What happens if you retire before you’re officially “supposed” to?

’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Whether you’ve decided to “hang up your boots” early or life “threw you a curveball”, retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap. That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65. So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture. Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime. Think of these “gap years” as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream. Here’s a game plan that may work for most people: Lean on Your RRSPs First If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend. Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate. There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF). Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year. If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively “melting down” your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill. You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption. Leave Your TFSA Alone While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses. Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free. The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP. Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life. Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully. While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals—keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check. Review you options before you make any commitments!

The Reactor That Didn't Retire

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print We had a family friend who lived near Pickering, and for years I drove past the nuclear generating station regularly. Those enormous reactor buildings became a familiar part of the trip. These days I live farther north, and the plant is still part of the landscape. I didn't need to know much about what was happening inside to recognize it from the road. That familiar plant was back in the news this week. On Monday, September 21, Ontario announced that work had started on the refurbishment of Pickering's four remaining operating reactors. They're being taken out of service by the end of September and will remain offline for about a decade while they're rebuilt. The plan is to bring them back in the mid-2030s and keep them generating electricity for decades after that. It's a remarkable second career for a plant that was approaching retirement.You might assume artificial intelligence had something to do with that decision. After all, we keep hearing about the electricity needed to power AI and the enormous data centres being built to support it. But Ontario asked Ontario Power Generation to examine refurbishing Pickering back in September 2022, before ChatGPT arrived. The province was already preparing for more homes, electric vehicles and industry. AI wasn't what put Pickering's refurbishment on the table. The data centres have since joined the line, and they're asking for a remarkable amount of electricity. In August, the Independent Electricity System Operator reported roughly 7,000 megawatts of data-centre connection requests, about double what had been reported in March. That's electricity those companies want access to, not power they're already using. Some projects may never be built. But the demand being proposed is considerable, and it arrives just as Pickering is preparing to stop generating electricity for the next decade.There's a problem to work through in the meantime. Environmental Defence has warned that taking Pickering offline could increase Ontario's reliance on natural gas to generate electricity, adding to greenhouse gas emissions. The province says the refurbishment will secure decades of nuclear power once the reactors return. Both the years without Pickering and the years after it comes back matter when planning Ontario's electricity supply.Which brings me back to something closer to home. The hydro bill. Most of us look at the amount owing, perhaps compare it with last month, and pay it. But there's a line worth noticing near the bottom of an eligible Ontario household's bill called the Ontario Electricity Rebate. Last November, the province increased that rebate to 23.5 per cent, helping offset an increase in electricity rates. The rate we're charged and the amount that ultimately comes out of our pockets aren't quite the same thing. The Ontario Energy Board's explanation of last November's price changes pointed to higher-than-expected generation and conservation costs. It didn't name the new wave of data centres as a cause. So when someone says AI is already responsible for that increase, the explanation from the agency that sets the rates doesn't support it. What happens next is another matter.In August, Ontario proposed separate electricity pricing for large new data centres. The province says it wants to prevent the costs of their growth from being passed along to existing customers. That's the promise. The details are still being worked out, including which facilities would be covered and how their charges would be calculated. Somebody has to pay for the electricity and the equipment needed to deliver it.Data centres have their uses. They support everything from online banking and shopping to the photographs we store on our phones. They can bring investment and jobs, too. But the electricity they need has to come from somewhere, and building the infrastructure to serve them takes time. From October 6 to 9, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will hold a public hearing in Ajax on Pickering's licence renewal and proposed refurbishment. The site work has started, but the regulatory process is still underway. A plant I've driven past for years is about to go quiet for a long time, and the discussion about its future is taking place right here in Durham.I still know where to look for Pickering when I'm driving past. The buildings are hard to miss. Most of us will never see the data centres that are asking to join Ontario's electricity system. But we'll still have the hydro bill.

Head Games

I have a coworker I've been friendly with for several years. About three months ago she started being too busy to have lunch together. I asked her once whether anything was wrong and whether I offended her in some way. She assured me nothing was amiss and she considers me a friend at work. But in the past month she stopped speaking to me unless absolutely necessary. No more sailing into my office, flopping onto a chair, and asking, How is life? No more talking about her work stuff and home stuff. No more good morning or good night, even when she is leaving the office next door to mine and always used to pop her head in. Once she went so far as to look through me to say good morning to someone else. Another time she was in the conference room having arrived first for a meeting. I arrived second, and she kept her head down as if very busy until a third person arrived, then said hello to both of us. There have been hundreds of instances of not seeming to hear me when I say a normal pleasant greeting to her in her office or in the hallway. I feel hurt and disturbed as I wonder if I'm being accused of something I didn't do, or if I put my foot in my mouth in a way that never struck me as offensive. I feel it would be useless to ask again if something is wrong. I think my real question is, how can I make myself tougher so a thing like this doesn't occupy my mind and bring me close to tears a few times every day? Are there steps a person can take to grow a tougher skin? Alexia Alexia, Wayne once asked a 60-ish friend why he was always in such high spirits. This friend explained that as a young man he worried incessantly. He worried over tests, dates, and whether he would ever find a job. Then in his late teens he had an epiphany. Worry accomplishes nothing. What you need is not so much a tougher skin as to stop worrying over things beyond your control. You asked if there was a problem and she denied it. You’ve done all you can. For some reason, the friendly woman with an office next door moved away and a person with whom you have little in common and no rapport moved in. That’s curious, but it’s not a reason for worry. In the personal space between her ears something is going on. You are likely never to know what. Wayne once smiled at a friend on a street corner and was baffled when a woman he didn’t know and hadn’t noticed crossed the street to ask why he was laughing at her. Say what? People do all manner of strange things. People tell tales, create hoopla, and use passive aggression. They also show extraordinary kindness and care. Good people torture themselves asking why, why, why. But the answer is often as simple as displaced emotion. This woman may be a little like the serial killer who wants to kill his mother but kills other women instead. Not everything in life carries the same weight. Your family carries a certain weight, your partner a certain weight, your house a certain weight, and your neighbors a certain weight. Your job carries a certain weight. You are giving her too much weight. Your purpose at work is work. Treat this woman with the normal corporate politeness used in the workplace. Treat her professionally, clinically, and distantly. When you walk into a room and she is there, ignore her, but with a third person present act normally. It always helps to ask ourselves, what is my purpose in life? Then let your life proceed from your purpose and not from the oddities and quirks of others.

