Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered?

Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a question many families ask, often quietly - sometimes sitting together after everything has already happened. “Would it have been easier if this had already been arranged?” They are usually talking about prepaid funeral plans. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand what those plans actually do - and what they don’t. From the outside, prepaid arrangements sound simple. You make decisions ahead of time. You pay in advance. When the time comes, everything is taken care of. In some ways, that is true. But like many things connected to funerals, the details matter more than people expect. A prepaid plan is not always a single thing. Some plans lock in specific services and prices. Others simply set aside funds that will be used later. Some are guaranteed. Others depend on how costs change over time. Those differences are not always obvious at the beginning. I have spoken with families who believed everything had been taken care of, only to discover later that certain items were not included. Not because anyone did something wrong. But because the plan did not cover everything they assumed it would. I’ve seen the look when they realize it wasn’t as clear as they thought. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady enough to ask one simple question: “What exactly is included?” Not just generally. Line by line. Does the plan include transportation? Paperwork? Staff services? Facilities? Is it tied to a specific funeral home? Are third-party costs included, or will those be separate later? Those questions matter more than the label “prepaid.” There is another part that can be confusing. Portability. Many prepaid plans are connected to a specific provider. If someone moves, or if the family prefers to use a different funeral home, transferring the plan is not always straightforward. Sometimes it can be done. Sometimes there are limitations. If I were gone, I would want my family to know where the plan applies - and what happens if circumstances change. I would also want them to understand something that is not always talked about directly. A prepaid plan can reduce decision-making. It does not remove it completely. Even when arrangements are set in advance, the family still makes choices when the time comes. Dates. Timing. Small details that were not part of the original plan. I have seen families feel relief knowing certain decisions were already made. I have also seen families feel unsure about whether to follow the plan exactly, or adjust it. If I could leave one quiet message, it would be this: Do not feel bound by a plan in a way that adds pressure. A prepaid arrangement is meant to guide, not to create stress. There is also the financial side. Many people choose prepaid plans to protect their family from rising costs. In some cases, guaranteed plans do lock in pricing. In others, the funds set aside may not keep pace with future costs. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand whether the plan is guaranteed, or simply a contribution toward future expenses. I would also want them to know where the funds are held. In Ontario, prepaid money is typically placed in trust or backed by insurance. That structure exists to protect families. Still, it is reasonable to ask how the plan is funded and how it will be accessed when needed. If I could leave one practical suggestion, it would be this: If a prepaid plan exists, review it. Not just once, and not just when it is purchased. Look at it again over time. Make sure it still reflects what is wanted. And make sure someone else knows it exists. Because a plan only helps if the people who need it can find it and understand it. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel supported by whatever had been arranged - not surprised by it. Preplanning can be a gift. But its value depends on how clearly it is understood. Next week, I will write about something many families hesitate to start: how to have a conversation about funeral wishes without it feeling uncomfortable or overwhelming.

Could Air Travel Be Any Worse?

Could Air Travel Be Any Worse? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Air travel isn’t what it used to be. “Getting there” is no longer half the fun. It’s an exercise in survival. We’ve achieved incredible feats in aviation. Yet somehow, we’ve lost our way when it comes to intercontinental travel. Flying back to Toronto from Tokyo, I looked with envy at the business class seats as I shuffled with many other annoyed passengers to the back of the craft. Then, with everyone seated, an allergic reaction to something caused serious trouble for a flight crew member, delaying departure for two hours. We sat there at the gate, squished in, wishing, praying, we were somewhere else. It’s a conundrum. Because travelling is important. I’m convinced the world would be a better place if we all had more experience making friends in faraway places. For one thing, it’s a lot harder to bomb, starve, or otherwise destroy the lives of people if you have shared time together and truly understand each other. Is there anything we can do to reverse the dehumanizing trajectory of air travel? Airlines might be more motivated, frankly, if more people were dying as a result of their service. But deaths on flights are rare – around 1 per 5 million passengers. Remarkably, I’ve been on an international flight where this happened. We made an emergency landing in Rome, resulting in an all-night international dispute about which country would be responsible for the deceased. Trust me, you don’t want someone to die on your flight. Maybe more of us almost dying would be the ticket. But I’m not sure, because we have already become our most indecent selves as it is. And the airlines don’t seem to care. They jam us into impossibly cramped spaces. They serve horrendous food. I’ve seen flight attendants ignore people calling out for water, or mercy, in the rare moment they pass by. Aviation technology has made it easier to fly across the planet. But never have we all been more miserable doing it. Physically, what happens to your body when you fly? Fluid builds up in the lower legs due to lack of movement, water retention from salty food, and lower cabin pressure. Dry cabin air causes dehydration. Jet lag disrupts sleep, digestion, and mood. Infections spread readily. Pressure in the ear and sinus cavities can be intense at take-off and landing. It’s all bad, but not bad enough to counter the economic forces driving efficiency considerations. Corporations crush social well-being, even as they pretend to care about it. Passengers leave decent behaviours at the airport check-in curb. We cope by ignoring each other. We glue our eyes to screens. We get anxious and annoyed with every inconvenience. We don’t acknowledge the person sitting right beside us as we recline our seat into the face of the person behind us. My flight home was made worse by turbulence that prevented the crew from providing service. We eventually got a meal, but no drinks, precisely when a little alcohol might have eased the frustration. On the bright side, research shows it is possible to offset unhealthy circumstances with healthy behaviours. For example, following up with exercise, healthy meals and hydration, and social time with friends can blunt the negative effects of long flights, drinking excessively, or missing sleep. I have little hope flying is going to get any better. But if travel can increase empathy and broaden perspective, then perhaps that’s why, despite cramped seats, lost luggage, and endless lines, millions of people keep boarding airplanes every day. Somewhere on the other side of the discomfort is the reward of discovering the world.

Bans Versus Boundaries Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage

Bans Versus Boundaries Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Social media is something engraved into the lives of billions of people around the globe, practically unavoidable in daily life. These platforms have many benefits, as they are an accessible tool for connection, communication, entertainment, and self-expression. Despite these benefits, it also presents many challenges and consequences, especially for young users. Adolescents continue to engage with social media, despite the obvious consequences, and they will continue using it unless meaningful and strong actions are done to prevent it. For teens, social media is more than just an app, it’s part of a shared routine. It offers instant connection with friends and a sense of belonging; when an individual cuts off social media, it can feel isolating, as they are also cutting off the connection. At an age where these simple relationships feel critical, easy connection seems almost essential, and social media provides that. Additionally, it acts as an easy booster for self-esteem, as likes, comments, and shares can feel incredibly rewarding. Social media also provides easy, endless entertainment through short-form content, which can feel difficult to step away from. It is a quick source of dopamine, influencing individuals to rely on it as an instant mood-booster. These benefits often blind teens from the consequences of social media, which are otherwise hard to ignore. Heavy social media use is often connected to increased anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and an overall increase in stress among teens. The online world is one of highlights and perfection, which creates an unrealistic standard which teens struggle to meet. They doubt their appearance, experiences, or talents simply because they don’t mirror the content behind the screen. This pressure and comparison negatively affects mental health for individuals of all ages. Additionally, the algorithms which control these platforms are designed not just for entertainment, but entrapment, as they hope to keep users scrolling for as long as possible. Without noticing, teens easily lose hours of their days online, ruining their mood, mental health, relationships, and overall well-being. These consequences are not new, and not unknown. For years, psychologists have been worried about the impact of social media, especially on adolescents. The new research isn’t about the issue, it’s about the solution. Recently, governments around the world have begun to respond, each with different ideas of how to save teens from the addictive media. Countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom are introducing social media bans for youth, only allowing individuals above a certain age to create accounts. While this is a step forward, it does not seem to be a total solution. Enforcing total bans or age limits is practically impossible, and many teens will find ways to bypass restrictions. Some countries, such as Brazil and France, are focusing on tighter regulations instead of a total ban. Governments and tech companies have implemented stricter rules regarding data privacy, parental controls, and company accountability. This recognizes the unavoidable role social media has on modern life, and understands that completely removing it is unrealistic. It hopes to decrease the unavoidable consequences while still allowing young people to benefit from online connection. However, even these regulations may be difficult to maintain, and will not solve the problem entirely. One of the biggest challenges with digital limitations, whether they be a total ban or a partial restriction, is that they are easy to get around. This is not the first time social media apps have tried to limit users or content, as they have previously included birthday verifications or screen time limits. They have existed for years, yet most teens find loopholes and continue scrolling. In fact, restricting something too heavily often makes it more appealing for a young audience. As the guidelines and controls get more intense, so will the attempts to overrule them. Ultimately, social media is not entirely good or entirely bad, even for adolescents. It can be used as a platform for connection and expression, or one of comparison and anxiety. While it has many real risks for young users, a complete ban altogether is unlikely to be a solution, as it sacrifices the many benefits, and may fail at reducing teen usage. A more effective approach may lie in balance. This includes implementing partial restrictions, holding companies accountable, and educating young users about online habits. As social media continues to evolve and further integrate itself into daily life, society must also adapt to ensure it remains a safe and positive space for the younger generations.

