Monday, August 3, 2026
Housing insecurity
GUIDE ON SELECTING CANDIDATES
Canada Must Rebuild Its National Research System
Karmageddon Oshawa's Greatest Opportunity Is Still Ahead
5 Seconds Can Change Your Life Home Invasion Or Break-in
Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin A Country Afraid to Talk
I Don't Believe in Networking. I believe in Getting to Know People
Dead and Gone… The Things We Still Do Their Way
There is a legend
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
There is a legend about a successful financial advisor in Warren Buffett’s stomping grounds of Omaha, Nebraska.
It is reported that this advisor has learned the art of communicating the basics of wealth building with the local farmers.
The advisor, who we will call Fred Smith, greets clients in his office with a window behind his desk that overlooks fields of blowing wheat and corn.
Many clients look at him skeptically when he explains the simple power of investing for the long-term and multiplying their savings into large amounts of money from their modest savings. They often blink at him with glazed over eyes and ask: ‘How can this be?’.
To demonstrate his point about the magic of compound growth by owning a share of the growing profits over time of a group of world class equities,
Fred leans across his desk and picks up a glass vial.
He points to the seeds of wheat inside it and states, “If I show this vial to a resident of a city such as New York or any major urban center, and say to them, with these few seeds, I can populate many acres of land to grow vast amounts of wheat to feed entire cities, what do you think they would say to me?”
They would likely stare at Mr. Smith in disbelief. Yet that is exactly what he is suggesting can happen to their modest savings if they have the patience to focus on the long term. This is the same patience that couples bring to their successful farming business with the ability to handle adverse weather conditions, volatile grain prices, long days of hard work, pestilence, government regulations and crop failures amongst other challenges on their path to success.
The magic ingredient to their success is the power of compound growth on savings.
For example, a dollar invested for 20 years at 8% grows to $4.66 and if left to compound for another ten years for a total of 30 years it more than doubles again to $10.06. While the return matters, the most important factor is the number of doublings that occur in one’s lifetime.
Several books* and consumer finance personalities use the following example: If you were offered $1 million dollars right now or the option of taking an American penny (recognizing that Canada no longer has a penny) that is doubled in value every day for 30 days, which offer would you take?**
The other key ingredient is time to allow compound growth to work its magic.
And it is never too late to put compound growth to work for you. Whether you are in your early 20’s or even in your late 50’s time and compound growth on your savings can work for you.
Many people now live into their late 80’s and 90’s so even someone who is just retiring can look forward to another thirty years or so as their investment time horizon.
Looking after the pennies and the dollars will follow!
The Gift of Readers
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
It’s been a year since my father bid us adieu on the first of July as Canada Day fireworks lit up the Toronto harbour. So I want to share a special column with you this week, a reflection on how I feel. There are so many thoughts that come to mind. But one word rises above all others, and this is gratitude. I am grateful for my father, yes. But it is also you, the readers of this column that I wish to thank. I want you to know how much you all meant to my father, and now how much you mean to me.
My father had a passion for writing. He penned his first column in October 1974, in which he wrote, “Let me show you how having too little or too much faith in the doctor can get you into trouble.” And weekly thereafter, that’s exactly what he did. I remember bundles of letters from readers that came weekly to our home. That’s what inspired him. He loved being a doctor, but it was the connection with readers that had him utterly addicted to being a medical journalist.
What would he say now? He’d remind us that not every reader was a fan. And he’d give us an update regarding his intended prayer at the Pearly Gates that St Peter would grant him admission – and ownership of all newspapers, such that he could publish what he really wanted to say!
But I am convinced that it was all your letters over many years, those in favour, but also those against his views, that bolstered his vitality. Now I am on the receiving end of the same dynamic. And I feel the inspiration.
This time last year, so many of you wrote a note of condolence. I thank you very much, as it helped a great deal. I’ve enjoyed getting to know who is at the other end of the Gifford-Jones column.
In as much as today’s readers are advancing in age like my father, I am also thinking about those who have departed – those who traveled with my father through the 1950s and his early medical practice, the 1960s and 1970s during his pioneering days for women’s health, the 1980s and his campaign for better pain management, and then the last decades of his life when he fought against big pharma’s grip on the medical establishment. You are missed.