You Can Lose Weight

Pills, pills, pills. Any doctor not encouraging patients to protect health with their own fortitude first is a doctor who has underestimated the patient. Don’t be complacent if this is your doctor. An astounding majority of North Americans are dismantling their health. I won’t quibble with definitions of what constitutes being overweight or obese. But I am comfortable saying that about seven in ten of us are carrying extra pounds. And I have zero concerns with saying that extra pounds take their toll. Furthermore, with few exceptions, we each have what it takes to shed those pounds. But people like to complain. They abandon their willpower. They don’t learn what they can do to get back in better form. And now they just pop another pill. When a large majority of people are succumbing to quick and artificial fixes, our society changes, and not for the better. I want to live in a world where the basics are held sacred, including moderate, clean, sustainable and healthy consumption of nutritious food. We need to fight back against trends undermining our personal responsibility for our own health. If the medical community won’t do it, then let’s explain basic physiology to children, teens, and any adults who don’t know it. Maintaining a trim waistline is a very good goal. Yet, many have let the middle region grow! But three times a day or more, we have opportunities to reduce the risk of developing a long list of diseases. The human body possesses mechanisms designed to prevent overeating. But a fast-paced and convenient lifestyle doesn’t give the mechanism a chance. Here’s how it works. As food is eaten, the walls of the stomach start to stretch. Sensors in the stomach detect that stretching and begin sending signals to the brain. These signals travel through the vagus nerve, a major communication highway between the gut and brain. As food reaches the small intestine, additional hormones including cholecystokinin, peptide YY and GLP-1 are released. These hormones have several jobs, but one is to tell the brain that nutrients have arrived and that more food is not required. GLP-1 and related signals also slow the movement of food through the digestive tract. The new generation of weight-loss drugs exploits this natural system. Semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, activates GLP-1 receptors, reducing appetite and slowing the emptying of the stomach. Tirzepatide, sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound, activates both GLP-1 and GIP receptors, reducing appetite and food intake while also slowing gastric emptying. One way or the other, the sensation is familiar to everyone who has pushed away a plate. Enough! But a person can eat a lot of food before those signals have had time to arrive and be interpreted. A fast eater can finish a big meal in ten minutes and still feel hungry. Another ten minutes and it would be different. Research has also revealed that the stomach responds to volume as well as calories. Stretch receptors respond when the stomach expands, regardless of high-calorie or low-calorie food. Distending the stomach activates neural pathways involved in feeling full. It’s the intestines that are keeping track of nutrients. This is an old piece of biology. Other mammals have the same basic gut-brain communication system. Mice and rats are routinely used to study it, and similar mechanisms have been demonstrated in other mammals. We should pay it our respect. If you’d like to lose weight naturally, step on the scale and record the number. For two weeks, serve smaller portions at every meal. Then, eat slowly. Give the body time to send signals. Two weeks later, step on the scale again.

IF YOU ARE PROMISING CHANGE, TELL US WHAT YOU ARE CHANGING

There is one word we are going to hear repeatedly throughout this municipal election: change. Candidates will talk about taxes, condos, development, infrastructure, farmland, spending and accountability. But before accepting anyone’s newly stated positions, I believe voters should ask a simple question: Where were you before you wanted the job? Pickering has made decisions over the last four years that will shape this city for generations — from Northeast Pickering and agricultural lands to the rapid expansion of high-density condominium development, major spending, infrastructure, the federal lands and Elexicon. These issues didn’t suddenly appear when nominations opened. Some candidates seeking office today had little or no visible involvement in these debates during most of this term. A couple have since appeared before Council and made delegations, but those appearances came after their names were already on the ballot. There is nothing wrong with becoming involved after deciding to run. But chronology matters when someone presents themselves as a voice for change. Can you show residents where you stood before your name was on the ballot? You didn’t have to sit in Council Chambers every week. Did you write Council, make a delegation, organize residents, attend public meetings or speak publicly? Were you engaged when the decisions were actually being made? A campaign tells us what someone wants us to know about them today. A record tells us what they were prepared to stand for when there was no election to win. That brings me to the bigger question: What does “change” actually mean? Over the last four years, the direction of Pickering was not set by the Mayor alone. Council members cast their own votes. But the Mayor is the head of Council, and on