According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre

According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist In 2023 there were over 62,000 reported fraud victims. Seniors in Canada are getting bilked out of more than $500 million every year. It is estimated that as many as one in five seniors have lost money to fraudsters and most don’t report it. Even though seniors today may be mentally sharper than ever, they are still the con artists’ favorite target because they generally have more disposable cash and are often more trusting. Also, with our population living longer, there are more elders in their 80’s and 90’s who are vulnerable because they live alone, have a certain level of memory loss and can be confused or frightened by slick scammers. Scam artists try their tricks on all age groups, but some of their cons they focus on seniors. Here are a few common scams targeting seniors: Grandchild-in-trouble – Henry gets a call from what sounds like a grandson asking for some urgent financial help. Apparently traveling far from home, he needs bail money or emergency car repairs and asks for a wire transfer. In a nasty new twist, crooks knew some things about the grandchild and used a software tool to impersonate their voice. They were told their grandchild had been kidnapped and demanded payment of ransom. Cunningly, the crooks earlier called the grandchild on their cell phone, impersonating the phone carrier, and asked them to turn it off for a maintenance check. Protection – Wire payment or Bitcoin is the dead give-away. Never send money before confirming the grandchild’s whereabouts and call police. Phony bank official – Anne was bilked out of more than $15,000 when she thought she was helping her bank catch a thieving teller. She was instructed to withdraw a large sum of cash from her account and deliver it to the ‘bank official’ at a mall in her neighborhood. He was well dressed and assured her that the funds would be deposited back to her account. Anne was told not to tell her bank because they didn’t want to tip-off the teller, and he was able to get her to make two more withdrawals. Protection – Do not give any personal information to someone claiming they represent your bank. Call the police. Scareware – Shortly after David and Gail got their first computer; a message appeared on their screen telling them it was infected with a virus. They were invited to download a program for a small charge, giving the fraud artist their credit card information. Protection – First thing, have Internet security software from one of the big-name providers installed. Set it to update regularly and ignore the phony pop-up messages.

On The Road Again

On The Road Again By Wayne and Tamara I have been married almost two years to my second husband, and we were together almost five years before we got married. We are truck drivers and work together so there is never alone time. My husband is mentally abusive and has been for a long time. He puts his ex-wife before me. Our income used to be half and half, and now it seems like it is all his. I don’t get a say in how or when it is spent. His bills come first. I am constantly told I’m stupid, worthless, and can’t do anything on my own. The list goes on and on. I look at my husband now, and I don’t like what I see. He looks at pornography on the internet daily, and I have caught him writing to other women. He says I am making it all up. He is also a lazy person who won’t even get up to get his own drink. Deep down all I want to do is leave. Gina Gina, this is the picture we get from your letter. You and your husband are long-haul truck drivers, living in the sleeper of your truck, driving day and night as you crisscross the United States. It’s a hard life and a hard job, and when you add emotional abuse to it, it becomes impossible. Most people believe that those who are rude or abusive or cruel need to change. Tamara doesn’t take that view at all. She believes jerks have the right to be jerks. Why? Because if you had the right to change your husband, he would have the right to change you. And a man like that would have already written us asking how to transform you into what he wants. You are holding your hand in a fire. Until you accept that you are the one who needs fixing, you won’t pull your hand out. But you are fortunate because you have a driving skill which is always in demand. You could go anywhere. Establish a home base, even if it is only a furnished room, and explore with an individual counselor why you are willing to accept abuse in your life. Jerks get to be jerks, and that is perfectly all right. What they don’t get to do is ruin our lives. Pull your hand out of the fire. Wayne Pants On Fire My boyfriend told me he broke up with his ex-girlfriend six months ago when he moved her back to her house. He has been working and living with me in another city since. He seems to have an answer for every question, and the only thing I really know about him is what he tells me. I admit I did jump into this relationship quickly. I recently found out he calls her every day. He is supporting her 100 percent. I also saw part of an email where he said he loved her and can’t wait to come home with her. He claims he did not know why he sent the email, and he denies everything else. He tells me he loves me and wants a life with me. Do you see any hope for our relationship? Stephie Stephie, should we repeat your words back to you? You got into this too quickly. One of the worst things you can say about someone is they have an answer for everything which satisfies nothing. That’s a character flaw and a marker for a person who is self-centered and untrustworthy. Some of us don’t have the temperament to fire another, no matter how much they need to be fired. If you can’t argue with his silver tongue, after you tell him he is moving out, block out his words by singing a song to yourself. The one we suggest begins, “Hit the road, Jack, and don’t you come back no more no more no more.” Tamara

Job Ads Without Salary Information Are Business Opportunities

Job Ads Without Salary Information Are Business Opportunities By Nick Kossovan LinkedIn is flooded with job seekers complaining that many job ads don't mention salary. While their frustration is valid, publicly criticizing the lack of compensation transparency wastes mental energy and doesn't look good to recruiters and hiring managers. Do complainers genuinely believe their posts and comments will influence employers, who aren't spending their time on LinkedIn reading comments—except perhaps when assessing a candidate's LinkedIn activities to decide if they're interview-worthy—to overhaul their hiring process? Controversial digital footprints negatively affect job seekers more than they realize. While you're free to say, or write, what you want, you're not free from the consequences of what you say. I understand that work isn't a hobby, and pay is important. However, in fairness to employers, there are many reasons why they might choose not to include compensation details in their job ads or ask applicants for their salary expectations, a few being: · Seek candidates motivated by fit over money. While this line of thinking contradicts why people work, it's understandable that employers want workers who are enthusiastic about the job, not just the paycheck. · Avoid salary questions from current workers. It's common for employers to have salary disparities among their employees. · Avoid wage wars with competitors. Employees who contribute measurable value to their employers' profitability are often on the lookout for higher pay, especially in higher-level professional circles. · They'll get stuck at the top of the salary range. If a candidate is offered a starting salary near the lower end of the range, they might feel disgruntled before even beginning the job. · More diverse applicants. In some cases, salary isn't listed because the employer is willing to pay even more for a truly exceptional candidate. From personal experience, I know that salary ranges are meant for average applicants, but if an ever-so-rare 'must-hire' candidate comes along... Whether you agree with the reason(s) or not isn't the employer's concern, nor is it their concern that omitting salary details in job ads can seem like a power move to pay as little as possible—an unsubstantiated narrative that job seekers tend to promote. The employer's closed-door reasoning for not including salary in their job postings isn't the job seeker's concern. It's because job seekers are hyper-focused on what they can't change, which, in this case, having employers list a salary or a small gap between the minimum and maximum salary pay range in their job posting, that they're overlooking a huge business opportunity. Stay with me; what I'm about to explain will require a shift in your mindset—letting go of any limiting beliefs you might have about employers' motives, along with any frustrations and anger you have towards them, which recruiters and hiring managers can sense. Employers whose job postings don't mention compensation often (no guarantee) are willing to negotiate salary; a skill most job seekers lack and, for some reason, refuse to learn. My advice: Name your salary expectation and stick to it! I've never accepted a job where I wasn't comfortable with the salary; consequently, I've never been the employee who constantly complains about not being paid enough. Whenever a recruiter or employer contacts me, which, thanks to my writing of The Art of Finding Work, occurs frequently, I make it a point to inquire within the first five minutes what the compensation plan is, where the job is located, and how the role fits with the employer's bottom line. (Is the job essential to the employer's success or just a 'nice to have'?) Growing up, I was taught that employees are free agents providing services; essentially, each employee operates as a business of one. I came to understand that an employee doesn't own their job; their employer does. This understanding led me to adopt the view that by making my salary requirement non-negotiable—rather than having expectations or desires like most job seekers—I controlled my salary, not the employer. By waiting for an "offer" from the employer, you give them too much leverage. State your salary requirement, and see what happens. "But Nick, what if I'm too expensive?" Do you want to work at a job where you're constantly feeling underpaid? You deserve to feel satisfied with your salary. Don't be salary-guilt-tripped or salary-benchmarked. Your attitude should be: "Yes, I may be expensive; however, here's how I can impact an employer's bottom line." You probably noticed that I’ve overlooked the crucial part of securing the salary you want, which most job seekers fail to do. You must justify your compensation request (salary, paid time off, benefits, paid sick days, perks, bonus, profit sharing, etc.) by demonstrating the value you can bring to an employer’s profitability. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, job hunting is a sales activity, and interviews are sales meetings based on the core sales principle: features tell, benefits sell. There'll always be job postings without salary information, or with a ridiculously large salary range. How you react—how you spend your mental energy—is a matter of choice. You can get frustrated, angry and publicly condemn employers, which, as mentioned, hurts your job search, or say to yourself, "I'm a business of one! I’m going to prove my worth and name my salary!"