While my father had a few choice words for the editors who fired him, I have nothing but gratitude for those that have kept me on!
I have thanks, too, for all the people in the natural health community who provided my father with an enormous extended family – from retailers coast to coast to health-conscious consumers who continue to prove that Mother Nature is a healing force like no other.
My father was a Harvard-trained medical doctor and surgeon who did not like being told lies as the answers to challenging questions. This made his controversial stands on modern medicine well worth observing. Whereas I am better described as a connector of people and ideas. What often amazes me is how narrowminded people can be, readily jumping to conclusions on very little information.
If I have my father’s luck and determination, there will be another 43 years ahead of me until I write my final column, like he did a year ago. I’m looking forward and trust a good many of you are too. Please keep your letters coming. And again, my deepest thanks.
I Fair Weather Friend
My best friend Becky and I have known each other since we were 12. We are now both 48. Nine weeks ago I broke my ankle and was on the couch for eight weeks. This left me horribly housebound, not even able to get myself a cup of coffee or drive, because I needed crutches.
Becky’s husband is our financial planner. The week after I broke my ankle he called my husband to do a financial review. I know he wanted to move our money around since this is how he earns commissions. We hadn’t heard from them since Christmas, and the sole reason he called was business. Even though my husband told him it was a bad time because I had broken my ankle, I did not get a phone call, flowers, or a card from them. I thought perhaps they were having some kind of financial troubles and put it down to that.
Last weekend I flew to another city for a wedding and stayed with my sister-in-law. I was still in a cast and using a cane. Low and behold, on Sunday my sister-in-law tells me she is having guests over but won’t tell me who. My mouth fell open when a car pulled up and it was Becky and her husband. They were in my sister-in-law’s city for a convention. I was gracious and polite while Becky showed me her new 2-carat diamond ring and told me they bought a house in another country so they can escape our cold winters.
This morning I received an email from Becky—again, not a phone call—asking to come over so her hubby could do business. I burst into tears. My husband’s reaction was we should pull our business away from her husband and find another financial planner. This would be a slap in the face, and I’m not sure I want to go that far.
My husband also suggested we reply to the email saying we are going to go visit those who helped me convalesce and bring them gifts of appreciation. He thought they would get the hint. What would you do? Carolyn
Carolyn, when the wife of an attorney we knew would mention they were going to a party, he would sometimes correct her. He would say they were “going on the clock.” This attorney understood that much of his business originated with social occasions.
Most of us don’t think the people we occasionally call, like our plumber, are friends, but many people think the accountant or planner they socialize with is a friend. And they may be. But they may also be using friendship as the shoehorn they need to make a living.
Though it’s unpleasant to consider, your lifelong “friend” and her husband may think you aren’t making them enough money to send you a gift. They may believe you have dropped below the level at which they need to be polite. We wouldn’t give Becky credit for the email she sent. Email takes no time and effort. She could do 16 of them in her bathrobe before lunch to help her husband make money. We start from this premise: it is not wise to make emotional decisions about money. If you think you can do better with a different financial planner, then move your business. But if her husband is making you money, call and say, “When we are ready for a financial review, we’ll let you know.” If these two knew you might move your account, they may treat you better—the way a new financial planner, anxious to keep your business, would act. But remember, there is never an advantage in letting someone move your assets around just to generate a commission.
Your 36-year friendship appears to be less than what you thought. That’s actually a plus. It is always good to know who our friends are. Wayne & Tamara
Monday, July 27, 2026
5 Seconds Can Change Your Life
Saturday, July 25, 2026
Bridging Retirement Income Gaps
Bridging Retirement Income Gaps
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
What happens if you retire before you’re officially "supposed" to? Whether you’ve decided to "hang up your boots" early or life "threw you a curveball", retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap.
That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65.
So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture.
Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime.
Think of these "gap years" as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream.
Here’s a game plan that may work for most people:
Lean on your RRSPs First - If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend.
Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate.
There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF).
Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year.
If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively "melting down" your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill.
You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption.
Leave Your TFSA Alone - While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses.
Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free.
The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS - Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP.
Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life.
Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully.
While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals–keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check.
Keep your option open and ask questions before you make any change or commitments to withdrawing any funds. 
Leave Your Earwax Alone
Leave Your Earwax Alone
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
It's gross. That sticky yellow goo you can see in someone's ear! You want it to not be there. But before you reach for a cotton swab or one of those little scoops sold online, consider this: earwax is best just left alone, even if people have long struggled to do that.
Some extraordinary uses for earwax are best stored in the history books. Pliny the Elder, a Roman naturalist who lived in the first century AD, listed earwax among the many ingredients in his encyclopedia of folk remedies, recommending it for everything from insect stings to skin sores.
Other traditions are hard to appreciate. In Japan, mimikaki is the practice of cleaning another person's ears with a tiny bamboo pick. It's considered relaxing, and an act of affection. In India, itinerant ear cleaners offered ear-cleaning services in markets and on streets using metal instruments. Concerns about infection and injury have largely brought this to an end.
There remains, however, an urge among people for earwax to be removed at the first opportunity. But resist the temptation. The truth is that your ears are self-cleaning and don’t need scheduled care, your partner’s attention, or commercial remedies.
Earwax has an important function. It traps dust, pollen, bacteria, fungi and even tiny insects before they can reach the delicate eardrum. The skin inside the ear canal then slowly migrates outward, carrying old earwax with it. Every time you chew, yawn or talk, your jaw helps move the wax toward the opening of the ear where it dries and flakes away. Most healthy ears never need cleaning at all.
Yet, many people interfere. The worst offenders are cotton swabs. Manufacturers often print "Do not insert into the ear canal" right on the package, yet millions of us do exactly that. Instead of removing wax, swabs can push it deeper, packing it against the eardrum where it can cause hearing loss, ringing, dizziness or pain. Ear, nose and throat specialists have a saying: "Never put anything smaller than your elbow in your ear."
Earwax is a blended mixture of secretions from specialized glands, dead skin cells and a little oil. The combination keeps the ear canal slightly acidic, making it a difficult place for harmful bacteria and fungi to grow.
A surprising fact is that earwax is genetic. People of European and African ancestry usually have wet, honey-coloured earwax. Many East Asians and Indigenous peoples have a dry, gray, flaky variety. The difference comes from a single gene. The same gene is also associated with underarm body odour. People with dry earwax are less likely to need deodorant – a wonderful "I bet you didn't know that" fact. Here’s another: scientists use earwax genetics to study ancient human migrations.
As we age, earwax changes too. It often becomes drier and harder, making blockages more common in older adults. Hearing aids and earbuds can make matters worse by preventing wax from naturally working its way out. If your hearing suddenly seems muffled, don't assume it's old age. A plug of earwax may be the culprit and removing it safely can restore hearing almost instantly.
So when should earwax be removed? Only when it's causing trouble: hearing loss, pain, fullness, ringing or when it prevents a healthcare professional from seeing the eardrum. Softening drops or gentle irrigation may help. But some people should avoid flushing the ear, particularly if they have a perforated eardrum, chronic ear disease or previous ear surgery. In those cases, removal by a healthcare professional is the safest approach.
Test Of Time
Test Of Time
By Wayne and Tamara
I have been lucky in life, growing up in nice neighborhoods, going to good schools, with parents who are very successful financially. I am about to finish my bachelor’s degree and work full-time at a good job. I am 20 and things are going great.
My wonderful boyfriend is 22 and has been less lucky. He was raised by an amazing single mother who has worked two jobs to support her four children; they are from a low-income, mostly Latino community, where the schools are poor. As a result, life has been harder for him. Unlike my parents who have given me money to save, he has had to work full-time, often living paycheck to paycheck. Because of this he had been out of school but just started working on his degree again. My boyfriend and I couldn’t be happier. We are living together and know that we want to spend the rest of our lives together. We can’t imagine it any other way. In fact, we are treating the economic downturn as a great opportunity and are hoping to buy a small house at the end of the year. The problem is my parents consistently make nasty remarks about him and our relationship. They say he’s riding my coat tails, taking advantage of me, and once we’ve cohabitated long enough, will take half of what I have. The things they say come off as classist and even racist, and my mother and father know these remarks hurt me deeply. Should I tell my parents to take a hike?
