while attention is placed elsewhere. Tablets and phones are readily available for caregivers to use, so it feels expected to use them to their fullpotential. In most cases, the use of technology in parenting isn’t a choice of neglect, but of care. It’s an easy solution when parents are working long hours or managing countless household responsibilities. It’s a result of parents doing their best, and of attempting to use the resources most prominent in our daily lives. A reliance on technology affects children in significant ways as they grow older. Prominent screen time is often linked to a shortened attention span, difficulty with information processing, problem solving, and weaker social skills. Instead of learning to share at lunch time, strengthening communication on the play ground, or utilising creativity when doing crafts, children scroll and text, missing out on countless life lessons. This leads to countless consequences, such as a struggle with face-to-face interactions, emotional regulation, and independent thinking. Additionally, it can be difficult for parents to monitor all the content their children consume. It’s easy for a child to be exposed to inappropriate or overwhelming material online, even with parental restrictions. Social media and the internet can be unpredictable, and content is impossible to control, making it difficult to trust young children with technology on their own. The progression of these issues is evident when I compare my childhood with that of my step-sister. Although I am only six years older than she is, her childhood reflects very different themes and aspects of technology. At the age of ten, I was talking to my friends, playing sports, and enjoying life care-free. To contrast, my step-sister,who is ten, spends most of her time glued to digital devices, whether that be an IPad, television, or borrowed cellphone. She is already attached to social media, spending her mornings scrolling on Youtube Shorts or TikTok, despite her lack of a personal cellphone. Her attention span is very short, and she is constantly bouncing from one activity to the next, unable to focus on one option. I may use the same devices now, however, the importance is the ages exposed. I had a childhood without this prominence of technology which was able to help me set boundaries with the digital world, which my step-sister may not have. As children grow older, the “iPad kid” behavior often transitions into what may now be called a “screen-ager.” Now teenagers, these individuals know nothing but technology, and are unable to disconnect as the years go by. Constant phone use, social media scrolling, and digital entertainment have become normalized, blending seamlessly into society. In 2026, technology is unavoidable, and the expectation of completely eliminating screens is unrealistic, at practically any age. However, this only highlights the importance of limits, especially with younger children. The use of technology can not continue to be an instinct for simplicity, but a conscious action paired with balance, offline activities, and healthy technology use. This is the only way to ensure future generations do not continue a legacy of digital addiction and electronic parenting. This is the only way to break the cycle of an “IPad Kid.”

Celebrating Valentine’s Day

Celebrating Valentine’s Day by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ February 14th is traditionally celebrated with chocolates, red roses, fancy greeting cards, and dining out. Many school classrooms become decorated with hearts, retailers may set out wrapped candy hearts, several restaurants offer a Valentine’s Day special menu, and most communities host social events. For all of us who celebrate Valentine’s in the traditional way, we can help protect our ecosystem with the following suggestions: Fair Trade chocolate is a good choice — especially if found in packaging that doesn’t include plastic wrapping. Unfortunately, boxed chocolates have black plastic forms that are not recyclable. I wish that these forms were made of editable wafers, paper muffin cups, or boxboard squares. Instead of candy in a fancy plastic wrap, search for honey, pickled beets, red pepper jelly, raspberry/strawberry jam, or maple syrup in glass jars.These might be considered as the best Valentine’s Day gift ever. Check out the recipes for serving a delicious creamed beet soup. Pomegranates — a festive red jewel-like fruit offers a surprise gift for Valentine’s Day. The ‘seed’ covers, known as arils, are juicy, edible sacs containing a small crunchy seed. Both the aril’s sweet, red pulp and inner seed are enjoyable to eat as well as being packed with nutrients. The red rind can be composted. Pomegranates offer an abundance of health benefits that include potassium, that is necessary for healthy nerve function and heart rate regulation, as well as providing vitamin C. They are rich in antioxidants and a good source of fibre. This fruit may help improve kidney and heart health. Take your own reusable small bags or other containers to bulk stores to select candy or nuts. If you are having a Valentine’s Day treat at a fast food place, take your own reusable mug. Select a potted plant over chemically preserved roses that are imported from Columbia, or flower bouquets with plastic wrap. Select gifts and decorations from local retailers or thrift stores. Take a container that can be reused, to serve as your doggy bag for leftovers when dining at a restaurant. Avoid balloons if decorating your home or community event. Choose printed cards on FSC or recycled paper. Avoid sparkles which can’t be recycled. For inspiring artistic souls that enjoy creating their own homemade gift cards with cartoon images of vegetables, the Compost Council of Canada suggests the following.: My ARTICHOKE every time you are away. BEAN Mine. My Heart BEETS for you. LETTUCE be Friends. I CARROT a Lot for You. You look RADISH-ING! PEAS be Mine. You TURNIP the World for Me. I Love You from my head to my TO-MA-TOES. Like other seasonal events involving gift sharing, spread the love to make a Valentine’s Day donation to the food bank. Fredica Syren, presenter of The Zero Waste Family blog, states, “Zero waste isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress, compassion, and staying accountable while still staying sane.”