Breaking: Canada Facing a Growing Repair Skills Crisis

Breaking: Canada Facing a Growing Repair Skills Crisis By Dale Jodoin Columnist Across Canada, a quiet problem is starting to appear in neighbourhoods, small towns, and even large cities. It is not a dramatic crisis that makes the evening news. There are no flashing lights or emergency sirens. But the signs are there if you look closely. A loose fence that never gets fixed. A deck board curling up after winter. A broken gutter hanging for months. A small repair that once took an hour now waits for weeks. For many Canadians this may seem like a small issue. But behind these small problems sits a much larger concern. Canada is slowly losing a generation of people who know how to repair things. The country is entering what many trades workers quietly call the repair gap. For decades, the backbone of home repair in Canada came from the Baby Boomer generation and the group sometimes called Generation Jones. These Canadians grew up in a time when fixing things was normal. If something broke, you did not replace it. You repaired it. Many of these skills started in school. High schools once had strong shop programs. Students learned woodworking, metal work, basic electrical work, and small engine repair. They learned how to measure, how to cut properly, and how to work safely with tools. Those lessons did not end in the classroom. At home, young people often watched their parents repairing the family car, patching roofs, fixing lawn mowers, or rebuilding a broken fence. It became part of daily life. Many people took pride in knowing they could solve their own problems. For that generation, fixing something yourself was more than saving money. It was a point of pride. It showed independence and responsibility. Today many of those skilled homeowners are retiring. Some are selling homes they have cared for over forty or fifty years. Others are moving into smaller houses or retirement communities. Some are simply no longer able to climb ladders or handle heavy tools. As they leave those homes behind, a new generation is moving in. But many younger Canadians did not grow up with the same training. Generation Z, the group now entering adulthood, grew up in a different education system. Over the past few decades many schools removed shop classes. Wood shops closed. Auto repair programs disappeared. Welding programs were reduced or eliminated. The focus shifted heavily toward computers, testing, and university preparation. Technology became the future. Young Canadians today are extremely capable with digital tools. They can build websites, edit video, manage social media businesses, and troubleshoot computer problems quickly. But digital skill does not always translate into practical repair ability. Ask many young homeowners how to repair a loose railing or replace a faulty switch and the answer is often the same. They were never taught. This is not a criticism of the younger generation. It is the result of education choices made over many years. When governments removed practical training from schools, they removed a key path where young Canadians learned how to work with their hands. The effects are now being felt across the country. Canada is currently experiencing shortages in many skilled trades. Electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics, appliance repair technicians, and construction workers are in high demand. In some communities it can take weeks to schedule basic repair work. Part of this shortage comes from retirement. Many experienced trades workers are leaving the workforce at the same time. Another part comes from a lack of new workers entering those trades. To fill the gap, many companies are turning to skilled immigrants who already have strong repair and construction experience. These workers arrive from countries where trades training remains a major part of education. They bring valuable knowledge and strong work habits. Their work helps keep homes maintained and infrastructure running. In many cases they are filling jobs that currently do not have enough Canadian workers. However, their presence also raises an important question. Why did Canada stop preparing its own young people for these roles? Many experts believe the answer lies in the slow disappearance of trade education in schools. Over time shop programs were considered outdated or unnecessary. Education systems focused more heavily on academic pathways and university preparation. The result was a generation highly trained in digital technology but less experienced in hands on repair. There is another factor making repairs more difficult today. Modern products are often designed in ways that prevent easy repair. Phones contain sealed batteries. Appliances rely on locked software systems. Even farm tractors sometimes require special computer tools before repairs can be made. This has led to a growing public movement known as the right to repair. Supporters believe that if consumers buy a product, they should have the ability to repair it themselves or choose an independent repair shop. They argue companies should provide access to parts, manuals, and software tools needed for repairs. Farmers, mechanics, and small businesses across North America have strongly supported the right to repair legislation. They argue it restores independence and reduces waste. Canada has begun discussing these laws, but many advocates believe stronger action is needed. Beyond legislation, there is growing discussion about rebuilding trade education. Many educators and industry leaders now support bringing back practical training in schools. Modern shop programs could teach woodworking, electrical basics, mechanical repair, and construction skills alongside digital technology. This approach would not replace academic education. Instead it would balance it. Not every student needs to become a trades worker. But every student should understand basic repair skills that help them maintain their homes, vehicles, and equipment. Those skills also support local economies. When repairs happen locally, money stays in local communities. Hardware stores benefit. Small repair businesses grow. Local trades workers find steady work. Rebuilding these skills could strengthen both the economy and community independence. The discussion now moves beyond education alone. Citizens across Canada can raise this issue with city officials, provincial representatives, and federal leaders. They can ask for stronger support for trade schools, apprenticeship programs, and right to repair laws. Public policy often begins with public conversation. Canada was built by people who understood how to build and repair the world around them. Those practical skills helped create strong homes, reliable infrastructure, and resilient communities. Many Canadians believe those skills should remain part of the country’s future. The challenge now is making sure the next generation has the opportunity to learn them. Because once the last of the old fixers finally put down their tools, someone else will need to pick them up.

Mr. X Files: Walkable Communities and Unshakeable Freedoms

Mr. X Files: Walkable Communities and Unshakeable Freedoms There has been significant debate recently regarding "15-minute cities." Depending on the perspective, the phrase represents either sensible urban planning or something more concerning. In truth, the concept is neither new nor controversial when viewed through the lens of traditional urban design. The core idea is simple: residents should be able to access everyday services—groceries, parks, schools, and shops—within a short walk or bike ride from home. This planning reduces traffic, strengthens local businesses, and improves quality of life. Many historic Ontario towns were built this way long before the term was coined, with homes and services existing in close proximity. The current controversy stems less from urban planning and more from a decline in public trust. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of extraordinary federal powers, such as freezing bank accounts, raised serious concerns about the extent of government authority. These concerns regarding civil liberties and the foundational trust between citizens and government must not be dismissed. It is important to clarify that municipal planning policies for walkable neighbourhoods are not intended to restrict movement or control daily lives. Local governments manage infrastructure and services; they do not control citizen mobility or possess the authority to interfere with personal finances. To restore confidence, the path forward must combine good planning with strong protections for civil liberties. Governments must reinforce the principles of freedom of movement and financial security. This means establishing clear legal safeguards ensuring that no government can freeze a citizen's bank account without a court order tied to a criminal conviction or formal legal proceeding. When civil liberties are legally protected, debates about urban planning can focus on their true purpose: building convenient, healthy, and vibrant communities. Walkable neighbourhoods are about expanding choice, not limiting it. Residents should be able to walk to a park or local shop while remaining free to travel and live without government interference. Good communities are built on both thoughtful planning and personal freedom; one should never come at the expense of the other. By strengthening the protections Canadians expect for their financial and civil liberties, discussions about neighbourhood design will become far less divisive. Our goal should be simple: communities that are easy to live in and a country where freedoms remain firmly protected.