Keely
Keely, you can’t imagine your life without your boyfriend, but at 20 you can’t imagine a world with rotary telephones. At 40 you won’t be able to imagine what you did at 20. Let’s take a step back and try to decide if it’s fair to tell your parents to take a hike. A universal characteristic of humans is that we prefer our own group to other groups. As primatologist Frans de Waal says, “Identification with the home team comes easily to group animals like ourselves.” We might call this preference prejudice, but ultimately it is grounded in our biology. Aside from this innate preference, how might things look to your parents? They know marriages of young people are the marriages most at risk. At 20, you are five or six years below the average age of women marrying in the U.S. That is cause for concern. In addition, almost everyone getting divorced thought they were marrying for life. Everything has gone well in your life so far. It’s hard to imagine things not going well. But statistically speaking, you are on a lucky streak. You have been shined on. Research shows all of us are more likely to believe bad events will happen to someone else, not us. We don’t doubt your boyfriend’s sincerity, but from your parents’ point of view, he has every reason in the world to want you. You are a shining star. He may genuinely think he loves you, but the package is so attractive it may have him dazzled. On your part, your parents may wonder if you are confusing admiration and altruism with love.
Parents fear for their children, and you are scaring them. They see you buying a house and his whole family moving in. They see you responsible for five lives and the whole trajectory of your life plummeting. Do 20 plus years of nurturance and raising you mean nothing? No, they count for a lot. Some people your age have found the one for them. Only time will tell. It is fair to tell your parents to stop with the racist remarks, but telling them to take a hike is going too far. If you are right about your boyfriend, if he is everything you claim he is, his deeds and character will in time win them over. Wayne & Tamara
Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?
Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?
(Hint: It's Not the Job Seeker)
By Nick Kossovan
Desperation-monetizing career grifters, better known as self-proclaimed career coaches, sell the comforting fiction that the job seeker is at the centre of the hiring process. They peddle platitudes such as "interviewing the company" and "knowing your worth" to keep their predatory billing engines humming. It is a seductive, fragile illusion of control, but a dangerous one to believe. What these grifters never acknowledge is that the hiring process is the employer's exclusive prerogative.
The employer owns their business; hence, they own their hiring process—designing it as they see fit—and make the final decisions. The job seeker, who bears none of the financial or operational risk that the employer is responsible for, is in no position to dictate how an employer should hire or what constitutes "being qualified."
Behind the polite performance of the interview, your interviewer is seeking clinical answers to the questions bouncing around in their head:
● Are you qualified or overqualified? (Being overqualified comes with many hiring risks.)
● Are you a fit? (No manager wants to police a culture clash.)
● Are you someone they can trust?
● Are you someone whom they believe? (You aren't just talking a “good game.”)
● Are you teachable?
● Are you someone who'll be easy to manage?
● Are you someone who'll stick around, or will you bolt the moment the going gets tough?
● Can you be relied on, or are you fragile and will ask for a mental health day because it's raining?
● Are you a team player or will you utter the toxic phrase, "It's not my job”?
How you describe yourself on your resume or in an interview is nothing more than your curated opinion of yourself. Employers don't hire opinions. They don't care that you self-identify as a "motivated self-starter" or a "dynamic leader." They hire predictable results. This is why you must show quantitative metrics, such as average deal size, contract renegotiation savings, budgets managed, revenue growth, audience reach, or customer retention rates, to support your claims. Employers hire candidates they believe will protect, and ideally enhance, their profitability without disrupting workflows or upsetting the current team.
This is where the divide between the perpetual job seeker and the successful candidate widens into a chasm. Vague job seekers get ignored. Specific ones get hired.
When you use vague, generalized language, you're expecting hiring managers to do the heavy lifting of figuring out what you actually do and the value you bring. This expectation is a form of passive entitlement. Hiring managers and recruiters are not in the business of solving riddles. A vague resume says, "I'm a hardworking communications professional." A specific resume says, "I managed a team of four to deliver three provincial marketing campaigns that increased inbound leads by 22%." Specificity removes the guesswork, replaces opinion with evidence, and respects the employer's time.
