The Changes We Didn't Notice

Dead and Gone… The Changes We Didn't Notice By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how often families are caught off guard by changes that happened long before they noticed them. This seems to happen most often after a long illness or a period of care-giving that lasted for months or years. During that time, people's attention is naturally focused on what is directly in front of them. Appointments need to be attended. Routines need to be maintained. Problems need to be solved. Most families become very good at adapting to whatever the situation requires. What makes this interesting is that change is usually gradual. Very few people wake up one morning and decide they are going to stop travelling, stop seeing friends as often, give up a hobby, or reorganize their schedule around someone else's needs. Most of the time these things happen one adjustment at a time. A trip is postponed, a weekly activity is skipped, a standing lunch gets cancelled, or a routine commitment quietly falls away. None of it feels particularly significant in the moment, nor is it because life has simply rearranged itself. The longer a situation continues, the more normal those changes begin to feel. What started as an adjustment becomes a routine. And what started as a temporary accommodation becomes part of everyday life. With a little time, most people stop noticing the changes altogether because the new version of life no longer feels new. Then eventually the situation changes. At first there are other things requiring attention. Arrangements need to be made, maybe paperwork needs to be completed. Families are focused on all of the immediate concerns, and it is often weeks or months later that people begin noticing something else. A trip that was postponed never happened, a favourite hobby that disappeared was never replaced, good friends who used to stop by regularly have not been seen in years, the regular visit to their favourite restaurant that fell out of the routine. I t will be different for everyone but the common thread is what surprises people is not that these things changed. What surprises them is how completely the changes blended into everyday life while they were happening. I think that realization can be tough to describe because it is rarely attached to a single moment. More often it arrives in pieces. Someone notices an empty Saturday, or the who friend reaches out after a long absence. It can be a conversation that revives an old interest. Whatever it is, it is always gradual before people begin recognizing parts of their lives that had quietly moved into the background. This is not necessarily a sad realization and in most cases it is simply an honest one. The years spent caring for someone mattered more than the adjustments which were made for good reasons. Most families would make the same choices again. But that does not change the fact that life was changing at the same time. What I find most interesting is that people often expect the biggest adjustment to be the loss itself. Quite often they discover that another adjustment has been taking place for years. They simply did not have much reason or time to notice it while they were living through it. The longer I have watched families navigate these transitions, the more I have noticed that people are rarely surprised by what they gave up. More often they are surprised by how much they had gradually set aside before they realized it.

Most Will Make it to Retirement

Most Will Make it to Retirement By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist We know most people will make it to retirement without suffering a major illness but if you are one of the unlucky ones, what happens now? Would you forego 1% of your annual rate of return to eliminate this risk? Sure, you could use your savings or take out a loan to cover the unexpected costs, however, both options will have a significant impact on your retirements plans. If you need to access your registered funds, they are taxed in the year you use them. Accessing those funds prior to retirement is not part of your plan. Pass on that risk to an insurance company. They will take care of the rest with an illness recovery benefit. This is a tax-free lump sum payment to cover any number of unforeseen expenses. No need to submit receipts or to justify the costs. Keep your retirement goals on track If you are diagnosed and survive a major illness like cancer, heart attack, or stroke, you receive an illness recovery benefit payment. This will keep your retirement goals on track. After diagnosis, he/she needs to access 100k from their registered account at age 55 to cover additional costs associated with fighting an unfortunate cancer diagnosis. The impact is significant: Take 1% of your annual rate of return to pay the premium. Your future self and family will be grateful if the worst happens. Safe travel, Happy planning!

Fast Food

Fast Food By Wayne and Tamara I am in a long-distance relationship with a woman, and we see each other nine or ten times a month when she comes to my city for work. We are madly in love with each other and she has made plans to move closer to me. When we met we became lovers first and now are exclusive and serious. However, the problem is she has a lot of old boyfriends, dating buddies, and sex chat friends that still call, email, and text. I have seen messages which ask for sexual favors as if she is a working girl. She says she no longer sex chats with these guys and they are just friends now. I do not believe it. I fear she is going to continue with this sex chatting and see these guys again. She refuses to discuss or explain any more than “you have nothing to worry about.” Yet I worry. What should I do? Colin Colin, let’s assume the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. You walked into her restaurant and realized she has cooked for lots of other men. You found the cooking tasty, but you know many guys might want another one of her meals. You don’t think she is making it clear enough she will no longer cook for them. That is where your minds diverge. You believe she should make it perfectly clear, and she knows if she made it perfectly clear they wouldn’t still be hanging around the restaurant. The hitch is, you are looking for a home cook and that isn’t on her menu. Wayne & Tamara Actions Speak Louder Okay, here is the background. Seven years ago I met my husband when I was pregnant with my daughter. He took on the role of daddy. Three years later I cheated on him with a black man and as a result had a baby. My husband took on the role of daddy to him as well. Today my husband found out I sent a nude picture to the father of my second child, and now I need to apologize to the man I love and who has been through so much in this marriage. He is on the breaking point, and I think he will divorce me. I want my husband to know I am so sorry, I was wrong, and this is never going to happen again. It’s just that this other man has been coming up everywhere, and my husband is so insecure. How do I show my husband I love him so much, and how do I get trust back? Malina Malina, it’s not paranoia when you think someone is out to get you-and someone is actually out to get you. It is not insecurity if you feel you can’t trust someone who has already betrayed you. Two researchers, Mick Rothbart and Bernadette Park, once gave people a list of 150 traits and asked them how many events it would take to establish each trait. They also asked how many events it would take to disprove the trait. Rothbart and Park learned that the hardest trait to establish is trust, and trust is the easiest trait to destroy. There is a reason we despise turncoats, traitors, and embezzlers. Cheating triggers a disgust in us we cannot get past. When the cheater is someone we share our intimate life with, it is especially difficult. The problem with staying with someone who has broken trust is that they are likely to betray us again. Aside from our children, it is usually impossible to reestablish trust in one who has broken it. You don’t need advice on how to keep your husband. You need to understand why you keep doing this. Unless your husband leaves you, you are unlikely to learn this lesson. Until your husband leaves you, his future is unlikely to change. Wayne & Tamara

What Gifford-Jones Said a Decade Ago

What Gifford-Jones Said a Decade Ago Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It has been almost a year since my father penned his final column at the age of 101. To mark the occasion, I offer his own timeless words, this week edited from the forward to his book, 90+ How I Got There! George Bernard Shaw once remarked, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place.” Today the biggest problem with communication in medicine is that it's the wrong communication, delivered to medical consumers with disastrous results. During the latter years of my surgical practice, I began to realize that big pharma had created a culture of "consumer pillitis" wherein every minor problem required a pill. But no mention was made of unintended consequences. This triggered my interest in natural remedies that had stood the test of time. They have not killed anyone. Prescription drugs, on the other hand, have removed 100,000 North Americans from this planet every year. As a medical journalist I've enjoyed the privilege of interviewing international medical authorities. This had a profound influence on my approach to medical matters. And there's no doubt my two lengthy interviews with Dr. Linus Pauling are among the reasons for writing this book. Pauling's views on vitamin C, and those of Dr. Sydney Bush, represent to me the greatest medical achievement since I graduated 65 years ago from the Harvard Medical School. It may have the potential to help mankind as much as, or more than, any other research. But is still collecting dust in the medical community. It's an appalling tragedy as their findings of C's benefits could save countless lives. Voltaire, who spent time in the French prison Bastille one wrote, “It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong.” During my lifetime as a surgeon and medical journalist I learned that Voltaire was right. When my newspaper column tackled controversial medical topics, my popularity with some segments of society and the medical establishment was jeopardized. The written word is dangerous. But as a journalist one should never expect to win a popularity contest. Reporting the facts of medicine is never easy. Multinational companies producing chemical therapies are making billions of dollars supposedly to reduce suffering. But they confuse the public about the cause of heart disease and other medical problems. Sooner or later the truth does emerge. As Winston Churchill wrote, “The truth is inconvertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." The truth is that we are getting older and living longer. But we all want to live longer well. In this age of degenerative disease, the Gifford-Jones Law states that one bad problem leads to another and another. It's best to avoid them a much as possible. Due to faulty lifestyle decisions, obesity may lead to Type 2 diabetes. Its complications may lead to loss of limbs, blindness and kidney failure. Atherosclerosis due to diabetes may lead to heart attack and sudden death. All may prevent a lengthy and active life. I hope that this book will show how these disasters and other medical pitfalls do not have to happen. They will occur less often if North Americans learn that smart people do at the start of life what fools attempt at the end. Enough said.