GIBERSON SHOULD STICK TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PRIMARILY ‘THE CIRCUS’

GIBERSON SHOULD STICK TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PRIMARILY ‘THE CIRCUS’ By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Who is that Gumby of Giberson... How do people get elected to office with little or no real life experience. For those that read my column on a regular basis will know how critical I am of politicians. Oshawa was a beautiful place. A peaceful and affordable place to call home. I been your Editor for the past 30 plus. I have seen administration come and go. Unfortunately, quality of life has been deterioration at an alarming rate. The downtown our pride and joy had been handed over for the past 10 years to a city councillor with little or no life experience at best a third rate musician. At the region for the same downtown ward. We have an ex-educator/actor... One would think we would vote in a local business person. Someone with a title and or proven track record. Well, Derek Giberson had almost 10 years to do something and has done nothing. Worst, he is indirectly/directly responsible for the open drug use and drug trade in our city core. Just this past week as to pretend he is doing something. Giberson posted on line: Derek Giberson is with backdoor mission in Oshawa. (Same Mission that is responsible for allowing a the dispensing and consumption of narcotics from it’s property.) Another Housing Townhall, another night with over 100 people in Oshawa showing up because they believe things can be better. The undeniable truth is that the status quo is failing too many people: workers, seniors, students... so many who have been caught in this housing affordability crisis. (THIS GUY IS INSANE... ‘THE STATUS QUO’. Did he forget that he is the one that was elected to do something about it. No, instead he attempts to pass the responsibility of others... This is the same guy that does not return his city newspaper messages and or many of his constituents. But 2026 is an election year and he is once again attempting to sell pipe dreams...) And the brilliant Dr. Carolyn Whitzman showed us with evidence and clarity the policies failures and government inaction at all levels that got us here. Yes, the brilliant.... Carolyn Whitzman is a Canadian urban planner, community activist and author. Another words... A pipe dream maker. He continues in his post - But we also got to imagine what different could look like. Giberson and his pipe dreams have to go. We need real leaders that will improve the quality of life for all and keep our taxes at ‘0’. People commented on his post... Don Rockbrune Did you have a representative from the provincial government there to explain what they are doing to fix the system? It largely is a provincial issue that directly affects municipalities…. THE ANSWER IS NO. OUR LOCAL MPP AND MP NO WHERE TO BE FOUND. Michelle stated... So Derek barely answers emails or calls from his constituents, yet suddenly, just a month and a half before his municipal campaign starts, he’s holding a town hall? Give me a break. Giberson has been known to attack using taxpayers time and money local businesses on bogus allegations. He has so many failures under his belt that local merchants throw him out of their businesses. This is the same GUMBY that allowed the waste of 10 million dollars on a downtown park. HE HAS TO GO. VOTERS DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE.

Canada’s Trade Diversification Imperative: From Dependency to Strategic Resilience

Canada’s Trade Diversification Imperative: From Dependency to Strategic Resilience by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East For generations, Canada’s prosperity has been built on trade. Our vast geography, rich natural resources and skilled workforce have positioned us as one of the world’s great trading nations. Yet despite this global reputation, the structure of Canada’s trade remains remarkably concentrated. Roughly, three quarters of our exports still flow to a single partner: the United States. Our economic relationship with the United States is not only natural—it is essential. Geography, shared infrastructure, integrated industries and the framework of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) have created the most successful bilateral economic partnership in the modern world. Canadians should celebrate this relationship, not diminish it. Hovewer, reliance is not the same as resilience. In a world increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, supply chain disruptions and economic nationalism, Canada must confront a strategic question: Can we maintain our deep North American integration while building a more diversified and resilient global trade network? The answer must be yes—and the time to act is now. As a former Member of Parliament who served on national committees dealing with defence, industry and international affairs, and as an engineer trained to think in systems rather than slogans, I see Canada’s trade challenge as fundamentally structural. Our economy has become comfortable exporting raw materials southward while importing finished goods or higher-value technology. That model was sufficient in the twentieth century. It will not sustain Canada’s prosperity in the twenty-first. Trade diversification is not about turning away from the United States. It is about strengthening Canada’s strategic autonomy while reinforcing our role as a trusted partner within the democratic world. Three pillars should guide this national effort. First, Canada must move up the value chain. For decades we have exported timber instead of advanced wood products, crude oil instead of refined fuels, and minerals instead of the technologies built from them. The emerging global demand for critical minerals—lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper and rare earth elements—presents Canada with an extraordinary opportunity. However, exporting raw ore is not a strategy. The real value lies in processing, refining and manufacturing. Electric vehicles, battery systems, small modular nuclear reactors and clean energy technologies will define the industrial landscape of the coming decades. Canada possesses the resources, the engineering expertise and the political stability required to anchor these supply chains. What we lack is a coherent national strategy that integrates mining, manufacturing, research and infrastructure. Second, we must build the infrastructure required for global trade. Canada’s geography should be an advantage, not a constraint. We are the bridge between the Atlantic and Pacific economies, between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Yet our transportation corridors, ports and energy infrastructure remain underdeveloped relative to our potential. Rail capacity to the West Coast remains strained. Port expansion projects face years of regulatory delays. Energy export infrastructure has become mired in political paralysis. In engineering terms, the system is under-dimensioned for the load we expect it to carry. If Canada wishes to diversify trade toward Europe and the Indo-Pacific, we must invest in strategic corridors: modernized ports, resilient rail systems, reliable energy networks and secure digital infrastructure. Trade agreements alone cannot move goods. Infrastructure does. Third, Canada must strengthen its domestic economic foundation. One of the most overlooked barriers to trade diversification lies not at our borders but within them. Internal trade barriers between provinces continue to fragment the Canadian economy. Different regulations, licensing regimes and procurement rules restrict the free movement of goods, services and labour within our own country. For a federation that prides itself on economic openness, this reality is both ironic and costly. Removing these internal barriers would expand Canada’s domestic market, increase productivity and create stronger national supply chains capable of competing globally. In effect, Canada must first become a truly unified economic space before fully projecting its strength abroad. Trade diversification also carries a strategic dimension that Canadians cannot ignore. The global trading system is undergoing profound change. Economic coercion, technology competition and the weaponization of supply chains have become common tools of geopolitical rivalry. Democracies must respond not by retreating from trade but by building networks of trusted partners. Canada is well positioned to contribute to this effort. Our trade agreements with Europe through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and with the Pacific through the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) provide a strong foundation. Yet these agreements remain underutilized by Canadian industry. Government policy must therefore shift from simply signing trade agreements to actively enabling Canadian companies to use them. Engineers are trained to understand redundancy. Critical systems are designed with multiple pathways so that a single failure does not cause collapse. Canada’s trade architecture should follow the same principle. Diversification is not an act of economic nationalism. It is an act of economic prudence. As someone who served both in the Canadian Armed Forces and in Parliament, and being a designated Professional Engineer, I have always believed that national security and economic strength are inseparable. A country that depends excessively on a single market—however friendly that partner may be—limits its strategic flexibility. Canada does not need to choose between North America and the wider world. Our task is to build a model in which strong continental integration coexists with global reach. The objective is simple: a Canada that trades confidently with the United States, competitively with Europe, and dynamically with the Indo-Pacific. Achieving this will require political leadership, industrial vision and long-term infrastructure planning. It will also require Canadians to think of trade not merely as commerce but as strategy. Canada has the resources, the institutions and the talent required to succeed. What we need now is the determination to transform our trading nation from one defined by dependency into one defined by resilience. The twenty-first century global economy will reward countries that build diversified partnerships and secure supply chains. Canada should be among them.