many major issues where I challenged the direction being taken, I repeatedly found myself on the losing end of 6–1 votes. There was very little willingness around that Council table to challenge the direction being led from the Mayor’s chair. On many of the major issues facing Pickering, the current Mayor and I have represented fundamentally different directions. That makes the word “change” particularly important in this election. So let’s make it simple. If you believe the direction Council has taken over the past four years is the direction Pickering should continue, say so. If you support the current leadership and its direction, explain why. But if you are campaigning because you believe Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, then you cannot avoid the obvious question: Does the leadership at the head of Council need to change too? If your answer is no, explain how maintaining the same leadership produces the fundamentally different direction you are promising. You cannot have it both ways without explaining the contradiction. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with every individual vote. It is about the overall direction of our city. And this is where independence matters. I understand the political calculation at the doorstep. One resident may want change while the next supports the current Mayor. Giving a straight answer could cost you a vote. A candidate may also be thinking, “What if the current Mayor is re-elected and I have to work with him? Maybe I should play nice now.” Perhaps that is politically safer. But leadership isn’t supposed to be an exercise in political safety. If you believe something, tell residents. If they disagree, respect that. But don’t change the answer depending on whose doorstep you’re standing on. If you are already afraid to rock the boat before you have even been elected, why should residents believe you will suddenly become courageous once you are sitting in the boat? You don’t demonstrate independence by waiting until it is politically safe to have an opinion. There is a difference between working together and going along to get along. Working together should mean seven independent people bringing their own judgment to the table, asking difficult questions, debating issues and then working professionally with one another regardless of how they voted. It should also mean that no member of Council is penalized simply for being the dissenting vote. Disagreement should never be treated as disloyalty. If elected Mayor, that is not how I would lead. I may strongly disagree with a councillor’s position, but I would respect their right — and responsibility — to exercise independent judgment. No councillor should fear consequences simply because they challenged the Mayor or stood alone on a vote. The same scrutiny should apply across the ballot. Incumbents should defend what they did with the four years residents already gave them. Challengers should explain where they were during those four years and what they stood for before becoming candidates. A new name alone doesn’t guarantee a new direction, just as holding office doesn’t automatically justify another term. So when someone tells you they represent change, ask what they mean. Where were they before their name appeared on the ballot? What would they actually change? And if they say Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, ask the question that matters: Does your definition of change include changing the leadership at the head of Council? Because changing the names around the Council table while preserving the same leadership and direction isn’t necessarily change. Working together should never mean going along to get along. Unity should never require conformity. And if you’re promising a different destination, voters deserve to know whether you believe Pickering needs someone different steering the ship.

Less Canada, More Foreign Capital: The Hypocrisy of Carney's Quest for Foreign Investment

By Nick Kossovan At Tuesday's inaugural Canada Investment Summit, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a masterclass in political sleight of hand, unveiling his headline capital expenditure tax policy. Carney pitched Canada as a secure economic safe harbour, now, to no one's surprise, aggressively seeking to attract global capital, including deep-pocketed American investors, to Canadian megaprojects. Carney hailed his fiscal package as a patriotic step toward true national independence. The truth, however, becomes clear once you strip away the rhetoric. While technically applicable to any business currently operating in Canada, Carney's asset-stripper tax write-off maneuver is an exercise in appeasing Canadians' anxieties about the Canadian economy's direction. In contrast to Carney's claims of bolstering the domestic economy, his initiative is an extravagant, multimillion-dollar corporate handout to foreign private equity firms and multinational corporations capable of initiating massive capital-expenditure surges on their own, funded by Canadians and businesses that elected Carney to look after their best interests. A key component of Carney's corporate welfare opus is the Productivity Mega Deduction. This policy aims to turbocharge capital spending through sweeping fiscal measures: · Instant Write-Offs: Instead of writing off major equipment and building costs over many years, companies can now deduct 100% of the cost in the first year. · Everything Covered: Approximately 65% of business assets are eligible for write-off, including oil pipelines, corporate jets, and factory machinery. · Permanent Tax Breaks: These write-offs will remain permanent, creating a structural tax shelter. · The Lowest Tax Rate: Under this plan, Canada will have the lowest tax rate in the G7 at 6.4%, half that of the US. · A $36-Billion Gamble: Canadian taxpayers are expected to pay $36 billion over five years to chase $1 trillion in investment. At a post-announcement press conference, Carney defended this staggering giveaway with a rationalization that revealed a profound disconnect from everyday economic reality: "If we're in a race… we're ahead on the incentives, but we have ground to catch up. And what does this mean for Canadians and catching up to that ground? It means more jobs. It means a stronger country. It means more resilience, more independence, more sovereignty." It's a neat trick to equate corporate welfare for foreign multinationals with national pride. In an interview after the summit, Centre for Future Work economist Jim Stanford bluntly noted that foreign investment should not be the goal, adding, "we should be looking at these opportunities, carefully, judging them, negotiating with foreign investors to make sure the net benefit to Canada is as positive as it can be." Instead of cautious pragmatism, Carney has opened the vault. A $36 billion tax write-off for multinational private equity firms and Wall Street asset managers, many of whom would have deployed capital anyway, amounts to a reckless corporate handout. Consequently, billionaire balance sheets are financed by Canadian taxpayers and struggling families, while public services are underfunded. Furthermore, claiming "national sovereignty" while selling off Canada's economic infrastructure to foreigners is exceedingly hypocritical. Carney's strategy of trading the US, Canada's primary external economic master since Confederation, for multiple others is his bid to mitigate American trade friction while locking Canada into a permanent state of offshore dependency. By rolling out the red carpet for foreign conglomerates while leaving domestic businesses to grapple with persistent inflation, high operating costs, trade and tariff uncertainty, and regulatory burdens, Carney is engaging in nothing more than empty economic tokenism. He wants the political optics of standing up to Washington while pandering to foreign boardrooms—"Look at what I'm doing for Canadians!"—ensuring that Canada remains structurally and economically "less Canada." If Carney truly wanted to build a resilient economy, he'd look inward. Canadian prosperity won't come from the transient whims of global asset allocators; rather, it will come from entrepreneurs, business owners, employers, and Canadians who don't feel as financially stressed as they do today. Providing aggressive tax incentives and deep tax cuts for established Canadian businesses would build organic, homegrown wealth that stays within Canada's borders. Instead, Canadian businesses watch with frustration and anger as Carney grants preferential treatment and fast-tracked reviews to foreign corporations, while treating Canadians like second-class citizens in their own country. The math doesn't add up. Canadian taxpayers will ultimately bear the $36 billion shortfall through reduced public services or future tax hikes. However, Carney's tax enticement has one major problem: Because he failed to secure a long-term trade deal with the US, exporting goods across the border has, for the most part, become cost-prohibitive, a significant deterrent. No amount of tax wizardry can hide the fact that foreign companies have little substantive reason to set up shop in Canada beyond skimming short-term subsidies and flying away. Ultimately, Carney is playing a shell game, trading taxpayer money and national sovereignty for foreign approval. By prioritizing foreign conglomerates over Canadian companies, he's locking Canada into permanent economic subordination. As long as Ottawa chases global capital ghosts instead of supporting Canadians who live, work, and bleed here, the Canadian economy will remain nothing more than a branch of foreign boardrooms.