Oshawa Should Be Part of Canada’s Defence Supply Chain

Oshawa Should Be Part of Canada’s Defence Supply Chain                By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               When Canadians hear about military spending, the conversation usually turns to the biggest and most expensive equipment. Fighter jets. Warships. Drones. Missiles. Satellites. Artificial intelligence. Cyber defence. This technology is an important part of modern defence. No serious country can ignore new technology or the threats that come with it. Canada has to be prepared for a world that is changing quickly. But there is another side of the defence that receives far less attention. Every soldier still needs the basics. They need strong boots, warm clothing, rain gear, tents, sleeping bags, backpacks, canteens, medical kits, field kitchens, clean water systems, uniforms, and protective gear. These items do not usually make headlines. They do not sound as exciting as a new aircraft or missile system. But without them, even the most advanced military can struggle. A soldier equipped with inadequate boots faces an immediate disadvantage. A unit without clean drinking water is in trouble. A person sleeping in wet gear during freezing weather will not stay healthy or effective for long. Before any high-tech military plan can work, the people carrying it out have to be clothed, supplied, sheltered, protected, and ready. Oshawa should focus on this aspect. Oshawa has a long history of manufacturing. This city appreciates skilled labour. It understands what happens when excellent jobs disappear. It also understands the importance of real work coming back to the community. For years, Canada has talked about supply chains. People witnessed how quickly shortages and delays could impact daily life during the pandemic. Products were held up. Shelves were thin. Items that once seemed easy to get became harder to find. Now imagine that problem during a military emergency. If Canada suddenly needed more boots, winter clothing, tents, medical supplies, or clean water systems, could we make enough of them here? Would we have to rely on foreign factories, face shipping delays, and contend with other countries putting their needs first? That is a serious question. This is not about turning Oshawa into a war factory. It is about asking whether Canadian workers and Canadian companies should have a larger role in producing the basic equipment our military needs. Not every defence job has to involve missiles, aircraft, or advanced computer systems. Many jobs are practical. Sewing. Cutting. Packing. Repair. Testing. Trucking. Storage. Supply work. Quality control. Those are real jobs. They are understandable jobs. They are the kind of jobs that can support families and strengthen local economies. Canada already has companies that understand outdoor gear, safety equipment, clothing, tools, parts, and cold weather products. As a northern country, Canada should be a leader in producing strong boots, warm coats, waterproof gear, durable tents, and reliable field equipment. This aspect of the defence shouldn't be considered an afterthought. This does not mean Canada should ignore advanced military technology. Drones, communications, cyber defences, surveillance, and modern weapons all matter. The world has changed, and Canada has to change with it. But technology is only part of the defence. The basics keep people going. History has shown that armies do not only run short of ammunition and weapons. They also run short of boots, coats, blankets, tents, food, fuel, medicine, and clean water. Those shortages may not sound dramatic, but they can weaken a force quickly. The public may notice the fighter jet. The soldier notices whether the boots fit. Oshawa should view the situation as both a defensive and economic issue. Defence dollars are already being spent. The question is where that money goes. Does it mainly flow to large foreign suppliers and major corporations, or can more of it support Canadian workers, Canadian factories, and Canadian communities? If Canada is going to spend money on defence, part of that spending should help rebuild practical industry at home. Oshawa has lived through enough economic change to understand the value of steady work. A strong local economy needs more than announcements. It needs industries that can last. It needs opportunities for people who know how to build, repair, move, test, and supply things. Canada should seriously consider the potential for domestic production of basic military equipment. Communities with manufacturing experience should be part of that conversation. Oshawa belongs in that discussion. A strong military is not built only on the newest weapons. It is built on preparation, supply, industry, and people. Sometimes the most important equipment is also the simplest. 

The One Reason You're Not Getting Hired

The One Reason You're Not Getting Hired By Nick Kossovan Getting hired in today's hyper-competitive job market requires drawing a distinct line between your skills and experience and how you can generate revenue or save an employer money. Unlike what many job seekers believe, employers are not charities. Nor do employers design their hiring process to validate a job seeker's self-esteem. The job market is a marketplace in which, as in all marketplaces, profit determines survival. Employment boils down to a single financial transaction: an employer pays money in exchange for a return on their investment. If you're sending out resumes, networking, and attending interviews without receiving job offers, it's because you're not communicating your value in terms of an employer's profitability. In other words, you're not giving employers a compelling reason to hire you. The job market is full of candidates acting like historians, listing their "who cares" responsibilities in chronological order. Employers don't care what you did; they care about what you can do for their bottom line. In business, an employee's value is defined by their impact on the business's profitability. Consider how you act as a consumer. You don't buy a smartphone because the manufacturer worked hard to build it. You buy it because you believe it'll add value and status to your life, streamline communication, and boost productivity. If you didn't believe it would add value, you'd leave it on the shelf. Similarly, a homeowner doesn't invest thousands in an energy-efficient furnace out of sentimentality. They do it to lower their monthly heating bills and increase home equity. Hiring is a form of purchasing, so employers view job seekers through the same lens. What value will the employer derive from hiring you? "Hiring managers don't look at your resume and see potential—they see a massive financial risk. If your resume reads like a historical biography of daily chores, you are positioning yourself as an administrative cost to be minimized." — Episode 3178 of Jeff Altman's podcast, No B.S. Job Search Advice Radio, titled, How to Write a Resume That Proves Your Return on Investment. Breaking the cycle of rejection requires adopting a “Business of One” approach. Instead of viewing yourself as a job seeker, see yourself as a service provider proposing a partnership. Your resume, LinkedIn profile, and cover letter should highlight how your accomplishments deliver measurable value, making it easy for hiring managers to recognize how you'd be an asset to their business's profitability. Incorporate your impact on profitability into every aspect of your job search. Your Resume: Remove meaningless fluff, such as "responsible for managing a team." Use aggressive, metric-based bullet points. Frame your work in dollars, time saved, or percentage gains. For example: "Re-engineered regional call centre workflows, cutting customer wait times by 14% and saving $45,000 in quarterly operational overhead." If you managed a budget, state how you kept it under target. If you built a process, quantify the hours it reclaimed. Present your history as a series of profit enhancements. Your LinkedIn Profile: Treat your headline and "About" section as a sales landing page, not an online obituary. Replace generic labels such as "Experienced Operations Professional" with a clear value proposition: "Operations Leader Specializing in Scaling Call Centre Efficiencies and Reducing Client Churn to Maximize Revenue." Use your "Featured" section to share articles or case studies you've written that explain exactly how you solve costly bottlenecks. When Networking: Never ask someone if they know of any openings; this comes across as desperate and places the burden on them. View networking as a casual consultation conversation. Ask targeted questions about their company's or industry's specific operational challenges. When sharing your background, pivot to outcomes: "In my last role, we noticed a major drop in client retention, so I implemented an automated follow-up system that reclaimed $120,000 in drifting contracts. I imagine advertising agencies are facing similar margin pressures right now." TIP: When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself: How can I help this person? When Interviewing: Many candidates sink into a defensive crouch during interviews. Turn interviews into a sales meeting, which is what they are. When asked about your strengths, don't offer platitudes about being a "hard worker." Link your traits directly to enhancing their profitability. For example: "My core strength is rigorous process optimization. I look for operational leaks because every broken process represents wasted capital. When you hire me, my primary objective will be to ensure the team's output directly protects and enhances your department's margins." Putting aside all the excuses many job seekers make, if you're not getting interviews and job offers, it's because you're not making a compelling business case for why they should hire you. Without one, employers view you as an unnecessary expense. Employers aren't buying your biography; they're buying a solution to their margin pressures. Shift your narrative from what you'll cost an employer to how much you'll make for an employer. Review your resume, LinkedIn profile, and interview talking points. Ruthlessly remove anything that doesn't clearly articulate a financial return on hiring you. If you want employers to see hiring you as a profitable decision, reframe your professional identity in terms of the bottom line.