Is this really the best the City can do?

Is this really the best the City can do? A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist After trying very hard to go with the flow for well over a year now, I feel I must say something about these seemingly random parking spots appearing out of nowhere in live lanes of traffic all over downtown Oshawa. Is this really the best the City can do? I commute daily and one day I was coming into Oshawa on King St. I was in the curb lane so that I could turn right onto Centre St. I went through the lights at McMillan and came to a stop. There, with no notice, was a parked car. Of course, my first thought was, what in the world are you doing parked in a live lane of traffic? Unbeknownst to me the City had put not one but three or four parking spots right there in the curb lane. They put in the parking spots, but they did not have any signage that would indicate the lane was coming to an end. After about a week there was some signage put up but really, to reduce the lanes right in the heart of the downtown. It just seems to me that there has been little to no planning for parking in our downtown core. The parking is the worst I’ve seen in any of the local municipalities, and something needs to change. They have made Athol Street a nightmare with cement barriers for bicycles along with metal rods that stick out of the ground forcing you to park a certain way but not leaving nearly enough room for cars to pass each other safely in opposite directions because it’s so narrow. Having the Tribute Centre there in the middle of this is just adding to the traffic nightmare the City has created in our downtown. On Bruce Street behind the Tribute Centre is a danger zone on event days with cars parked right up to Drew Street. If you are travelling along Drew heading toward King Street you cannot see if there are cars coming at all because the cars are so overparked, they completely block your view. Another very frustrating parking issue in our downtown area is the fact that people now seem to use the left-hand turn lane on Simcoe approaching Bond as a parking lot. I cannot tell you how many times I have pulled into the left-hand turn lane behind someone just to have them stop, put on their four ways and go into the Money Mart. Why is this being allowed to happen? I have also seen cars just flat out parked with no driver in sight. This is not an occasional thing; it is all the time. Why aren’t there fines being handed out for this type of infraction? It’s almost like the downtown core of Oshawa is an anything goes area. People just stop and park anywhere they want. I am tired of having to wait in one long line of traffic on King to get up to Centre because there is one random car parked in what used to be a live lane of traffic up to Centre Street. This City needs to do better. They are aware of the growth and it’s time they started planning for it properly.