Tiny Fish Offer Great Nutrition

Tiny Fish Offer Great Nutrition Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones This week, I write from Tokyo, where small fish are eaten with remarkable regularity. A traditional Japanese breakfast includes such fish – salted, dried, grilled and served cold – consumed head-to-tail, bones, eyeballs and all. Small sardines are tucked into lunch boxes. Convenience stores sell little fish for snacking. It’s common to add sardines or mackerel to spaghetti sauce. Eating little fish is a way of life. What is it about little fish? A large Japanese cohort study following more than 80,000 adults for roughly nine years found that people who regularly consumed small fish had significantly lower risks of death from all causes and from cancer, particularly among women. Even modest intake of just a few times per month was associated with measurable reductions in mortality. Nutrition science offers an explanation. Small oily fish, such as sardines and anchovies, are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, along with minerals and high-quality protein that support cardiovascular, brain, and bone health. Emerging evidence suggests regular sardine consumption may also improve insulin response and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. Eating the head, bones, and organs means the Japanese are consuming concentrated micronutrients such as calcium and vitamin A that are largely lost when fish are filleted. Westerners throw that nutrition away. A reader recently reminded me of the Japanese word kuchisabishii, translated literally as “lonely mouth”. It describes eating out of boredom, not hunger. But if mindless snacking is the need, then little dried and crunchy fish are a great choice. A modelling study published in BMJ Global Health estimated that replacing some red-meat consumption with forage fish – species such as sardines, anchovies, and herring – could prevent up to 750,000 premature deaths annually by 2050. These fish are exceptionally nutrient-dense, and in comparison to any other animal protein, have among the lowest environmental footprints, if one can say that of fish. In North America, seafood choices tend to centre on large predatory fish such as salmon and tuna. These species are popular and nutritious, but they are also more expensive, accumulate more contaminants over long lifespans, and require greater ecological resources. Meanwhile, vast quantities of small forage fish are processed into animal feed. There is a practical challenge, however. Achieving the levels of omega-3 fatty acids associated with cardiovascular benefit – particularly EPA and DHA – requires consistent intake. For many North Americans, eating small oily fish several times a week is a stretch, whether because of taste preferences, access, cost, or habit. For that reason, supplementation can be a sensible adjunct. A high-quality fish oil provides concentrated, purified omega-3s without requiring major dietary overhaul. Readers can find the fish oil recommended by W. Gifford-Jones, MD, Certified Naturals Omega3X, in natural health food stores. It has earned the recommendation because it delivers high levels of EPA and DHA in a purified form that is tested for contaminants and formulated to enhance absorption. None of this calls for dramatic change. It may simply mean replacing meaty meals with modest, more frequent servings of small fish. Imagine a tin of sardines on whole-grain toast, anchovies folded into pasta, or herring added to a salad. Frequency is better than occasional large portions. Tokyo’s markets do not advertise their bountiful fish sections with signs proclaiming “Eat fish. Lower the risk of death.” But would it be a crime to encourage people to think about their mortality when grocery shopping? Fresh or tinned, little whole fish are affordable, accessible, and ordinary. Perhaps that is the lesson. Healthful patterns tend to endure when they are woven quietly into daily life, rather than announced as resolutions.

Why the Quietest Costs Sometimes Surprise Us

Why the Quietest Costs Sometimes Surprise Us By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario Most families expect to talk about big things after someone dies. The service. The paperwork. The decisions that need to be made right away. But if I were gone, I would want my family to be prepared for something smaller - the quiet costs that appear without warning. Not the price of a casket or the fee for cremation. I’m talking about the costs that slip in around the edges. Parking at the cemetery. Extra death certificate copies because someone forgot how many banks or institutions would ask for one. An obituary notice that ends up twice as long as expected - because the words matter more when you’re trying to say goodbye. These are not the first costs people plan for. They show up later, quietly, and sometimes feel more personal than practical. If I were gone, I’d want my family to know these things aren’t mistakes. They’re just part of what happens when people are trying their best to honour someone they love. The lunch afterward might feel small in comparison to the service - but it matters when people sit together and share stories. The printed cards, the flowers delivered late, the rush courier to send papers across the province - these things are often about more than logistics. They are about care. And yes, they add up. That’s what surprises some families the most. They budgeted for the core service. They compared funeral homes. They asked good questions. But a few days later, the extras begin to show up. And often, they are paid without question - because it feels like the right thing to do. I have spoken with many families who later asked themselves the same thing: “Did we spend too much?” If I were gone, I would want my family to know that asking that question does not mean they did something wrong. It means they’re human. Grief has a way of making generosity feel urgent. We want to do right by the people we’ve lost - even if it means stretching ourselves in the moment. Still, I would want them to know it’s okay to pause. To ask whether that delivery charge is necessary. To take a breath before upgrading something no one asked for. And if someone says, “This will only be another hundred dollars,” I would want them to feel free to say, “Let me think about it.” Because every small cost feels manageable on its own. It’s only later, when the receipts are gathered, that people realize how quickly it all added up. That realization shouldn’t bring shame. It should bring clarity for the next time - for another family, or for another conversation. If I could leave one reminder, it would be this: The way someone is remembered does not depend on the extras. It depends on how they were loved. No one sits at a memorial and says, “The parking was free, so it must have meant less.” No one judges the depth of someone’s grief based on how many flowers arrived. So if I were gone, I would want my family to spend carefully, but not guiltily. And to know that the small things they chose - or chose not to do - will never define how I am remembered. Next week, I’ll write about something that confuses many families: how prepaid funeral plans actually work, and what to watch for when comparing options.

Most Canadians

Most Canadians By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Most Canadians want to pass their life savings on to their heirs. The assets remaining once retirement needs are met will be distributed more effectively if there is a properly prepared will detailing the deceased’s wishes. Many people mistakenly believe that this issue is far in the future. Preparation of a valid will and its related estate planning considerations should be the cornerstone of a proper estate plan. Whenever there is a change in circumstances, the will should be reviewed and updated as needed. Despite good intentions, far too many people die without having a valid will. The will is a legal document that details the process for distributing the deceased’s assets in an orderly and tax-efficient manner. More importantly, the will documents the way the individual intended to have their estate administered. There are two main purposes of making a will. The first is to document the intentions of the person making the will (testator) as to their choice of beneficiaries, the recipients of their assets. The second purpose is to appoint the executor, whose role it is to make sure the creditors of the deceased are paid and to disperse the remaining assets according to the terms of the will. Anyone who has a spouse or children, obligations from a prior relationship, or is simply concerned about how their property will be distributed after their death should make a will. Although there are do-it-yourself will kit and software packages readily available, using the services of a legal advisor is highly recommended. What you may think is a simple estate may actually have complexities that cannot be properly addressed without legal help. If someone dies without a will (intestate), it may require going to court before the assets can be distributed. Without a will, personal property will be distributed according to the laws of the province in which the testator lived when they died. Real estate will be dealt with based on the intestacy rules of the province in which the property is located. Guardians for minor children will be appointed by the courts. Special-needs family members may not receive the same priority by the courts as the testator might wish. Without a will, the court will appoint someone to take care of your estate. The time taken by the court to appoint an administrator will cause a delay that can trigger cash flow problems for your family. Remember, until an appointment is made, no one has the legal authority to touch your estate. Dying intestate can also result in needless taxation and other fees leaving less for your beneficiaries. Have a Proper Will – because it’s the right thing to do!