Illegal Slaughterhouse Raises Serious Questions About Enforcement in Clarington

Illegal Slaughterhouse Raises Serious Questions About Enforcement in Clarington A controversy unfolding in rural Clarington is raising difficult questions about municipal enforcement, accountability, animal welfare, and public confidence in local government. For months, residents living near a property on Middle Road have raised concerns regarding activities occurring on the site. What began as neighbour observations evolved into questions about land use, environmental impacts, animal welfare, licensing requirements, and municipal enforcement. IMPORTANT NOTE This article reflects documented resident complaints, communications, and public-interest questions. It distinguishes between resident concerns, allegations, and any findings that may have been made by authorities. Readers should rely upon official municipal correspondence and enforcement records for final determinations. TIMELINE OF REPORTED EVENTS • November 26 – Resident communication sent to municipal by-law staff raising concerns and encouraging contact with appropriate animal welfare authorities. • November 27 – Follow-up communication requesting further action and investigation. • April 22 – Resident seeks update from municipal by-law staff regarding conditions at the Middle Road property and reports ongoing concerns. • Subsequent Months – Residents continue raising concerns regarding land alterations, environmental impacts, animal welfare, and compliance issues. • Recent Developments – Residents report being advised that certain activities associated with the operation were not authorized. Confirmation should be obtained from official municipal records. A PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS Communications reviewed by this columnist indicate that residents were contacting municipal staff and seeking updates over an extended period of time. The communications suggest that concerns were not isolated or recent. Residents appear to have been attempting to engage municipal authorities for months while seeking information regarding investigations and enforcement activities. MORE THAN ONE ISSUE While public attention has focused on allegations involving livestock processing, residents also raised concerns regarding: • Land alterations • Pond expansion • Tree removal • Open-air burning • Animal welfare concerns • Potential environmental impacts • Licensing and zoning compliance Taken individually, each issue may involve different regulatory requirements. Taken together, residents argue they warranted a coordinated review by the appropriate authorities. THE ANIMAL WELFARE QUESTION Perhaps the most emotional aspect of the controversy involves concerns regarding the treatment and handling of animals. Residents repeatedly expressed concerns involving animals and sought updates from municipal officials. Whether any animal welfare laws were violated is a matter for the appropriate authorities to determine. However, residents continue to ask whether concerns involving animals were investigated quickly enough. THE QUESTION OF CONSEQUENCES Many residents continue to ask whether earlier intervention could have reduced the number of animals affected. How many animals were processed during the period between the first complaints and any enforcement action? Were provincial animal welfare authorities notified? Were inspections conducted? Could earlier intervention have changed the outcome? These questions are not intended to prejudge any individual or agency. They are questions of public accountability. THE ENFORCEMENT GAP The central public-interest question is whether complaints were addressed in a timely and effective manner. Residents deserve to understand: • When complaints were received • What investigations were undertaken • Which agencies became involved • What violations, if any, were identified • What enforcement actions resulted • Why the process took the amount of time it did TRANSPARENCY MATTERS Municipal governments must often balance investigative confidentiality with public accountability. However, transparency regarding timelines and processes is critical to maintaining public confidence. Residents deserve clear answers regarding what occurred, what was investigated, and what lessons can be learned going forward. THE BIGGER QUESTION Ultimately, this issue has become larger than a single property. It has become a discussion about whether municipal enforcement systems respond quickly, consistently, and effectively when residents raise serious concerns. For many residents, the questions remain straightforward: When were complaints first received? What investigations occurred? What actions were taken? Were all relevant agencies notified? Could the process have moved faster? Those questions deserve answers—not only for the residents affected today, but for every resident who may need to rely upon the same enforcement systems in the future.

THE ULTIMATE HOLIDAY ‘CANADA DAY’

THE ULTIMATE HOLIDAY ‘CANADA DAY’ By Joe Ingino What a great time to be Canadian. ‘Canada Day’. One of the best holiday’s next to Christmas and Remembrance day. Canada Day is a day to reflect on what it means to be Canadian, to share what makes us proud and to celebrate in our own way. This pride is reflected in as many ways as there are Canadians. Canada Day highlights the richness of our land, our diversity, our culture, our contributions, but above all, our people. Since 1868, July 1 is an opportunity for Canadians from all communities to come together. Canada Day celebrates the anniversary of Canadian Confederation, which took place on July 1, 1867. On this date, the British North America Act united the three separate colonies of the Province of Canada (now Ontario and Quebec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a single unified country called the Dominion of Canada. The Core Reasons for Celebration Birth of a Nation: The holiday is widely recognized as Canada's birthday, marking the country's first steps toward independence from the British Empire. Cultural Pride: It is a time for Canadians to show pride in their history, diversity, culture, and shared values of inclusion.Community Traditions: The day is marked across the country by community events, parades, concerts, barbecues, and firework displays. Historical Evolution - Dominion Day: From 1879 until 1982, the holiday was officially known as Dominion Day.Full Independence: The name was officially changed to Canada Day in 1982. This coincided with the patriation of the Canadian constitution, which severed the final vestiges of legal dependence on the British Parliament. The celebrations start - July 1, 1917: The 50th anniversary of Confederation. The Parliament buildings, under construction, are dedicated to the Fathers of Confederation and to the courage of Canadians who fought in Europe during the First World War. July 1, 1927: The 60th anniversary of Confederation. The Peace Tower Carillon is inaugurated. The Governor General at the time, Viscount Willingdon, lays the cornerstone of the Confederation Building on Wellington Street. From 1958 to 1968: The government organizes celebrations for Canada's national holiday every year. The Secretary of State of Canada is responsible for coordinating these activities. A typical format includes a flag ceremony in the afternoon on the lawns of Parliament Hill and a sunset ceremony in the evenings, followed by a concert of military music and fireworks. From 1968 to 1979 (with the exception of 1976): A large multicultural celebration is presented on Parliament Hill. This concert is broadcast on television across the country. The main celebrations (called "Festival Canada") are held in Canada’s Capital Region throughout July. These celebrations include many cultural, artistic and sport activities, and involve the participation of various municipalities and volunteer associations. 1984: The National Capital Commission (NCC) is given the mandate to organize Canada Day festivities in the capital. 2010: Festivities on Parliament Hill receive the royal treatment when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh join the festivities to celebrate Canada's 143rd anniversary. 2014: Canadian Heritage organizes the 147th Canada Day celebrations. As we approach Canada's 150th anniversary in 2017, the government has given the Department the mandate to organize Canada Day festivities in the capital. HAPPY CANADA DAY TO ALL

The Unity of Canada Is Paramount: Why the Alberta Referendum Matters to All Canadians