When the Right to Strike Is on the Table

 Oshawa is a union town. We know what a picket line looks like. For generations, families here have lived through strikes, layoffs and long talks between workers and companies. Sometimes people supported the union. Sometimes they blamed the union. Sometimes they blamed the company. But people talked about it. Now there is another labour issue Canadians should be talking about. The federal government is preparing changes to Canada's labour laws. Those changes could affect what happens when workers in federally regulated workplaces go on strike or employers lock them out. Unions are worried. The Canadian Labour Congress has warned Ottawa not to weaken the right to strike. It is especially concerned about Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. That section gives the federal labour minister broad powers during a labour dispute. Ottawa has used it during several major disputes in recent years. The Canadian Labour Congress says Section 107 has been used eight times since 2024 in ways that ended strikes or lockouts and sent disputes toward binding arbitration. Think about what that could mean at the bargaining table. Workers go on strike because they want pressure put on the employer. They stop getting their regular pay. The company may lose money. Nobody really wins during a long strike. That pressure is part of bargaining. But what happens if workers believe Ottawa will eventually order them back? Then turn the question around. What happens if a company believes the government will eventually step in and end the strike? Would that company feel the same pressure to settle? Those are fair questions. We saw how serious that got in the 2025 strike of the Air Canada flight attendants. Ottawa used Section 107 and directed the Canada Industrial Relations Board toward binding arbitration. The dispute became about more than Air Canada. Canadians started arguing about the government's power to intervene in a legal strike. But there is another side to this. Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu says the government's coming changes are supposed to reduce government intervention, not increase it. She says employers and workers should settle their own disputes whenever possible. Ottawa has been looking at changes involving bargaining periods, mediation, strike and lockout notices, arbitration and Section 107 itself. And the government has a problem unions do not have to solve alone. Imagine Canada's railways shutting down. A farmer needs to ship grain. A factory in Oshawa is waiting for parts. Stores are waiting for products. A small business has customers waiting for orders. None of those people are sitting at the bargaining table. The same thing happens when a major airline or port shuts down. A fight between workers and an employer can quickly become everybody's problem. So when should the government step in? That is where this gets interesting. If Ottawa moves too quickly, workers may wonder whether they really have a right to strike. If Ottawa waits too long, millions of Canadians and businesses could pay the price for a dispute they had nothing to do with. There is no easy answer. That is especially worth remembering here in Oshawa. This city was built by working people. Many belonged to unions. They fought for better wages, safer workplaces, pensions and benefits. Some of those fights were not pretty. But they changed working life. We also have to be careful about saying something has happened before it actually has. The final legislation has not been presented, so we do not know exactly what Parliament will eventually approve. For now, the government says it wants fewer interventions. Unions are worried the changes could weaken their bargaining power. Both sides know something important is coming. So maybe this is one for the coffee table. When a strike begins hurting the rest of the country, should Ottawa step in? And if the government can end a strike when the pressure becomes too great, how much power does a strike really have? Pull up a chair. I have a feeling this conversation is just getting started.

The Old Goodyear Site: How Did We Get Here?