Goals or Memories - The Importance of Stepping Outside the Comfort Zone

Goals or Memories - The Importance of Stepping Outside the Comfort Zone By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every day, we are faced with opportunities for new experiences and exciting risks. Our daily routines constantly present chances to change through small decisions, yet we rarely choose to take them. Too often, we follow the path which is easy and convenient instead of one that offers excitement and growth. What feels like the safe option can instead lead to stunted potential and missed moments, all because of fear and a need for comfort. Risks and opportunities come with unknown consequences, which can feel impossible to ignore. It makes sense why we often refuse unusual experiences, as they are so separate from our ordinary. So, we stay close to the normal which we know, instead of the rewards or consequences which are unknown. The unusual uncertainty can turn into fear, which can lead to inaction and stagnation. Too often, we sit and think about the prospect until it passes by us before we can make a final decision. The most obvious cause of this loss of opportunities is the fear of failure. Whether the experience be social, educational, or related to employment, nothing is guaranteed. A new friendship may not last, you might not make the school team, or might not receive the promotion. The possibility of disappointment prevents us from trying in the first place. Sometimes we may even fear acceptance, worrying it may not meet our expectations, or could lead to regret later. Additionally, it can be easy to get caught up in the opinions of others when faced with new options. We are not only afraid of our own disappointment, but also that of people around us. We fear judgment, criticism, and misunderstanding from people who may not value the experience as much as we do. When outside opinions begin to overshadow our own, our personal goals can quickly become blurred and forgotten. We rarely recognize these motivations for decline at the moment. Instead, we create alternative reasons to decline opportunities, such as a busy schedule, lack of background knowledge, or not wanting to do it alone. We constantly find excuses for ourselves. We don’t want to do it alone, we’re too busy, or we don’t have the skills. Although these excuses may feel valid, we use them as a shield to prevent us from dealing with the bigger issues, such as our fear or stagnation. These day-to-day choices of comfort and complacency may feel small in the moment, but they add up to a life filled with goals instead of memories. We get stuck worrying about failure, and forget to ask what happens if we succeed. What first seems like a leap of anxiety can instead be an avenue for memories, growth, and adventure. Through this success, new friends can be made, new skills learned, or further opportunities unlocked. The only thing preventing this from happening is fear, which must be pushed aside in pursuit of development. Although I often find myself worrying about the “what-ifs” of new opportunities, I still choose to try them. I have applied for jobs, drama productions, and extracurricular activities even when they felt like unrealistic longshots. Many of those longshots helped shape who I am today, showing the importance of taking a leap of faith. Even when an opportunity does not turn out exactly as expected, or when we fall short, there are still valuable lessons to learn. When I first applied to my school’s Student Administration Council, I was not accepted. Instead of letting that disappointment stop me, I used the experience as motivation and a lesson in collaboration, communication, and leadership. The following year, I applied again and was accepted. Today, I serve as the council’s vice president, all because I decided to take a chance on that first interview years ago. The only way to learn, grow, and develop is by leaving our comfort zones and trying something new. One day, I know I will be looking back and reflecting on my past, and I know what I hope to see; a life full of memories, not goals. One where I joined countless clubs, applied for countless jobs, and met countless people. A life lives not in fear and comfort, but in meaningful risks and irreplaceable growth.

Home Court Advantage

Home Court Advantage By Wayne and Tamara My husband and I were married this weekend in Las Vegas. At the wedding dinner my mother-in-law leaned across the table and started cutting my husband’s steak! I was mortified. The next day we met my parents and his parents in the lobby bar for a soda before we headed for the airport. My mother-in-law pulled out a velvet bag and tossed it to my husband. It was a bracelet for him. I should mention I bought him a nice watch for a wedding gift, and he showed it off the previous day, our wedding day. When we returned home, my sister and I had a brief argument the way sisters do. But when I turned around my mother-in-law was making fun of me to my sister. I stormed out, calmed down a bit, and then told my sister how much she had hurt me. She told me my mother-in-law said she should give me the “Boy Scout salute” and held up her middle finger. I let my mother-in-law know unequivocally I knew what she said and so did her son. She gave us the cold shoulder and this continues 48 hours later. My husband keeps saying “she’ll come around,” “just wait and see,” and “that’s just the way my mom is.” I would never let my mom treat my husband like that. I’d call her out on it and tell her it was unacceptable. Rachel Rachel, you could try to put your personality on a back shelf and accommodate your mother-in-law, or you could have a knock-down, drag-out fight with her for possession of her little boy. The first course is not likely to work because when real change comes, it comes from within not from without. The second course may work, but it poses an opportunity and a danger. Your mother-in-law has known your husband longer than you have, and she is part of the development of his psyche. On the other hand, since it appears he married a woman like his mother, he might yield to the stronger woman. The danger is that you will start resenting him for not being a real man in your life. Sons who want to be treated like men don’t let their mother treat them like a 2-year-old, while sons who like being treated like boys do. It will be no fun playing strict parent to your husband and being the third wheel in your own marriage will exhaust you. The final possibility, of course, is your husband is so laid-back he doesn’t care what his mother does. What is missing here is the pre-story. How much did you know before the wedding? If you didn’t realize until the wedding dinner what you tied yourself to, a divorce attorney can ensure that what happened in Vegas will stay in Vegas. Wayne & Tamara Between Friends I just found out my girlfriend is pregnant from a text message while watching a movie with my wife. I don’t know what I’m going to do. Please help me do the right thing. And yes, the girlfriend knows about my wife. They are friends. Gus Gus, what is the right thing? Your girlfriend gets to take her friend’s husband by using a baby? Two women should fight over a man neither one can trust? Your wife should remain with a man who cheats on her? Once the time for doing the right thing passed, it became a matter of trying to patch up the wrongs. Two wrongs will never make a right, and it’s too late for you to be a stand-up guy. These two women have shared more than any two friends should ever share. Arrange a calm sit-down with all parties, and let each person decide what is right for them. Get this done now because each day you sit on the problem is another deception.

Municipal Interests - As Simple as ABC

Municipal Interests - As Simple as ABC A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist One of the most interesting things about municipal politics is how simple it is to become a candidate, and how difficult it is to actually win. The basic requirements to run for municipal council are surprisingly straightforward. A candidate must be 18 years old, be a Canadian citizen, and either live in the municipality or own or lease property in the municipality in which they choose to run. In many ways the system is designed this way on purpose. The local government is meant to be accessible to ordinary everyday citizens who care about their community and are ready to step forward and serve. While the qualifications to run may be simple, earning the confidence of the voters is another matter altogether. Running a successful campaign requires time, energy, and a genuine connection to the community, People want to know who you are, what you stand for and perhaps most importantly, if you truly understand the issues that matter to them in their neighbourhood. Municipal politics is often less about political ideology and more about practical leadership. Voters tend to look for candidates who are visible in the community, approachable and willing to listen. They look for someone who understands the day-to-day concerns of the residents, whether that involves roads and infrastructure, responsible growth and development, property taxes, or simply maintaining the services that make the community function well. Name recognition can also play a role. Candidates who have already been involved in community organizations, volunteer work, local business or neighbourhood initiatives often begin with an advantage because people know them and trust their commitment to the community. Running for council also requires a willingness to put yourself out there. Campaigns involve meeting residents, attending community events, knocking on doors, answering questions and sometimes facing criticism. It takes a significant investment of time and energy, often for many months leading up to election day. At the end of the day, voters are not simply choosing a name on the ballot. They are choosing someone they believe will represent their interests and make thoughtful decisions on behalf of the entire community. Municipal government is the closest level of government at the people, and the choices made at the council table can shape the future of a city for many years to come.

Who Told You to Spend Time Tailoring Your Resume?