The Unity of Canada Is Paramount: Why the Alberta Referendum Matters to All Canadians by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is entering a significant moment in its history. With an Alberta referendum on sovereignty now scheduled, Canadians are once again confronted with questions about the future of the federation, regional representation, and national unity. Regardless of one's political views, the referendum is no longer a hypothetical discussion. It is a real political event that will have consequences not only for Albertans but for every Canadian. The fact that a referendum has been scheduled should not be dismissed as a temporary protest or a passing political phenomenon. It reflects genuine frustration felt by many Albertans regarding federal policies, resource development, equalization payments, regulatory burdens, and what is often perceived as inadequate representation within national decision-making. These concerns are real and deserve serious consideration. At the same time, Canadians must carefully examine what is at stake. Alberta has been one of the principal engines of Canada's economy for decades. Its energy resources, agricultural production, innovation, and entrepreneurial culture have generated prosperity that has benefited the entire country. The province's contribution to federal revenues, employment, exports, and investment has been substantial. When Alberta succeeds, Canada benefits. When Alberta struggles, the consequences are felt nationwide. The scheduled referendum therefore represents more than a provincial issue. It raises fundamental questions about Canada's future as a united nation. One of the most immediate concerns is economic uncertainty. Financial markets and investors place a premium on stability and predictability. The referendum itself may create uncertainty regarding future investment decisions, particularly in sectors requiring long-term commitments such as energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology. Businesses considering major projects will naturally ask questions. What would happen if a majority voted in favour of sovereignty? How would negotiations proceed? What would be the status of trade arrangements, transportation corridors, pensions, federal programs, taxation, and public debt? Even if separation never occurs, uncertainty surrounding these issues could influence economic decisions. The energy sector deserves special attention. Alberta's prosperity is closely linked to access to national and international markets. Pipelines, rail networks, ports, and transmission systems cross provincial boundaries. A sovereign Alberta would still require cooperative arrangements with neighbouring jurisdictions and the federal government. What are currently domestic Canadian issues could become international negotiations involving complex legal and political considerations. Another critical dimension concerns Indigenous rights and treaties. Alberta is home to numerous First Nations whose treaty relationships were established with the Crown and are protected under Canada's Constitution. Any movement toward sovereignty would necessarily involve discussions regarding treaty obligations, self-government arrangements, land rights, and constitutional responsibilities. These issues cannot be treated as secondary matters; they are central to any future constitutional discussions. The referendum also carries implications for Canada's international standing. The world is experiencing increasing geopolitical instability. Tensions in Europe, competition among major powers, challenges in the Arctic, and growing economic uncertainty have created a more complex international environment than at any time in recent decades. Canada's strength internationally derives in part from its political stability, economic scale, and territorial unity. Allies and investors value predictability. A period of prolonged constitutional uncertainty could reduce Canada's influence at a time when strong and united democratic nations are needed more than ever. There is also a social dimension that deserves careful consideration. Referendums concerning sovereignty often create intense public debate. Such debates are entirely legitimate in a democracy. However, they can also deepen divisions among citizens, communities, and regions. Canadians have experienced this before. The Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 generated passionate discussions about identity, belonging, and the future of the country. While democracy ultimately prevailed, many of those divisions took years to heal. The Alberta referendum has the potential to create similar tensions. It is therefore essential that public discourse remain respectful, factual, and focused on long-term solutions rather than short-term political passions. At the same time, Canadians should avoid the mistake of dismissing Alberta's concerns. Doing so would only reinforce the sense of alienation that has contributed to the current situation. National unity cannot be preserved through rhetoric alone. It requires meaningful action. Federal and provincial leaders must engage in serious discussions about economic competitiveness, energy development, internal trade barriers, fiscal federalism, infrastructure investment, and regional representation. Canadians must be willing to acknowledge that different regions often experience national policies differently. The path forward should be based on dialogue and reform, not threats or ultimatums. Canada's history demonstrates that our federation has evolved through compromise and adaptation. We have faced constitutional crises, regional tensions, economic downturns, and profound social transformations. Each generation has been called upon to strengthen the bonds that unite Canadians while respecting legitimate regional aspirations. This generation faces a similar challenge. The scheduled Alberta referendum should serve as a wake-up call for all Canadians. It should encourage a national conversation about how the federation can better serve every province and territory. It should prompt governments to listen more carefully to regional concerns and seek practical solutions to longstanding grievances. Ultimately, however, Canadians must ask themselves a fundamental question: Are we stronger together or apart? The answer, in my view, remains clear. Canada's diversity has always been its greatest strength. Our federation allows regions with different economies, cultures, histories, and priorities to work together in pursuit of common goals. While disagreements are inevitable, they are best resolved within a united country rather than through fragmentation. The Alberta referendum is now part of Canada's political reality. It deserves serious debate and careful consideration. Nevertheless, it should also remind us of the tremendous value of what we have built together over more than 150 years. At a time of global uncertainty and growing international challenges, the unity of Canada is not merely a constitutional principle. It is a strategic necessity, an economic advantage, and a national responsibility. The future of Alberta matters. The future of Canada matters. And today, more than ever, those futures remain deeply interconnected.

The Things We Thought Would Matter

The Things We Thought Would Matter By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how often families are caught off guard by what does not matter. Most of us spend a fair amount of time deciding what is important. We save things. We protect things. We move certain possessions from one house to another because we assume they deserve to make the journey. Over time, some objects acquire a status that feels almost permanent. They become part of the family landscape, and people stop questioning their importance because their importance has simply been accepted for so long. Then something happens, and a family finds itself sorting through a house, opening cupboards, looking through closets, and deciding what stays and what goes. Before it begins, there is often a quiet assumption that certain items will be spoken for immediately. Everybody knows which pieces those are supposed to be. The dining room set. The cabinet. The collection. The things that were always treated as important. And then the family discovers that nobody really wants them. I have seen that happen more than once, and what makes it interesting is not the decision itself, but the surprise that follows. People are often caught off guard that an object which carried such a large presence in family life can suddenly have very little place in anyone's future. The object has not changed. The craftsmanship has not changed. The history has not changed, yet something has shifted. I think part of the surprise comes from the fact that families often confuse significance with attachment. They are related, but they are not the same thing. An object can be significant without anyone wanting to own it. A family can respect its history, appreciate its place in the household, and still have no practical role for it in the next chapter of their lives. That reality shows up in very ordinary ways. I have watched families spend twenty minutes discussing a valuable piece of furniture before agreeing nobody has room for it, then spend much longer talking about a box of handwritten recipe cards that nobody expected to keep. It is not always logical, but it is very human. One thing has value because everyone agreed it did. Another has value because, for reasons that are harder to explain, it still seems to carry a person with it. There is also a generational side to this that families sometimes underestimate. The objects that helped define one household may not fit easily into another. A dining room set that once made sense in a larger home may not make sense in a condo, townhouse, or smaller place already filled with someone else's life. A collection that represented years of care to one person may feel like responsibility to the next. That does not mean people value family less. It usually means they are living differently. What makes these decisions difficult is that nobody wants to be the person who says it out loud too quickly. Nobody wants to make it sound as though the thing did not matter. So families sometimes talk around the obvious for a while. They admire it. They discuss where it came from. They mention how long it was in the house. Then eventually someone says what everyone else may already be thinking: "I just don't have a place for it." That sentence can feel harsher than it is meant to be. In most cases, it is not a rejection of the person who owned it, or of the life built around it. It is simply the point where memory and practicality meet, and practicality has to be given a vote too. The longer I have watched families work through these decisions, the more I have noticed that the item everyone worried about often becomes the easiest decision in the room.