While the final decision always rests with the employer, you are far from powerless. You can't force an employer's hand, but you can heavily stack the deck in your favour. Your qualifications are for the employer to judge, but how you're perceived by recruiters and hiring managers is entirely your responsibility.
Tilting the odds in your favour starts with mastering three foundational pillars that shape how you're perceived.
The first pillar is your professional image and digital footprint. If your resume piques an employer's interest, they'll Google you and scrutinize your LinkedIn profile and online activity to determine whether you're interview-worthy. If your online presence is non-existent, inconsistent, or worse, controversial, you're not getting called. Make no mistake, in 2026, curating and maintaining a clean, professional, and consistent digital footprint is required to get green-lighted for an interview.
The second pillar is profitability. Every hire is an investment, and in business, investments must yield a return. The employer must believe you'll deliver results that positively impact their bottom line. Whether you're in sales, operations, or administration, your job is to show how your presence either makes the company money, saves the company money, or optimizes the time of those who do.
The third and final pillar is proving you're a low-risk hire. Hiring's an expensive, time-consuming, and risky endeavour. A bad hire can disrupt team morale, hurt productivity, and make the decision-maker look bad, a fear that shouldn't be underestimated. Hiring isn't about finding the perfect candidate; it's about risk mitigation. Because the hiring process is a process of elimination, recruiters and hiring managers actively look for reasons to eliminate you. As a job seeker, your job is to present yourself as reliable, adaptable, easy to manage, and resilient, making you a safe bet to hire.
The job market is an employer's market by design; an asymmetrical relationship in which those writing the paycheques dictate the terms. Always has been, always will be. Accepting this structural reality isn't a capitulation; it's a calibration. Once you've abandoned the illusion of control over who gets hired and focus entirely on managing your image, demonstrating you'll positively influence the bottom line, and lowering hiring risk, you'll stop being a job seeker begging for a job and become the candidate employers can't afford to miss out on.
Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin Parliament Discovers the Internet
Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin
Parliament Discovers the Internet
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Tomorrow’s news may arrive carrying another suitcase full of shiny new words. Looksmaxing. Tradwives. The manosphere. Harmful content. Digital radicalization. Anti Feminist ideology.
Most Canadians will hear these terms while making coffee, getting children ready for school, heading to work, checking on an elderly parent or wondering why the car suddenly needs another repair. Regular people do not wake up in the morning asking whether their neighbours have entered the manosphere. They are too busy trying to remember what day the recycling goes out.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women released a report called Confronting Anti Feminist Ideologies in Canada. It examines internet trends, online influencers, looksmaxing, tradwife content and speech on social media.
I tried saying looksmaxing out loud three times. By the third attempt, I felt as if I should either be joining a gym or ordering something from a drive through.
“Yes, I would like one looksmaxing, a medium coffee and whatever option has fewer wrinkles.”
Looksmaxing generally means trying to improve your appearance. That can become unhealthy or extreme online, especially when young people are told they will never be good enough. That deserves attention. But improving your appearance is not automatically radical. Getting a haircut, exercising, wearing better clothes or finally throwing out the shirt your wife has hated since 1998 is simply called living.
Then there is the tradwife movement. This usually involves women online promoting traditional marriage, homemaking, cooking and raising children.
Some people may dislike that choice. Others may admire it. But a woman wanting to stay home with her children is not automatically being controlled, brainwashed or recruited into some dangerous movement. Feminism was supposed to mean women had choices. That includes the choice to build a career, stay home, do both or change direction halfway through life.
The manosphere sounds like a glass dome where men are kept until they learn how to load the dishwasher correctly. In reality, it is a broad label for online spaces where men discuss dating, masculinity, relationships and personal frustrations. Some of those spaces contain hatred and threats. Others contain lonely men struggling to talk about their problems.
Government must be able to tell the difference.
There are radicals online. There are people who threaten women, spread hatred and encourage violence. Women should be protected from them. Children should also be protected from predators, exploitation and people who use the internet to target the vulnerable.
That is where the discussion needs to become more serious.