The Old Goodyear Site: How Did We Get Here? For almost a century, the Goodyear plant was part of Bowmanville. People worked there, families depended on it, and generations drove past that massive industrial property just south of downtown. Goodyear closed the plant in 2016. A decade later, the approximately 39-acre property at 45 Raynes Avenue is proposed for roughly 3,200 residential units, almost 10,000 square metres of non-residential space and buildings reaching 25 storeys. Before anybody starts cutting ribbons on the future, residents deserve some answers about the past - and about what is happening there now. Because the public record tells quite a story. Clarington records show years of safety and security enforcement at the former Goodyear property. Fire Services conducted inspections and issued orders relating to site security. In November 2024, the Municipality reported discovering demolition activity without an approved demolition permit for the main building. An Order to Comply followed, and a demolition permit was subsequently issued in February 2025. Then came the fire. Shortly after midnight on October 13, 2025, firefighters responded to a major fire at the property. The roof eventually collapsed. The Ministry of the Environment attended and collected water samples from Bowmanville Creek. Clarington subsequently issued an Order to Remedy Unsafe requiring the building to be safely demolished. By August 2026, municipal enforcement had escalated again. Clarington reported deteriorating buildings, unsecured portions of the property, hidden hazards, unauthorized access and what it characterized as unlawful work. The Municipality ordered 24-hour security and later arranged security itself after saying the order wasn't obeyed. A Stop Work Order followed, alleging demolition and/or construction contrary to permit conditions and without authorization. Clarington then announced it was seeking an urgent court injunction allowing it to undertake whatever work was necessary to make the property safe. Those are municipal enforcement findings and allegations - not convictions. So Here Are My Questions What is the status of the outstanding orders? What happened with the Municipality's court application? How much have Clarington taxpayers spent on security, engineers, lawyers and other work - and how much will be recovered? And what about the environment? This is a former industrial brownfield. Environmental assessments have been undertaken, and the Ministry sampled Bowmanville Creek following the fire. The records reviewed so far do not establish that recent activity caused environmental contamination or constituted an environmental offence. That's exactly why we need the underlying information. What was tested? What were the results? What monitoring occurred? And what remediation will be required before thousands of people could potentially live here? Those aren't accusations. They're reasonable questions. Mr. X Is Digging On September 20, a Freedom of Information request was submitted seeking enforcement, inspection, building-permit, environmental, court and municipal-cost records concerning the property. When those records arrive, we'll see what they say. Now Here's My Opinion I don't believe the development currently proposed for the former Goodyear lands will ultimately be built by this developer. That's not a finding by Clarington or a court decision. It's my assessment. The elephant in the room is that this is a century-old industrial brownfield. Before thousands of people can live there, environmental and remediation requirements must be satisfied. We don't yet have evidence establishing the ultimate cost. But my prediction is that remediation and site-preparation costs could become the issue that overwhelms the economics of this proposal. Then add demolition, security, engineering, litigation, financing, carrying costs, municipal charges and infrastructure. Eventually, the numbers have to work. A rendering isn't an approval. An approval isn't a shovel in the ground. And a shovel in the ground isn't necessarily a financially viable development. Follow the Money I don't believe this means the Goodyear property will remain abandoned. Quite the opposite. This is one of Bowmanville's most important redevelopment properties. I believe it will eventually be redeveloped - just not necessarily in the form, on the timetable, or by the developer presently before us. And perhaps that creates an opportunity. Maybe the eventual proposal is less intense. Maybe there's more parkland, better connections to Bowmanville Creek, better integration with downtown, more employment, different housing forms or a different balance of uses. Residents shouldn't be told the choice is this development or no development. There may be a third possibility: A different development. One that comes after the environmental questions are answered, the property is properly remediated, the enforcement issues are resolved and everyone understands the true cost of transforming a century-old industrial property into a community. So perhaps the biggest question isn't: “When will these 3,200 units be built?” Maybe it's: “Who will ultimately clean this property up - and what will Bowmanville get when they do?” The old Goodyear plant may be coming down. But I don't think we've seen the development that will ultimately replace it yet.

Have you or someone you know fall victim to a break-in or home invasion?

By Tom Reimer Whether you answered yes or no, it is important that you are aware of the steps you can take to not only deter criminals from entering your home but to keep them out entirely. Whenever a stranger enters your home with the intention of stealing your valuables, violently or discreetly, a feeling of numbness is left behind knowing that someone has entered your family’s personal space. It is traumatizing for parents and children alike. If you or your family members do not feel safe in your own home, where can you feel safe? As human beings, we have many underlying needs, most famously outlined by Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. Maslow states that we have motivations to achieve needs, but some needs take precedence over others. Basic needs, such as food, water, warmth, rest, security and safety, must be met before psychological and self-fulfillment needs are met. Safety needs are only second to your physiological needs! Therefore, once you have become a homeowner and have met the necessity for shelter, your next goal should be to protect that home and the people within it! The number of home invasions and extortion is drastically escalating. In Canada a residential burglary takes place every 3 minutes. Commercial targets like convenience stores and any high-ticket retail stores have hardened themselves against criminal attack. Private residences, by comparison, are now the most attractive target. The question you must ask yourself is, what are you doing to prevent a home invasion or break-in? You may have a large dog by the front door ready to attack, or a state-of-the-art alarm system that makes noise and takes videos, OK, While these are viable deterrent solutions, they cannot stop an unwanted entry and are simply not enough! Burglars should not be underestimated; many are not afraid to use force; they know where to look and can be in and out before a police cruiser is even dispatched to your home. Tougher locks with long strike plates mounted with 3-1/2” screws passing through the door frame and into the 2x4” structural sub frame and that also goes for the hinges. But not even close to being enough, look at the window beside the door, if it can be broken to enable the crook to reach through to open the lock. Low lying window are also extremely vulnerable and need your attention. Patio doors need your attention and many solutions are available. The bottom line is, you wouldn’t tolerate a roof that leaks water into your home or a furnace that has given up the ghost, so why would you allow an entrance that caters to burglars? Don’t wait until after the fact. Be proactive! Just remember this little analogy, if you and a group of people are walking in the woods and you are being chased by a bear, you don’t need to be the fastest runner only faster than the slowest. Till next week.

The Reality of Homelessness..