Protecting your nest egg

Protecting your nest egg By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist You have worked hard over the years to make sure their loved ones will be comfortable—both now and after they’re gone. However, a nest egg can disappear very quickly when it’s passed on to the beneficiaries. This “sudden wealth” approach to transferring hard-earned savings is a real concern for many people. For those who prefer to transfer an inheritance gradually over time, the most common approach in the past has been to establish a trust—either inside or outside a will—to control the estate after death. Trusts can be a very effective wealth transfer vehicle, but there are some drawbacks that should be carefully weighed, such as cost, complexity, and ongoing management. Annuity settlement option There’s another appealing wealth transfer option available to Canadians, which has considerable merit due to its simplicity and flexibility. The annuity settlement option can automatically transfer the proceeds of your client’s insurance contract or policy into an annuity upon their death. The resulting annuity will then make gradual income payments to the named beneficiaries. It’s a simple, inexpensive, and effective wealth-transfer tool. It provides the advantage of replacing a lump-sum death benefit with smaller, scheduled payments while offering savings of legal, estate administration, and probate1 fees. In addition, it can provide increased privacy2 and potential creditor protection. Unlike trusts, which can incur contract preparation costs and annual trustee and accounting fees, the annuity settlement option has no fees or ongoing management requirements. It’s a strategy that’ll appeal to most investors, regardless of whether the amount of the inheritance will be $50,000 or $1 million. With the annuity settlement option, you have complete control over the specific annuity terms. Select an annuity that makes payments to their beneficiaries for the rest of the beneficiaries' lives or for a specific time period following the client’s death. Guarantee options can also be added, guaranteeing potentially up to and even exceeding 100% of the initial investment, to help protect against market volatility and make sure a minimum amount is paid to beneficiaries. This helps avoid a problem with wills that specify an annuity be purchased but are vague as to the type and terms, often leading to confusion or an undesired result. If you decide to change the beneficiaries or terms of the annuity, all you need to do is submit a change form with the annuity carrier. There is no cost to you or of them having to pay a lawyer to amend or redraft their trust agreement. And if there are multiple beneficiaries, that’s not a problem. The annuity settlement option allows your clients to differentiate between beneficiaries, permitting some to receive a lump sum and others to receive an annuity based on the selected terms. A definition to share with clients An annuity is an insurance contract where, in exchange for a single lump-sum deposit, an insurer makes guaranteed regular income payments to the owner of the annuity. These payments contain both interest and a return of principal component. Annuity payments can continue for a chosen period or for the lifetime of one or two people. Richard and Joan—an example Richard and Joan have $400,000 invested in a segregated fund contract, which they want to leave to their son, Scott, in the event of their deaths. But Richard and Joan are concerned about Scott’s ability to manage this money and prefer to have the proceeds and future interest paid out to him over a period. After discussing the situation with their advisor, they select a 10-year term certain annuity settlement option on their segregated fund contract. Now, Richard and Joan have the comfort of knowing their estate will pass gradually to their son over a 10-year period after their deaths. Estate Benefits The annuity settlement option offers many estate benefits: allows clients to control the way their assets are allocated to beneficiaries eliminates the need and cost associated with setting up and managing a formal trust provides an increased level of privacy while avoiding costly probate and estate fees makes sure that younger beneficiaries, such as children or grandchildren, receive a controlled income stream rather than a large lump-sum amount gives parents with disabled children a comprehensive estate-planning tool allows clients to make changes to beneficiaries and settlement options quickly and without fees. Minors and mentally infirm individuals The annuity settlement option may also be effective for minor children or for beneficiaries with an impairment in mental functions. However, instead of naming these people directly as a beneficiary, a trustee (such as a family member) should be named “in trust for” these individuals. Happy planning, safe travels, until next time!

Cold Turkey

Cold Turkey By Wayne and Tamara I dated a girl two years. The first time it ended because she started doing drugs and wouldn’t stop. When she began dating a druggie friend, I continued giving her rides, a place to crash for a night, and money. Then she left him and came back to me. Cautiously I decided to give it another try. Unfortunately I found out she had been dating this other man and me at the same time. It ended once more. Later we started to talk again, but that ended with her taking my time and money, and then leaving. My conscious mind can recognize she is all-around not a good person, much less good for me. I know she has taken much from me and given little in return. My mind seems to have completely gotten over her, but my body can’t seem to. Whenever I see any white car remotely resembling hers, I turn and stare. If I see a girl with the same skin complexion, I can’t help but gaze. When I hear her name, my stomach tightens, and if I see her, I feel immensely downtrodden. I would say without a doubt I am over her, but I can’t help feeling queasy and even jealous when I hear news of her, good or bad. These are all instinctual, involuntary actions. I don’t understand. It is as if my brain has moved on, but my body is still going through the motions of breaking up. I know time is probably the best cure, but it is difficult living like this. Dylan Dylan, warnings not heeded, conscience not listened to, red lights driven through. Sooner or later, they all catch up to you. So will you heed another warning, or will you boldly go where no man should go? Don’t be a lemming, or just another mouse for the snake. Warnings we don’t heed are snakes we feed. When you were with her, you were way overmatched. This is a woman who charms men to support her habits. The queasiness and jealousy you feel are textbook symptoms. Twice you were given ample reason to sever contact, and twice you refused. It’s not her you need to get out of your system, it’s your personal weakness. By spreading out the pain of breaking up, you reinforced it. Like Pavlov’s dog, you trained yourself to salivate at the very thought of her. If you hadn’t spent so much time trying to turn ground beef into steak, you would be over this. Wayne & Tamara Personal Property I have been with my husband four years, married for two. He has never accused me of cheating but insists that every man in a 10 mile radius is hot on my trail. At least once a month we fight about this. I always ask why he doesn't trust me, and he says he does trust me, it's everyone else he doesn't trust. I don't know how to fix this. I have tried so hard. He offered to go to counseling but hasn't saved money for it, and I can't afford it either. I pay for everything else. I am afraid my only option is divorce. I hate that I am tearing apart our family, but I don't know if I can continue. I feel alone, yet we have talked about this many times. I don't think he is capable of change. Vonna Vonna, your husband is trying to exert property rights over you. He is not in love with you, but he is afraid of claim jumpers. Every time he suggests you could be unfaithful he smirches your character. Every day you stay tells him he has the right to do what he is doing. Like all good people you think this is your problem to fix. But it’s not up to you. The only fix is letting him suffer the consequences. Wayne & Tamara

Will Getting Active Make Aching Joints Worse?

Will Getting Active Make Aching Joints Worse? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Few health problems are more discouraging than the pain of osteoarthritis. Day after day, aching knees, hips, or ankles can make simple tasks seem like major obstacles. Suffering people ask, "Should I start exercising to help my joints, or will it simply make the pain worse?" For years, there has been a common belief that walking on an arthritic joint is like driving a worn-out car on a rough road. The fear is that every step causes more damage. Fortunately, research suggests the opposite. One large study followed older adults who had knee osteoarthritis and found that those who walked regularly for exercise were less likely to develop new episodes of frequent knee pain than those who remained inactive. Researchers also found no evidence that walking accelerated damage to the knee joint. This is important news because osteoarthritis is already one of the leading causes of disability among older adults. Osteoarthritis is the wear-and-tear type of arthritis. It develops when cartilage, the smooth cushion between bones, gradually deteriorates with age. As the cushioning disappears, joints become stiff, painful, and inflamed. Understandably, many sufferers feel that resting painful joints is the safest course of action. But our bodies were designed for movement. Just as a ship tied up too long in port develops barnacles, joints that are not used become stiffer, weaker, and less functional. Muscles lose strength, balance deteriorates, and everyday activities become more difficult. The objective of exercise for osteoarthritis treatment is not simply to reduce pain today. It is to preserve the ability to enjoy life for years to come. It’s not about training for a marathon. The goal is to remain independent. Can you climb the stairs? Carry groceries? Visit friends? Travel? Enjoy a walk around the neighbourhood? These are the activities that determine quality of life as we age. Researchers have repeatedly shown that regular physical activity helps older adults maintain mobility and independence. Walking, combined with exercises that improve strength and balance, remains one of the most effective non-drug treatments for osteoarthritis. Of course, use your common sense too. People with severe joint damage should consult their physician. And in all cases, when beginning a new exercise program, start slowly. A ten-minute walk may be enough at first. Increase activity gradually as strength and endurance improve. One of the biggest mistakes people make is doing too much too soon. A sore muscle after exercise may be expected. Sharp or worsening joint pain is not. For those who find walking difficult, swimming and water exercises can be excellent alternatives. Water supports body weight while allowing joints to move through a comfortable range of motion. There is another important point that deserves emphasis. Many people spend their time and money on gym memberships or physiotherapy appointments while ignoring one of the most effective treatments available. For those carrying extra pounds, weight loss is an excellent objective. Excess body weight places tremendous stress on hips, knees, and ankles. Experts estimate that losing just one pound removes roughly four pounds of pressure from the knee joint with every step. Imagine the benefit of losing ten or twenty pounds. As said many times before, the bathroom scale can solve a surprising number of health problems. The bottom line? If you suffer from osteoarthritis, don't assume that sitting in a chair is protecting your joints. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said, "Motion is the best medicine." Unfortunately, it doesn't come in a pill bottle, which may be why so many people overlook it.