Who Told You to Spend Time Tailoring Your Resume? By Nick Kossovan Spend time on LinkedIn, and you’ll notice the self-proclaimed “gurus” preaching about tailoring your resume for every job you apply for. Repeating themselves endlessly, they promote the unsubstantiated self-serving narrative that if job seekers don’t customize every bullet point of their resume to match the keywords in a job description, their application will vanish into the black hole of the Applicant Tracking System (ATS). Charlatan-like career coaches and influencer-wanderers love endlessly evangelizing the resume “tailoring” myth because it validates their service, which relies on job seekers’ vulnerability. Their goal is to make job hunting seem complicated and labour-intensive, so you’ll pay them to help you navigate the job market. However, while you’re spending your time playing “keyword bingo,” rearranging your resume for the umpteenth time this week, you’re missing the forest for the trees. Following wrong advice, which is usually self-serving, wastes your time and money. The harsh reality—which I’ve repeatedly stated in The Art of Finding Work columns—is that employers don’t care about your ability to mirror their job description. Employers care about one thing and one thing only: Can you add value to their profitability? Can you make them money? Can you save them money? Can you make their operations more efficient? If you’re not clearly answering these questions, which most job seekers aren’t, in a no longer than 2-page resume, no amount of “tailoring” will get you an interview. If your resume and LinkedIn profile don’t clearly show how you added value to your previous employers, you’re choosing to remain unemployed longer. Instead of creating twelve versions of a mediocre resume, create one stellar resume. Create a “Master Value Document” that shouts, “I improve an employer’s profitability!” When a recruiter or hiring manager reviews your resume, they aren’t looking to see if you used the words “synergy” or “team-player” because they were in the job posting; they’re looking for evidence that you understand the bottom line. Most resumes are essentially a list of "who gives a sh*t" responsibilities. "Responsible for managing the budget." "Handled customer inquiries." That's not a resume; it's a job description in the past tense, not a way to convey your value to an employer. When it comes to capturing the reader’s attention and helping them picture your value to their company, your bullet points must be “value-add,” using quantifying numbers (numbers are the language of business) to highlight your results, not just your tasks. No value: Led a team of 10 inside sales reps. Value-Add: Scaled inside sales team revenue from $8.5M to over $12M by coaching 10 reps on asking open-ended discovery questions, increasing the 2025 close rate by 45%. No value: Reduced company expenses in the shipping department. Value-Add: Decreased LTL (Less-Than-Truckload) costs by 18% ($65k/year) by consolidating 12 regional carriers into 3 primary strategic partners. No Value: Managed 5 customer service agents. Value-Add: Boosted customer retention 20% by architecting an automated FAQ system that cut resolution times by 70% (from 48 to 14 hours). No value: Created marketing materials for a variety of social media platforms. Value-Add: Designed a “Flash Sale” story series that generated $18k in attributed revenue within 48 hours, achieving a 6.5x Return on Ad Spend (ROAS). No value: Managed help desk. Value-Add: Lowered support cost-per-ticket by 22% ($15 to $11.70) by migrating 40% of inquiries to a self-service AI chatbot. Notice the difference? In each of these examples, the employer can see how the candidate contributes to a universal concern among employers: financial health. Whether you’re applying to a tech startup or a 100-year-old manufacturing firm, profitability and efficiency are always in style. You may be thinking: “But Nick, what if the job is slightly different? Don’t I need to show I have specific skills?” That’s what your LinkedIn profile is for. Think of your resume as your "Value Executive Summary." It's your hook. Your LinkedIn profile, however, is your digital portfolio, where you have more room to explain the "how" behind your value. Use your LinkedIn "About" section to tell your career story. Use the "Featured" section to link to projects, testimonials, or presentations that demonstrate your expertise and value-add. If a recruiter is impressed by your value-packed resume, they'll go straight to your profile, which your resume provides a link to, to get a full picture of your career, value-add, and what your LinkedIn activity looks like (read: can you manage your emotions). Maintaining one high-impact resume and a robust LinkedIn presence will not only save you hours of soul-crushing “I hope these edits will get me an interview” work; it’ll position you as a specialist in achieving results that impact an employer’s profitability. Don’t worry about being the “perfect fit” for a mythical robot; that’s not universally programmed the same way. Hyper-focus on showing employers that you’re a “profitable choice.” Write one resume. Make it about the money. Use your LinkedIn profile to expand on your value-add and show how you think. Most importantly, stop letting the “gurus” rent space in your head with their manufactured complexity, trying to sell you aself-serving lie because a simple truth—that one value-driven resume is all you need—doesn’t make them money.

A warning Canada should hear

A warning Canada should hear By Dale Jodoin Columnist A warning has come out of the Vatican, and whether people are religious or not, it should make them stop and think. The message is simple. Christians are now being described as the most persecuted religious community in the world. Archbishop Ettore Balestrero, speaking in Geneva on March 3, said almost 400 million Christians around the world face persecution or violence, and nearly 5,000 were killed for their faith in 2025. Vatican News and Open Doors both point to the same broad picture, saying more than 388 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination worldwide. That is about one in seven Christians. That number is so big it can feel distant. It should not. Behind it are real people. Families. Churches. Children. Workers. Old people trying to pray in peace. Some are attacked with open violence. Some are jailed. Some are driven from their homes. Some lose jobs, safety, or standing in their community because of what they believe. The Vatican’s point was not only that Christians are being killed. It was that persecution also comes through false detention, seizure of property, forced exile, and pressure that makes people afraid to live openly by their faith. That matters because many people still think persecution only counts when it is bloody and obvious. They picture mobs, burned churches, gunmen, or prisons. Yes, that is part of it. But the quieter forms matter too. A person can be punished without being dragged off in chains. A society can weaken freedom little by little, until people learn to keep their beliefs to themselves. That is often how decline begins. Not with one loud moment, but with a slow change in what people are allowed to say in public without fear. This is the part that should concern Canadians. Canada likes to believe it is above that kind of danger. We tell ourselves we are calm, fair, and balanced. We like to think the ugly things happen somewhere else, in countries with obvious corruption or open hatred. But history is full of places that thought they were too decent to lose their way. Free countries do not usually change overnight. They change step by step. First comes the language. Then the rules. Then the pressure. Then people begin to understand, without being told directly, that some beliefs are welcome in private but risky in public. That is why Bill C-9 deserves attention. Bill C-9 is called the Combating Hate Act. It is now before a House of Commons committee. Parliament says it would amend the Criminal Code on hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places. The federal Justice Department says the bill would create offences tied to intimidation and obstruction at places such as houses of worship, create a specific hate motivated crime offence, add a definition of hatred to the Criminal Code, create an offence for publicly displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols to wilfully promote hatred, and remove the need for Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid. Now, a fair person should admit this right away. Some parts of that bill sound reasonable. Most Canadians would agree that nobody should be intimidated on the way into a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, school, or community centre. Most people would also agree that real violence and clear threats should be taken seriously. The government says the bill is aimed at serious conduct, not ordinary disagreement, and its Charter statement says the law is supposed to target extreme detestation or vilification, not simple dislike or mere offence. Still, that is not the end of the story. Laws are not judged only by how they are introduced. They are judged by how they can be used later, especially when the mood changes. The same Charter statement says Bill C-9 engages freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, liberty, and bail rights. That should tell Canadians something important. Even the government knows this law touches core freedoms. Once the state gives itself stronger tools around speech, motive, and legal definitions of hatred, people have a right to ask where that road leads. This is where many Christians, and many civil liberties supporters too, get uneasy. In Canada, the line between hate and strongly stated belief has already become a battle zone. Traditional Christian views on marriage, sexuality, gender, sin, and morality can now bring public backlash very quickly. In that kind of climate, some people fear new hate tools will not stay aimed only at obvious extremists. They fear those tools will slowly expand outward. First a complaint. Then an investigation. Then a lesson is sent to everybody else watching. Stay quiet. Soften your words. Keep your faith inside the walls. To be clear, Bill C-9 does not say Christians are the target. It does not openly attack churches. The concern is different. It is that Canada may be building a legal and cultural climate where traditional religious belief is treated with growing suspicion. That kind of shift rarely arrives with a drumroll. It comes through policies, complaints, workplace rules, school standards, tribunal language, and public pressure. It comes dressed as safety and fairness. But if the result is that believers become afraid to speak plainly about what their faith teaches, then something vital has already been lost. This is why the Vatican warning should not be treated as a faraway church story. It connects to a bigger truth. Freedom of religion does not mean very much if it only protects silent belief. Real freedom means a person can live by that faith, speak it, teach it, and bring it into public life without being treated as a threat. Once that right starts shrinking, the damage does not stop with Christians. It reaches everybody. Rights that only protect approved views are not really rights at all. They are permissions handed out by whoever holds power at the time. Canada is not yet a country where Christians are being rounded up for their faith. That is true. But it would be foolish to think freedom can only be lost in dramatic ways. Often it is worn down more quietly. A sermon gets flagged. A speaker is cancelled. A teacher is disciplined. A pastor gets a visit. A believer learns the cost of speaking too clearly. By then, the law may still look tidy on paper, but the culture has changed under people’s feet. That is the warning here. Around the world, Christians are already paying a terrible price. Canada should be learning from that, not drifting toward its own softer version of the same mistake. People do not need to panic. They do need to pay attention. By the time a country admits faith has become a problem in public life, the damage is already well underway.