By Joe Ingino One of the greatest aches in my heart is the fact that we live in one of the richest countries in the world. Yet, we have people living on the streets under all kinds of harsh weather conditions. How can this be? Have we lost our civic duty? Have we lowered our social standards to such lows that we have become numb to the pain and suffering of fellow Canadians?I hate to think so. I look around and see many people running for council. I do not see disassociation or social numbness. On the contrary, I see a lot of passion, but no resolve. As new candidates, many do not have the experience and/or knowledge of how the political machine works. Therefore, they may be unaware of many of the realities involved. We look at all those elected, and you tend to wonder how they can sleep at night knowing a fellow citizen is suffering on the street. Many quickly dismiss those less fortunate as suffering from some form of mental illness or, possibly, substance abuse. Whatever the situation, we as citizens are still responsible. Any one of those in need could one day be one of us.As they say during war or disaster, it is too late to prepare once it happens. Well, if my previous statement stands true, what is happening? It is as if the Canadian social and civic mentality is suffering from some sort of neurosis. By definition, neurosis is a general term for a mental and emotional condition that can involve high levels of stress, anxiety and emotional distress without necessarily causing a loss of contact with reality.With this said, we generally know about the problem. We see the problem. Yet, we think we are doing something about it while, in reality, the problem continues to grow. To soothe our psyche, we tend to become more prone to viewing foreign aid as a solution to someone else's problems while ignoring our own. As neurosis implies, doing nothing can contribute to a sense of national frustration and depression. Interestingly, such social conditions may also contribute to problems involving substance abuse, crime and family breakdown. The civic mind is exhausted.Overcoming neurotic tendencies and emotional distress can involve practicing emotional regulation, reframing unhelpful thoughts and building daily resilience.In other words, the old saying, "SUCK IT UP, BUTTERCUP," may appear to some to be the easiest pill to swallow.Sadly, that attitude ignores the problem and redirects our attention toward giving money to wars such as the one in Ukraine, conflicts in Africa and other international causes. But then one has to understand international politics and the complex interests involved in that arena. Bottom line: We are becoming nothing short of modern-day slaves to misinformation, information overload and a general lack of true understanding of society. To justify giving billions in foreign aid to countries involved in foreign wars, while Canadians suffer at home, is something I find difficult to understand. Imagine what we could do in Canada with a billion dollars.But wait. After politicians, administrators and contractors get their hands on that billion, how much would actually reach those in need? Those in need might end up seeing very little of it. Okay, Joe, if this stands true, then could we also question whether the billions we give to foreign countries are subject to waste, mismanagement or corruption? Take Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Various estimates and claims have circulated publicly concerning his personal wealth to the tunes of millions. How could this be? Wait a minute.If his country is at war, would you not think that he would invest everything possible in his cause? Instead, he visits countries such as Canada and the United States seeking billions of dollars in support.What is wrong with that picture? On the other side of that international coin, we are constantly distracted by fears of a possible world war and the threat posed by Russia. Now, let's get something clear. If Russia has struggled to take over a neighbouring country, what makes people believe it could easily expand a war across continents?We as Canadians need to stop living in fear. We need to seriously address our own social problems. We need to take control of our country. We need educated, knowledgeable and well-versed people to lead.As it stands, no matter the party, too many politicians appear to be in it for themselves. If they suffer from the same political habits and attitudes, how can we expect a different outcome? You hear talk of elites wanting to create a "global village."I think not.I personally envision a future in which governments could, one day, be assisted or even administered in part by Artificial Intelligence entities. These entities would receive human input from people around the world, while decisions could theoretically be based more heavily on logic, evidence and facts rather than personal interests, ignorance or political bias. Of course, such a system would raise enormous questions about accountability, ethics, human rights and who ultimately controls the technology. Still, it makes you wonder. Could AI become part of the medicine for our social neurosis? What do you think?