Human Psychology Influences Hiring Decisions

By Nick Kossovan If you think the hiring process is a fair, objective, or scientific evaluation of your skills and experience, you need a wake-up call. Hiring is far from a logical process or an objective checklist of qualifications; it's a chaotic, subjective blend of human psychology, risk avoidance, and pure instinct disguised as corporate procedure. Stop expecting fairness; instead, learn to influence your interviewer's psychological triggers. Four psychological pillars influence how recruiters and hiring managers make hiring decisions. 1. The Risk Mitigation Mindset (Loss Aversion) Hiring managers don't look for superstars; they look for safety. Their hiring decisions are visible to their peers, bosses, and the leadership team. Humans are hardwired to fear loss far more than they desire gain. In psychology and economics, this is loss aversion. When a manager reviews your application, they're not imagining how you'll revolutionise the department. They are sweating over not making a catastrophic mistake. Understandably, a hiring manager's biggest fear is hiring someone who'll destroy morale, be completely incompetent, tank productivity, or jump ship at the first sign of a challenge or being held accountable, which is why employers avoid candidates with a history of job hopping or employment gaps. Making a bad hire reflects poorly on their judgment and can get them fired, which I've witnessed more than once. At its core, loss aversion isn't about you; it's about the hiring manager's survival. Hiring is like buying a used car. You’re not searching for the fastest vehicle on the lot; you’re cautiously looking for possible engine problems. You want a car that won’t likely leave you stranded on the side of the highway. If you’re serious about getting hired, stop selling your infinite potential and start proving you’re a low-risk hiring investment. 2. The Thin-Slicing Phenomenon (First Impressions) You’re evaluated faster than you think. Psychologists use the term “thin-slicing” to describe our subconscious ability to find patterns and make split-second judgements based on narrow windows of experience. Hiring managers and recruiters don’t read your resume; they skim it. Interviewers don’t assess you over 45 minutes; they make up their minds in the first 30 seconds. The remaining time is an exercise in confirmation bias, where they search for evidence to justify their initial gut reaction. In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Malcolm Gladwell explored the power of snap judgements and the concept of "thin-slicing" to make rapid decisions, often without realizing our subconscious has reached a definitive verdict. Humans don't form judgments based on data; we tend to make rapid decisions based on initial fragments, then spend our energy defending those quick impressions. Mastering your initial presentation is critical; an immediate negative reaction from an interviewer is often impossible to overcome. View your resume and your greeting as a movie trailer: a high-impact, rapid hook designed to convince the audience that the entire production is worth their investment rather than revealing every detail. You must learn to seize control of your personal narrative from the very first moment. 3. The Halo and Horn Effects Human decision-making is notoriously lazy. Once that initial impression locks in, the halo and horn effects take complete control of the interviewer's brain. If a hiring manager likes one specific detail about you—perhaps you worked for a prestigious competitor or attended the same university—they subconsciously project competence onto your entire profile. That's the halo effect. Conversely, the horn effect is lethal. A single typo on your resume, or a nervous, rambling response to the first question, taints everything else you say. Your entire 30-year career will be viewed through the lens of that one blunder. Identify how you can contribute to an employer's profitability and lead with it before the horn effect takes hold. 4. Groupthink and Consensus Biases Often, job seekers must navigate the exhausting reality of groupthink and consensus bias. Today, nobody wants to make a corporate decision alone. HR managers love committees because they can spread the blame when a new hire goes sideways. If five people interview you, the primary goal isn’t to assess your skills, experience, and fit; it’s finding a candidate all five can agree on without triggering internal conflict. Social psychology research indicates that when a group evaluates an individual, its shared objective undergoes a subtle transformation. Rather than prioritizing the “best candidate for the job,” the focus shifts toward achieving the safest consensus, which makes individuality a liability for any committee member to advocate for. You can't simply impress the person sitting across from you. You must arm them with punchy, easy-to-repeat bullet points they can use to sell you to their colleagues when you leave the room. Give them the ammunition they need to defend hiring you. Job seekers need to understand and accept that hiring is deeply flawed because it’s a human activity, driven by fear, snap judgments, and professional liability-dodging. Your job search will only change when you cease presenting yourself as a desperate job seeker looking for a chance and start positioning yourself as a low-risk hire who'll be a positive influence on an employer's profitability. Stop targeting the hiring manager's wishlist; target their fears.

Names Some Hate Symbols. Why Not Communist Ones?

Bill C 9 Names Some Hate Symbols. Why Not Communist Ones? By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canada is writing a hate symbol law, but one of history’s most feared symbols is missing. The Nazi Hakenkreuz is named. The Nazi SS bolts are named. Symbols tied to listed terrorist groups are named. The Senate has now added the noose. But the hammer and sickle, a symbol tied to communist regimes from Russia to China, is not named. Why not? That is the question Parliament should answer before Bill C 9 moves any further. Bill C 9, the Combating Hate Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons on March 25, 2026. The Senate later added the noose, so the bill has to return to the House before it can become law. The bill is aimed at the public display of certain symbols when they are used to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. That is serious. It should be handled with care. A noose is not just rope when it is used as a threat. Nazi symbols are not just old markings when they are used to frighten Jewish Canadians or promote Nazi hatred. Symbols can carry fear. They can carry memories. They can say something ugly without a person saying a word. So why did Parliament stop there? For many Canadians, the hammer and sickle is not harmless politics. It is not just a poster, a flag, or a shirt worn by someone trying to look rebellious. It is tied to regimes that jailed people, silenced churches, watched neighbours, punished farmers, broke families, and made ordinary citizens afraid of their own government. For some Canadian families, this is not old history. It is the reason their parents or grandparents came here. The numbers are not small. Historians argue over the exact totals, and they should, because truth matters. But the scale is still awful. Estimates tied to Stalin’s rule reach into the millions, including deaths from labour camps, forced collectivization, famine, and executions. Millions also died in the Holodomor period. In China, estimates for the Great Leap Forward famine also reach into the tens of millions. That is not a small footnote in history. Canada already knows this. The federal government opened the Memorial to the Victims of Communism in Ottawa in 2024, saying it honours victims of communism and recognizes Canada as a refuge from injustice and persecution. So how can the same country honour victims of communism with a national memorial, but leave the hammer and sickle out of a national hate symbol debate? Was it missed? Was it political caution? Was it because some people still romanticize communist symbols? Was it because the government did not want to upset activists who treat the hammer and sickle like fashion? These are fair questions. They are not wild claims. We do not have proof that anyone high up ordered communist symbols left out. Without proof, that should not be stated as fact. But citizens have every right to ask why it happened. The Che Guevara image raises a related problem. Some call him a freedom fighter. Some wear his face on a shirt and probably know very little about him. His image has been turned into fashion, but for many people who fled communist rule, it carries a very different meaning. It can mean prisons, executions, fear, and the loss of freedom. Does that mean every young person wearing a Che shirt should be charged? No. Ignorance is not hatred. But when that image is used to glorify communist violence, mock people who fled communist rule, or celebrate political terror, why should Parliament pretend it carries no weight? This is where common sense matters. The swastika proves why the law must be careful. Long before Nazi Germany stole it, the swastika had religious and cultural meaning. It remains important in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions. Under Nazi Germany, it became the Hakenkreuz, a symbol tied to hatred and genocide in the West. That difference matters. Canada should target the Nazi Hakenkreuz when it is used to promote hatred. It should not punish a Buddhist temple, a Hindu home, a Jain symbol, an old Chinese restaurant, a museum, a history book, or an old building where the symbol had peaceful meaning long before Hitler poisoned it. Hitler stole that symbol. The law should not let him own it forever. Bill C 9 includes protections for legitimate purposes, including education, journalism, art, and public interest use. That matters. A reporter must be able to show a symbol in a story. A teacher must be able to show one in class. A museum must be able to tell history properly. But protections for history do not answer the bigger question. Why were communist symbols left out? A hate symbol law cannot play favourites with suffering. It cannot say one group’s pain matters while another group’s pain is too inconvenient to mention. The noose belongs in this debate. Nazi symbols belong in this debate. Terrorist symbols belong in this debate. And yes, the hammer and sickle belong in this debate too. If Parliament is brave enough to name Nazi terror, racial terror, and terrorist symbols, then it should be brave enough to debate communist terror as well. Anything less is not courage. It is a selective memory.