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

When Schools Erase Books, They Erode Public Trust

When Schools Erase Books, They Erode Public Trust By Dale Jodoin Columnist Parents across Ontario are reacting with anger and growing concern after learning that more than 10,000 books were removed from a high school library in London, Ontario. What many first assumed was a routine cleanup has turned into a serious public debate about censorship, education, accountability, and who controls what children are allowed to learn. Schools are meant to prepare students for the real world, not protect them from it. That belief is now being openly questioned. The decision came from the Thames Valley District School Board, which oversees schools throughout the London area. At H B Beal Secondary School, the library collection dropped from roughly 18,000 books to about 8,300. More than half the books were removed in a short period of time. This was not caused by flooding, age, or lack of space. It was an intentional decision made by administrators responsible for public education. The financial cost alone has alarmed many families. School library books are purchased with taxpayer money. A conservative estimate places the average cost of a school library book at around 20 dollars, with many costing more. At 10,000 books, that represents at least 200,000 dollars in public funds removed from use. This comes at a time when school boards routinely state they are underfunded and in need of more resources. Parents are asking how destroying paid-for educational material can be justified while classrooms continue to face shortages. The anger deepened once it became clear which books were removed. This was not limited to outdated or damaged material. Many of the books taken out are widely recognized classics that have been taught in schools for generations. Among them were Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, books often used to teach students about propaganda, power, and the dangers of unchallenged authority. Other reported removals include To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, Hamlet, and Macbeth. These works are foundational to literature and education. They are meant to challenge students and provoke thought. Parents argue that education is not supposed to be comfortable. Difficult books lead to difficult conversations, and those conversations are how students learn to think critically. Shielding young people from ideas because they may cause discomfort does not make them stronger. It leaves them unprepared for the real world. What has caused even greater outrage is how the books were handled. Some were destroyed. Others were removed without clear plans for donation or redistribution. Parents question why usable books were not offered to families, public libraries, or community organizations. The lack of transparency has damaged trust. To many, this feels less like routine library management and more like erasing ideas. The school board has described the removals as part of an effort to make libraries more inclusive and culturally responsive. Many parents reject that explanation. They argue that inclusion means adding perspectives, not removing history. Expanding a library does not require destroying what already exists. Parents say they support new voices and new stories. What they oppose is removing established literature because it challenges modern sensitivities. This is where fear enters the conversation. Book removal is not new. History provides clear warnings. In Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, books were burned because they challenged the state and its ideology. Writers and thinkers were silenced so citizens could not question authority. Under Joseph Stalin, books were banned or rewritten to fit government narratives. History itself was reshaped. Education became a tool of control rather than truth. Parents are not claiming Ontario is becoming a dictatorship. They are pointing out that the method is disturbingly familiar. When those in power decide which ideas are acceptable, education shifts away from learning and toward obedience. Controlling books controls discussion. Controlling discussion limits thought. The removal of Orwell’s work has not gone unnoticed. Parents argue that Animal Farm and 1984 warn precisely against this behaviour. These books show how language can be manipulated and how dissent can be quietly erased. Removing them sends a message, whether intended or not, that questioning authority is unwelcome. Another major concern is the lack of parental involvement. Many families say they were never consulted. There were no meaningful public meetings, no votes, and no advance notice before the books disappeared. Parents trust schools with their children for most of the day. They expect transparency. They do not expect decisions of this scale to be made without their knowledge. After public backlash intensified, Ontario’s education minister ordered a pause on further library removals while the issue is reviewed. While some parents welcome the pause, many say it came too late. They want accountability. They want to know who approved the removals, what criteria were used, and why families were excluded from the process. This issue goes far beyond one school or one city. Families across Ontario are now questioning what may be happening in other districts. They are asking how many libraries are being quietly reshaped and under what standards. Education depends on open debate. When debate disappears, trust disappears with it. What parents are demanding now is straightforward accountability. Public schools do not belong to boards or administrators. They belong to the public. Transparency is not optional. It is a responsibility. Trust between schools and families is fragile, and once broken, it is difficult to restore. Decisions that affect education, history, and access to ideas must be made openly, not behind closed doors. Education works best when it is honest, challenging, and accountable. When schools quietly remove books and call it progress, they risk losing the confidence of the people they serve. If public trust is lost, no review process or policy statement will easily bring it back. Parents are watching closely. They are asking questions. And they are making it clear that silence is no longer acceptable.