From Investment Summit to Global Strategy: Canada Must Deliver

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The first Canada Investment Summit, held in Toronto on September 14 and 15, was more than an investment conference. Combined with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s subsequent diplomatic activities in Europe and at the United Nations, it revealed an emerging national strategy: attract capital, accelerate major projects and diversify Canada’s economic relationships during an escalating tariff conflict with the United States. The summit produced an impressive headline, nearly $500 billion in investment and financing commitments. Investors from almost 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, attended. Canadian pension funds, insurers and institutional investors committed almost $100 billion. Canada’s major banks promised nearly $325 billion in financing. Bell and Saskatchewan proposed a $52.5-billion artificial-intelligence infrastructure hub, while other funds pledged billions for Canadian technology and infrastructure. These numbers are encouraging, but they require careful interpretation. Bank financing is not the same as direct investment. Money available for lending has not necessarily been allocated, and some projects remain conditional on customers, regulatory approvals, electricity supplies and supporting infrastructure. The summit’s success must therefore be measured by what happens next. The government should report regularly on how much capital is actually invested, which projects reach construction, how many permanent jobs are created and how much Canadian ownership and intellectual property are retained. Prime Minister Carney also introduced the Productivity Mega Deduction. It will allow businesses to deduct immediately the cost of a wider range of investments, including mining properties, pipelines, software, fibre-optic cables, aircraft, railways, roads and research. The government estimates that the measure will reduce Canada’s marginal effective tax rate on new business investment from approximately 13 per cent to 6.4 per cent, less than half the corresponding American rate. That could become a significant Canadian advantage as tariffs disrupt established North American supply chains. However, tax incentives cannot compensate for regulatory paralysis. Investors need predictable decisions, sufficient electricity, skilled workers and reliable transportation. Carney’s proposed standard of “one project, one review, one year” is therefore essential. Faster reviews must not mean abandoning environmental protection, constitutional responsibilities or meaningful Indigenous participation. It means coordinating governments, eliminating duplication and reaching clear decisions within reasonable timelines. Immediately following the summit, Carney travelled to Liverpool and Strasbourg. In an address to the European Parliament, he proposed an “alliance for the future” between Canada and the European Union, one extending beyond the existing Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The proposed alliance would include critical minerals, energy, defence production, artificial intelligence, advanced computing, space, digital trade and financial services. Canada would contribute resources, energy and technological expertise. Europe would offer manufacturing strength, research capacity, investment capital and access to a market of approximately 450 million people. The initiative is strategically important, but it remains a proposal. Some European governments have responded cautiously, preferring fuller implementation of CETA to an undefined form of Canadian associate membership. Several EU members have still not fully ratified CETA, while agricultural regulations and differing standards continue to restrict trade. Canada should therefore concentrate on achievable objectives: completing CETA ratification, recognizing compatible standards, facilitating digital commerce, securing critical-mineral agreements and expanding opportunities for Canadians to study, work and conduct business in Europe. In Liverpool, Carney met British Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Canada formally applied to join the Joint Expeditionary Force, while the two leaders discussed energy, artificial intelligence, critical minerals and defence-industrial cooperation. Canada is also participating as an observer in the Global Combat Air Programme and considering modernization of British military training at CFB Suffield. These initiatives demonstrate that defence and economic policy are increasingly connected. Canadian defence spending should not simply purchase finished equipment from foreign manufacturers. It should help develop Canadian engineering, aerospace, shipbuilding, cybersecurity and advanced-manufacturing capacity. Participation in European defence programs could give Canadian companies access to larger markets while strengthening national security. Carney subsequently met French President Emmanuel Macron in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. Their discussions covered aerospace, energy, critical minerals, satellites, quantum technology and supercomputing. He also met Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, emphasizing energy, Arctic security and strategic cooperation. France and Norway are natural partners. France is a major European power with strong cultural and defence connections to Canada. Norway, like Canada, is an Arctic democracy and important energy producer. Both relationships could support Canada’s attempt to become a more significant energy, technology and security partner for Europe. At the United Nations General Assembly, Carney continued presenting Canada as a dependable international partner and stable destination for investment. His agenda included meetings with political leaders and investors, international cooperation and reform of the United Nations. Canada’s diversification strategy is also expanding toward Asia. Trade negotiations with the Philippines and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are reportedly more than 90 per cent complete. Ottawa hopes to conclude agreements by November. Southeast Asia offers rapidly growing markets for Canadian energy, agriculture, critical minerals and technology. Canada’s developing Pacific liquefied-natural-gas industry could provide Asian countries with greater energy security while reducing Canadian dependence on the American market. Diversification, however, does not mean abandoning the United States. Geography, shared infrastructure and deeply integrated industries ensure that the United States will remain Canada’s largest trading partner. Canada should be ready to resume negotiations when a fair agreement becomes possible. However, it should not accept terms that weaken its sovereignty or sacrifice strategic industries simply to recreate yesterday’s relationship. As Carney said following the summit, “nostalgia is not a strategy.” Neither are counter-tariffs a permanent strategy. They may be necessary to demonstrate resolve and defend Canadian producers, but tariffs ultimately increase costs for businesses and consumers on both sides of the border. Canada’s most effective response is to become more productive, develop alternative markets and reduce the leverage of any single foreign government. The government must also protect the national interest as it pursues investment. Public incentives should not become unlimited subsidies for private corporations. Proposed airport concessions must preserve public ownership, national security and reasonable passenger fees. Critical minerals should not simply be extracted and exported. Canada must develop domestic refining, processing and manufacturing. Artificial-intelligence data centres must create Canadian jobs, companies and intellectual property—not merely consume Canadian electricity while foreign firms capture the profits. Trade diversification also requires physical infrastructure. Canada needs expanded Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic ports, improved railways, new pipelines and energy corridors, stronger electricity grids and additional nuclear generation. International agreements accomplish little if Canadian products cannot reach global markets competitively. Internal trade barriers must also be removed. Canada cannot credibly seek freer commerce with Europe and Asia while maintaining unnecessary restrictions on goods, services and professional qualifications between its own provinces. The Investment Summit and Prime Minister Carney’s subsequent diplomacy represent an encouraging change in direction. Investment, infrastructure, defence and foreign policy are beginning to form a coherent national strategy. However, commitments are not completed projects, and diplomatic declarations are not commercial results. Canada must now move from announcements to execution. Our future will not be secured by choosing Europe over the United States. It will be secured by building sufficient economic strength to cooperate with both while remaining subordinate to neither.