Real women and children are being trafficked, sexually exploited, assaulted, threatened and abused. Some are lured online. Some disappear. Some are forced into situations they never chose. These are not fashionable words invented for a committee meeting. These are crimes, and they destroy lives.
Canada should focus its strongest laws, police resources and public attention on those who commit real crimes against women and children. Traffickers, predators, violent offenders and those who distribute abusive material should face serious consequences. Protecting victims should never become secondary to debating whether a homemaking video or a man’s negative dating advice belongs under a new political label.
The report contains 14 recommendations, including more online regulation, public education, digital literacy, programs for men and boys and further research. Canadians can read the complete report at:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/FEWO/report-6/
The committee study page, including meetings, witnesses and submitted briefs, can be found at:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/FEWO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13147239
A committee report is not a law. It does not make homemaking, exercise, traditional marriage or criticism of feminism illegal. But reports can shape future policies, programs and legislation, so people should pay attention to the language being used.
Regular Canadians do not spend their lives sorting their neighbours into ideological boxes. They judge people by how they behave. A kind man is a kind person. A cruel man is a cruel person. A woman who works outside the home is making her choice. A woman who chooses to stay home is making her own choice.
Ottawa should protect freedom while going after genuine criminals. It should spend less time turning ordinary choices into suspicious movements and more time stopping the people who prey on women and children.
That is not anti feminist. That is common sense.
Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet
Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
The greatest threat to democracy isn't always found at the ballot box.
Sometimes it's found in the council chamber.
Every election brings hope. New candidates knock on doors, attend debates, and make promises to the people they hope to serve. They speak passionately about lowering taxes, fixing neglected infrastructure, improving public safety, protecting neighbourhoods, increasing transparency, or restoring common sense to local government.
The voters listen. They compare ideas. And then they choose.
Election night is not simply about replacing names on office doors. It is about giving citizens a voice through the people they elect. But for too many newly elected representatives, something changes after they're sworn in. The campaign signs come down. The congratulations fade. And then the pressure begins.
"Be a team player." "That's just how we've always done things." "Don't rock the boat."
"Vote with the group."
Those four phrases have quietly silenced more elected officials than any opponent ever could.
Democracy was never intended to produce obedient followers. It was designed to elect independent thinkers. There is an enormous difference between cooperation and conformity. Cooperation means listening, debating, compromising when appropriate, and respecting opposing views.
Conformity means surrendering your convictions simply because the majority expects it.
That is not leadership. That is political intimidation wrapped in polite language.
The public did not elect you to become another vote in someone else's bloc. They elected you. They chose your judgment. Your experience. Your courage. Your willingness to ask difficult questions when everyone else has become comfortable. Perhaps the greatest danger in municipal politics is something I call the slow surrender. It doesn't happen overnight. One vote here. One compromise there. One issue you decide isn't worth fighting. One uncomfortable question left unasked. Until one day you look back and realize the person sitting in that council chair no longer resembles the candidate who stood on doorsteps asking for the public's trust. History has taught us an important lesson.
Mob rule has never been a reliable substitute for principled leadership.
The majority can be right. The majority can also be wrong. That is why democracies require independent representatives—not rubber stamps. The easiest vote in politics is the one everyone else is casting. The hardest vote is the one your conscience demands.
If you were elected because you promised to protect taxpayers, then protect taxpayers.
If you promised to improve infrastructure, fight for infrastructure. If you promised accountability, demand accountability.
Never apologize for keeping the promises that earned you the confidence of the voters.
There will always be pressure to fit in. Pressure to stay quiet.
Pressure to stop asking difficult questions. Pressure to avoid making colleagues uncomfortable. Ignore it.
The people who elected you did not send you to town hall to become popular inside the building. They sent you there to represent the people outside it. Remember this every time you're asked to support the team. Your team isn't the voting bloc. Your team isn't the political establishment. Your team isn't the group sitting beside you around the council table.
Your team is the taxpayer who believed your word meant something.
This October, many new councillors will walk into municipal offices for the first time.
My message to each of them is simple. Don't let your gunpowder get wet. Stand your ground. Ask the difficult questions. Challenge bad ideas—even when they're popular. Vote according to your principles, not according to pressure.Because if the people wanted another member of the old majority... They wouldn't have elected you.
Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)