Municipal democracy is not just about votes

Municipal democracy is not just about votes. It is also about conversation. The Municipal Severance Loophole Nobody Talks About. In municipal politics, there are many policies that sit quietly in the background—rarely discussed, rarely questioned, and often assumed to be functioning exactly as intended. But every once in a while, when you look closely at the language of these policies, you discover something remarkable: a structural oversight that has been hiding in plain sight for years. One such issue exists within the severance policies governing elected officials in many municipalities, including the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham. On its face, the policy appears straightforward and reasonable. Councillors who leave office receive severance calculated as one month of remuneration for every year of service. The rationale behind this type of policy is not difficult to understand. Municipal councillors often dedicate years—sometimes decades—of their lives to public service. Unlike many private sector positions, elected officials do notaccumulate pensions in the same way and do not enjoy traditional job security. Severance provisions are therefore often framed as a modest bridge between terms of office, providing a transition cushion as individuals move back into private life. But when we examine the policy more carefully, a fundamental question emerges. What happens when a councillor leaves office, collects severance, and then returns to serve again? The current language of the policy, at least as publicly understood, does not appear to address this situation directly. It simply provides that a councillor is entitled to one month of remuneration for each year of service upon leaving office. What it does not explicitly clarify is whether previous severance payments are taken into account if that individual later returns to council. This seemingly small omission opens the door to a scenario that many taxpayers would likely find surprising. Consider the following example. A councillor serves ten years in office. At the conclusion of their time on council—whether through electoral defeat or voluntary retirement—they receive severance equal to ten months of remuneration. At that point, the policy has functioned exactly as intended. But suppose that individual decides to return to politics a few years later. They run again, win a seat on council, and serve another term or two. When they leave office a second time, the policy once again calculates severance based on years of service. If the policy does not account for prior severance payments, that individual could potentially receive another full severance payout for the subsequent period of service. In other words, the policy could allow multiple severance payouts to the same individual over the course of their political career. To be clear, this situation is not necessarily the result of wrongdoing by any councillor. Elected officials operate within the rules that are established by the municipality. If the rules permit multiple severance payouts, then those payouts occur because the policy itself allows them. The issue, therefore, is not about personalities or individual councillors. It is about policy design. Most modern compensation frameworks—whether in the private sector or the broader public sector—contain safeguards to prevent this type of repeated severance exposure. Organizations typically address the issue through one of several mechanisms. One approach is the lifetime cap. Under this model, severance payments are limited to a maximum amount—often twelve months of remuneration—over the course of an individual’s entire service history. Once that cap is reached, no additional severance can be paid. Another approach is the prior payment deduction model. In this system, any severance previously received is deducted from future entitlements. For example, if a councillor previously received six months of severance and the policy allows a maximum of twelve months, the most they could receive in the future would be the remaining six months. A third method involves defining severance strictly in terms of continuous service immediately preceding departure from office. Under such a structure, if an individual leaves council and later returns after a break in service, their earlier tenure does not accumulate again toward severance calculations. Some municipalities have adopted an even simpler solution: severance may only be paid once to any individual regardless of the number of separate terms served. Each of these approaches addresses the same core principle—ensuring that severance functions as a transitional support mechanism rather than a recurring benefit. Without such safeguards, severance policies can begin to resemble something they were never intended to be: a form of episodic compensation tied to electoral cycles rather than genuine employment transition. Why does this matter? Municipal government operates on public trust. Every dollar paid in compensation, benefits, or severance ultimately comes from taxpayers. Even when payments are legally permissible under existing policies, the perception of repeated severance payouts can undermine confidence in municipal governance. In an era when municipalities are asking residents to absorb higher property taxes, infrastructure levies,and development charges, transparency and discipline in compensation policies become especially important. The solution to this issue is not complicated. A simple amendment to the severance policy could read as follows: “For the purposes of severance entitlement, cumulative severance payments to any individual shall not exceed twelve months of remuneration over the course of their service to the municipality. Any severance previously paid shall be deducted from future entitlements.” Such language would immediately close the loophole while still preserving the original purpose of severance—to provide reasonable transitional support for those leaving public office after meaningful service. Importantly, this type of policy reform is not punitive. It does not target current councillors, nor does it diminish the value of public service. Instead, it aligns municipal compensation frameworks with widely accepted governance standards. Good policy should anticipate real-world scenarios. It should account for the fact that political careers are rarely linear. Councillors may step away from office and later return. Electoral outcomes can change over time. Policies should therefore be robust enough to handle those realities without creating unintended financial exposure. At its best, municipal governance is about stewardship—of infrastructure, of community resources, and of taxpayer dollars. Reviewing compensation policies through that lens is simply part of responsible administration. Sometimes the most important governance reforms are not dramatic. They do not involve billion-dollar infrastructure projects or sweeping legislative change. Sometimes they are as simple as tightening a few lines of policy language to ensure that the rules operate exactly as intended. The severance framework governing municipal councillors may well be one of those cases. And as with many issues in municipal government, the first step toward improvement is simply asking the question.

If You Can’t See It, You Can’t Stop It Why Ontario’s Democracy Is in Danger

If You Can’t See It, You Can’t Stop It Why Ontario’s Democracy Is in Danger When those in power decide the public no longer has the right to see their decisions, the first thing to disappear is trust. That is exactly what Ontario’s Conservative government is proposing with changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If these changes pass, cabinet ministers, political staff, and even the premier’s office could operate entirely out of public view, hiding emails, messages, and communications from the citizens they are supposed to serve. This is not a small administrative change. This is a fundamental attack on democracy. The people making the decisions that shape land, finances, communities, and programs would be shielded from scrutiny. Citizens would have no way of knowing what deals are made, what advice is given, or who benefits. Decisions that should be public could vanish behind closed doors, leaving the public entirely in the dark. I am profoundly disappointed in Premier Doug Ford for even considering this. After scandals have already emerged under his government, one must ask: what is left to hide? What conversations with developers, lobbyists, and well-connected insiders are happening right now that the public will never see? Why would any government want to operate in secret unless they are avoiding accountability? Freedom-of-information requests are the only reason Ontarians know the truth about past scandals. Without them, we would never have discovered the Greenbelt scandal here in Pickering, where decisions about protected land enriched private interests. We would not have learned about the ArriveCAN contracts that raised troubling questions, or the WE Charity student grant program mismanagement. These were not minor missteps—they were decisions made in secrecy, affecting millions, and in some cases, benefiting private interests while the public paid the price. And make no mistake: without FOI laws, this pattern would continue unchecked. Ministers could meet, communicate, and direct policy behind closed doors, with no accountability. Citizens could never know if decisions are made for the public good or for special interests. That is not government. That is power without responsibility. That is corruption, in the broadest sense, and it is what transparency laws are designed to prevent. The problem is not limited to Queen’s Park. Across Ontario, citizens are using FOI requests to understand how their local governments operate. In Pickering, residents have challenged the city over incomplete responses, while record-retention policies are being changed, leaving citizens wondering what is being withheld and for how long. These are not abstract concerns. They are a warning about what happens when power is hidden from the people. Democracy does not survive in the shadows. Every conversation, every email, every note from a minister, every meeting with a developer or lobbyist should be accessible to the people who elected them. Public office is not private property. It is a public trust. If governments are making decisions in the public interest, why hide them? If there is nothing to hide, why reduce access to records? When transparency is limited, suspicion flourishes. When accountability disappears, corruption can thrive. And when citizens cannot see, they cannot stop it. Ontarians should not accept a system where power operates in secret. We deserve the right to ask questions, to see the evidence, and to hold those in power accountable. Every conversation that shapes policy, every deal that impacts communities, every decision that affects public funds belongs to the people. Not to ministers. Not to political staff. Not to special interests. The question we must all ask ourselves—and our government—is this: why are they hiding? What are they hoping we never see? And what else is happening behind those closed doors that will affect our communities, our land, and our lives? Because if the public cannot see it, they cannot stop it. And a government that the people cannot see is no longer a government for the people—it is a government for itself.