Why We Celebrate World Homeless Day of Homelessness

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support Every year on October 10th, communities around the world recognize World Homeless Day. It is a day to acknowledge people experiencing homelessness, raise awareness about the causes and realities of homelessness, and, most importantly, remind ourselves that housing is not simply a roof over someone's head but the foundation from which people can begin to rebuild their lives. For organizations like DARS — Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support — World Homeless Day is an opportunity to bring an issue that is often overlooked into the centre of the community conversation. Homelessness can happen to people for many different reasons. A person may lose employment, experience a relationship breakdown, face rising housing costs, leave an unsafe home, struggle with untreated or unsupported challenges, or simply find that there are no affordable housing options available when they need them. For some, homelessness is a sudden crisis. For others, it is the result of years of instability. What is important to understand is that homelessness is not an identity. It is a circumstance. Behind every statistic is a person with a history, relationships, skills, hopes and the potential to contribute to their community. A home is the beginning, not the end... When we talk about homelessness, the conversation often focuses on emergency shelters, warming centres and the immediate need for a safe place to sleep. Those services are essential. They save lives but emergency responses alone cannot solve homelessness. A person needs more than a bed for one night. They need a pathway forward. That pathway may include affordable housing, income support, employment, education, health services, food security, transportation, mental-health or addictions supports, community connections and someone who will help them navigate the system. At DARS, we see every day how important that continuum of support can be. Our work is grounded in the belief that people need opportunities to stabilize their lives, develop routines, build relationships and ultimately move toward safe and secure housing. Sometimes that means meeting someone where they are at; with food, hygiene services, outreach or a safe place to stay. Sometimes it means helping someone obtain identification, complete an application, connect with a landlord or navigate community services, post secondary education, a new career or another meaningful facility. And sometimes it means creating a different kind of housing opportunity altogether because one size shoe does not fit all. This is why World Homeless Day matters. It encourages us to look beyond the immediate crisis and ask a more difficult question: Homelessness is not something that can be solved by one organization, one level of government or one sector of the community. It requires collaboration with our counterparts in he sevtor as well as those we serve.. Municipalities, provincial and federal governments, landlords, developers, nonprofits, churches, businesses, healthcare providers, community organizations and individual residents all have a role to play. It also requires us to consider how we use the spaces and resources already available in our communities. World Homeless Day is about hope World Homeless Day is sometimes described as a day to recognize homelessness. I believe it should also be a day to recognize possibility. We should recognize the person who moved from a warming centre into permanent housing. The individual who found employment after years of instability. The person who obtained identification, opened a bank account and signed their first lease. The tenant who finally has a place to call home and the stability to begin planning for the future. These moments may seem small to some people. They are not small to the people experiencing them. World Homeless Day gives us an opportunity to challenge assumptions, listen to people with lived experience and recognize that homelessness is a community issue that requires community solutions. Most importantly, it reminds us that everyone deserves the opportunity to have a safe place to call home. At DARS, we believe that housing is the beginning of a journey, not the finish line. When we provide people with safety, stability, dignity and the support they need, we create the conditions for people to move forward. On October 10, let us recognize World Homeless Day not only by acknowledging the problem, but by asking what each of us can do to be part of the solution. Join DARS on October 10th from 2-4pm at our Transitional Farm House - 690 Third Concession Rd., Pickering where we will recognize the homeless situstion in Durham Region, celebrate the achievemns and bring HOPE together and towards great POSSIBILITIES

I wanted to bring something to your attention

I wanted to bring something to your attention regarding the Pickering Professional Firefighters Association’s endorsements in the 2026 municipal election that I believe warrants some straightforward journalistic scrutiny. The PPFA has been publishing “Official Endorsement” announcements for members of the current Pickering Council, including Mayor Kevin Ashe, Regional Councillors Linda Cook and David Pickles, and City Councillors Mara Nagy and Shaheen Butt. What initially concerned me was that I had never been contacted by the Association despite being a certified candidate for City Councillor in Ward 2. I have since gone considerably further. I personally contacted the current certified candidates in Pickering to determine whether the PPFA had approached them as part of an endorsement process. According to the candidates I contacted, none of them had been interviewed or even contacted by the PPFA. That is what I believe makes this worth investigating. The City's certified candidate list shows how substantial the field is. Just in the five races represented in the PPFA posts I reviewed, there are 19 certified candidates: seven candidates for Mayor, three for Regional Councillor Ward 2, two for Regional Councillor Ward 3, five for City Councillor Ward 2 and two for City Councillor Ward 3. Yet I have found no evidence of a candidate interview process, questionnaire, policy survey or even introductory outreach to the candidates before these endorsements were announced. That does not mean the PPFA is prohibited from endorsing incumbents. An association is entitled to make political endorsements and may have reasons for relying on incumbents' records or its previous dealings with them. But I believe the public deserves to know what “Official Endorsement” actually means in this case and how those decisions were reached. This question is particularly relevant because the PPFA is not simply another community organization. It represents Pickering's full-time firefighters in its employment relationship with the Corporation of the City of Pickering. The City's own 2026 Budget Highlights specifically identified an ongoing collective bargaining process aimed at renewing the City's agreement with the Pickering Professional Firefighters Association. That fact does not suggest anything improper by itself. It does, however, make transparency about the Association's political endorsement process particularly relevant. The individuals elected to Council make decisions involving City budgets, staffing priorities and municipal administration, while the Association represents employees of that same municipality. There are some very basic questions the PPFA could clear up. What was the endorsement process? Were any candidates interviewed? Were questionnaires sent out? What criteria were used? Were the decisions made by the executive or voted on by the membership? Were non-incumbent candidates considered at all? Were endorsements based on voting records, previous dealings with Council, responses to particular firefighter issues, or something else? There is another fact worth noting: contacting the candidates would not have required extensive investigative work. The City of Pickering maintains a public certified-candidate directory containing campaign websites, email addresses, telephone numbers and social-media information for many of the candidates. I am not asking the newspaper to accept my conclusions. In fact, I would encourage you to independently verify what I found. Contact the PPFA and ask how these endorsements were determined. Then contact the other certified candidates and ask one simple question: “Before the Pickering Professional Firefighters Association announced its 2026 election endorsements, did anyone from the Association contact you, interview you, send you a questionnaire or ask you about your positions?” If the answer across the candidate field is what I have been told, I think there is a legitimate public-interest story about what process — if any — existed behind these “Official Endorsements.” The issue isn't whether firefighters are allowed to support incumbents. Of course they are. The issue is what evaluation occurred before a respected community organization attached its name and credibility to political endorsements — and whether the public understands how those endorsements were actually determined.

River Of Life

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

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

Living Below Their Means

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

Dead and Gone… The First Job

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

Your Nose Knows More Than You Think

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

When Did Conservatism Stop Meaning Respecting the Taxpayer?

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

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

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