THE LAND GAME

THE LAND GAME Why Ontario Needs to Rethink Who Sits on Municipal Councils. The discussion is particularly relevant today as former Oshawa councillor and real estate broker Roger Bouma seeks a return to public office. This column is not about one individual. It is about a broader question voters should ask whenever candidates whose livelihoods depend on land transactions, development approvals, planning matters or property values seek elected office. Every few years, someone raises the question. And every few years, the political establishment quickly dismisses it. But perhaps it is time to ask it again. Should active real estate brokers, developers, planning consultants and land speculators be permitted to sit on municipal councils? For years, Oshawa residents watched former councillor Roger Bouma serve on council while simultaneously operating a successful real estate business. To be clear, there was never any finding of wrongdoing against Mr. Bouma, nor am I suggesting there was. But the controversy surrounding his time in office highlights a larger issue that extends far beyond one individual. The real question is whether the system itself creates circumstances that erode public confidence. Having sat at council tables, regional committees, budget meetings and closed sessions for years, I can say without hesitation that municipal politicians are often exposed to information long before the public. Most elected officials handle that responsibility honourably. The question is whether the rules themselves are sufficient when those same elected officials earn their living in industries directly affected by municipal decisions. Municipal government is unlike any other level of government. Municipal councils decide where roads will be built. They decide where sewers will be extended. They determine growth boundaries. They approve official plans. They influence zoning. They establish development priorities. And every one of those decisions can dramatically increase or decrease land values. A farmer's field can become a subdivision. Industrial land can become commercial land. Rural property can become urban property. A sewer extension can transform worthless acreage into land worth millions. Information matters. Timing matters. Relationships matter. If a stockbroker were given advance knowledge of a future market-moving event, regulators would immediately recognize the concern. Yet in municipal government, elected officials routinely receive information regarding future infrastructure investments, growth planning, servicing strategies and development priorities that can dramatically influence land values.Whether or not that information is ever misused is almost beside the point. The public should never be left wondering. The issue is not corruption. The issue is confidence. The issue is not whether someone breaks the rules. The issue is whether the public believes the rules are sufficient. Imagine a developer sitting on council. Imagine a planning consultant sitting on council. Imagine a major landowner sitting on council. Most residents would immediately recognize the concern. So why does the conversation suddenly become uncomfortable when the profession is real estate? A broker may not own the land. But a broker operates in a business where information, timing and relationships are often worth significant money. Even if every councillor acts honourably, the public is left wondering. That doubt alone damages trust. The problem extends well beyond Oshawa. Across Ontario, municipal councils are increasingly populated by individuals with direct financial interests in development, land transactions, planning approvals and growthrelated industries. At the same time, residents are being told that housing decisions, intensification policies and servicing priorities are being made solely in the public interest. Can both things be true?Perhaps. But public trust requires more than honesty. It requires independence. The appearance of a conflict can be almost as damaging as an actual conflict. Perhaps Ontario needs a serious discussion about reform. Perhaps active developers should be prohibited from serving on municipal councils. Perhaps active planning consultants should be prohibited from serving on municipal councils. Perhaps active real estate brokers should face enhanced disclosure requirements or restrictions. Or perhaps there should be mandatory blind trusts and independent oversight for elected officials whose businesses operate directly within the development industry. Because municipal government is where fortunes are often made. It is where land values are created. It is where growth is directed. And it is where public confidence is most easily lost. Trust is difficult to earn. Easy to lose. And impossible to regulate after it has disappeared.

D-Day: Remembering the Victory, Confronting the Warning

D-Day: Remembering the Victory, Confronting the Warning by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Each year, Canadians pause to commemorate the anniversary of the D-Day landings of June 6, 1944. We gather at cenotaphs, watch documentaries, listen to the stories of veterans, and pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of the young men who crossed the English Channel and stormed the beaches of Normandy. For Canada, the name that resonates most deeply is Juno Beach, where thousands of Canadian soldiers fought their way ashore against determined German resistance and helped begin the liberation of Western Europe. D-Day was not simply a military operation. It was a defining moment in the struggle between freedom and tyranny, democracy and dictatorship, human dignity and barbarism. The Allied soldiers who landed on the beaches of Normandy knew that the outcome of the battle would shape the future of Europe and, indeed, the world. Many would never return home. Their sacrifice deserves our enduring gratitude. Yet remembrance is not enough. The worsening of the geopolitical situation in the world with new conflagrations emerging, make it important that the lessons learned in defeating the Nazi Germany be not forgotten As we commemorate D-Day more than eight decades later, we must also recognize an uncomfortable truth: the hateful ideas that fueled Nazism did not disappear with Germany's surrender in 1945. The military defeat of Nazi Germany was decisive, but the ideologies of hatred, racism, antisemitism, and authoritarianism continue to find adherents in different forms and under different names. The warning of D-Day remains as relevant today as the celebration of victory. The generation that fought the Second World War understood the consequences of indifference. They witnessed how extremist movements exploited economic uncertainty, political polarization, and social resentment. They saw how propaganda transformed prejudice into public policy and how democratic institutions could be weakened from within. Most importantly, they learned that freedom can be lost gradually before it is lost completely. The rise of Nazi Germany did not happen overnight. It emerged through a combination of political opportunism, economic hardship, fear, and the willingness of too many people to remain silent in the face of growing intolerance. The lesson for our time is clear: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires constant vigilance, civic engagement, and a commitment to the rule of law. Today, the world faces challenges that differ from those of 1944 but contain echoes of the past. Antisemitism, once thought to be discredited forever by the horrors of the Holocaust, has reappeared in many societies. Hate crimes directed against Jewish communities, religious minorities, and ethnic groups have increased in several countries. Extremist organizations exploit social media to spread conspiracy theories, misinformation, and prejudice. Political discourse has become increasingly polarized, and trust in democratic institutions has eroded. Canada is not immune to these trends. Our country has long been admired for its commitment to pluralism, tolerance, and democratic governance. Canadians rightly take pride in a society that welcomes newcomers and respects diversity. Yet we have also witnessed incidents of hatred and intolerance that remind us that no nation is exempt from the darker currents of human nature. The values defended by Canadian soldiers at Juno Beach must be renewed by each generation rather than assumed to be permanent. Remembering D-Day therefore requires more than ceremonies and speeches. It demands reflection on the responsibilities of citizenship. Democracy depends on informed citizens who are willing to participate in public life, challenge misinformation, and defend the rights of others. It requires political leaders who place principle above division and institutions that remain accountable and transparent. The anniversary of D-Day is also an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of sacrifice. The average age of the soldiers who landed in Normandy was astonishingly young. Many were in their late teens or early twenties. They left behind families, careers, and dreams because they believed that some causes were greater than themselves. Their courage was not rooted in a desire for conquest but in a determination to liberate occupied peoples and restore peace. For younger Canadians, the Second World War may seem increasingly distant. The number of surviving veterans diminishes each year. First-hand memories are giving way to history books and archival footage. This makes education all the more important. Future generations must understand not only what happened during the war but why it happened and what lessons it offers for the present. Historical memory is a safeguard against complacency. When societies forget the consequences of extremism, they become more vulnerable to its appeal. When citizens lose confidence in democratic institutions, they become susceptible to voices promising easy solutions to complex problems. When prejudice is tolerated in small forms, it can grow into something far more dangerous. The veterans of D-Day did not fight for a perfect world. They fought for a better one. They understood that freedom requires effort and that peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, opportunity, and mutual respect. Their achievement was extraordinary, but the responsibility for preserving it belongs to us. As we remember the Canadians who landed at Juno Beach, let us honour them not only with words but with actions. Let us reject hatred in all its forms. Let us defend democratic institutions when they are challenged. Let us promote respectful dialogue even when we disagree. Let us teach our children the lessons of history and ensure that the sacrifices of the past continue to illuminate the future. D-Day was a victory over one of the most destructive ideologies humanity has ever known. However, it was also a reminder that freedom is never guaranteed. The soldiers who crossed the beaches of Normandy entrusted future generations with a profound responsibility. The greatest tribute we can pay them is to remain faithful to the values for which they fought: liberty, democracy, human dignity, and the rule of law. Their battle ended on the shores of Normandy. Ours is the ongoing task of ensuring that the forces they defeated never again find fertile ground in our societies. That is the enduring meaning of D-Day, and it is a lesson worth remembering every year.

THE REALITY OF MY DREAM

THE REALITY OF MY DREAM By Joe Ingino A behind-the-scenes view of my dream in a nightmare world... People always ask, “Joe, how do you do it? What is your secret?”In reality, there is no secret. Just a long list of regrets, guilt, and sacrifices. We are approaching the celebration of Father’s Day, a rare time when fathers receive recognition for their role in the family. As a single-income family, the hardships throughout the years have been plentiful. As I look back, I regret many things. I regret not being able to spend more time with my family, watch them grow, and feel as though I could have been there more. I could have done more.I feel guilt because so much of my time was sacrificed to ensure that my family could sustain a comfortable lifestyle. I feel guilt for not being able to explore more opportunities. Then, as stated in my byline, “DECODE YOUR LIFE BY LIVING IT WITHOUT REGRET OR SORROW — ONE DAY AT A TIME.”In part, I guess that is the real secret. My love for my nation, my community, and my family has guided everything I have done.I look around and see that I am constantly contributing back to my community. I contribute by bringing an award-winning newspaper to the people of Durham Region and by making my country proud in an industry that knows no borders.I look at my family and see that none of them struggle with drug addiction, substance abuse of any kind, or serious mental health challenges. I sacrificed and guided them throughout their lives whenever needed. Today, they are all productive members of the community. I always gave them everything I could, while teaching them the value of a dollar. I respected their freedoms and choices because the light of my love and guidance has always led them toward opportunity.Father’s Day, to me, is not about me. It is about them. It is about knowing they are safe, self-dependent, and able to give back to their families, their communities, and their country.It would be selfish not to sacrifice in the name of duty to my family. It would be irresponsible not to provide guidance. Life has many lessons to teach. Some are less pleasant than others.We are fathers. We are leaders of our families and are responsible for providing guidance and creating opportunities when they are few and far between. I remember being asked by one of my children:“Why is life so hard all the time? ”I looked into their eyes and told them: “Life is not hard. Life is about opportunity. It is about perspective and the never-ending test of whether you are worthy of the rewards that follow. Failure is expected and welcomed as a lesson never to be repeated. Opportunity comes as a result of many failures. Success is merely the by-product of many favorable opportunities. ”I think the ultimate gift from your family is the assurance that, when they are faced with raising their own families, they are prepared to make similar sacrifices and live their lives “one day at a time.”We live a dream encapsulated by a nightmare that constantly challenges us. It takes us on emotional roller coasters, pushing our feelings to places we have never been and never wish to return. We are faced with darkness as we search for the future, only to keep seeing that distant light. A promised light that we truly reach only when we die. A light that promises eternal life. Living every day to its fullest is true success. Appreciating every second in our journey toward that perfect light at the end of destiny's tunnel. We need not spend our lives searching, but rather living responsibly and without regret, for our destiny has already been determined. In part I thank my father for his teachings of his dream in his own nightmare world.

Sneaky Little Dance

Sneaky Little Dance By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Have you ever stopped to think about the sneaky little dance happening in your wallet every single day? It’s a constant tango between inflation and its inseparable partner, purchasing power. The truth is you really can’t have one without the other! Most of us don’t spend our free time pondering economic concepts, but understanding purchasing power is crucial if you want to hit your long-term goals and achieve true financial independence. Think about what financial freedom really means to you: it’s having the exact standard of living you desire, paid for in inflation-adjusted, after-tax dollars, all without ever having to get out of bed and punch a clock again to keep it going. Sounds pretty amazing, right? But here’s the catch. To reach that level of freedom—and hold onto it—you have to plan for how inflation will slowly chew away at the value of your money over the next ten or twenty years. If you don’t build a sturdy shield around your hard-earned lifestyle, you might end up in the incredibly tough position of heading back into the workforce long after your retirement party. Sadly, we’ve seen this become a harsh reality for retirees who had to find jobs again following the heavy economic shock and soaring living costs brought on by the 2020 pandemic. So, what exactly is purchasing power? It’s simply a measure of how far each of your dollars goes when buying the everyday goods and services you need to live. You’ve probably heard friends or family joke about trying to “stretch their dollars” or feeling like “there’s way more month than money.” That’s shrinking purchasing power in action. When you are living on a fixed income, even a modest annual price increase of 2% (the official target set by Canada’s Central Bank) means you will have to burn through your savings faster just to maintain your current lifestyle. If you ever doubt this, just ask someone who has been retired for a decade or two! Or simply think back to your own childhood. Remember when a chocolate bar cost just a dime instead of $1.50? Ask a senior, and they’ll gladly remind you that an average family car today costs about the same as what they paid for a nice house back in the 1960s. That’s exactly why inflation and purchasing power are two concepts you absolutely must keep in mind when designing your wealth-building and wealth-preservation strategies. Keep in mind that inflation isn’t just about the rising price of groceries or wage bumps. It also shows up as a general surge in asset prices—think real estate and equity investments—and an increase in the total amount of money floating around the economy. So, the next time you hear a news report about a government go ahead with “monetary easing” policies, pay close attention. Often, these large-scale strategies are designed to fix massive public debt problems or solve sluggish economic growth. However, a major side effect is that these actions can stoke more inflation and deliberately reduce your future purchasing power. The great news is that you don’t have to be a victim of inflation. With the right financial strategy, you can use these economic forces to your advantage. Reach out to a financial professional to discuss how you can adapt your portfolio today to protect your financial health for tomorrow Safe Travel happy reading until next time !

The Things Nobody Thought Were Important

Dead and Gone… The Things Nobody Thought Were Important By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things I have noticed over the years is that families are not always very good at predicting what will matter later. I do not mean that as a criticism. I think most of us are probably the same when it comes to these things. We protect the things that seem obvious and valuable to us. We keep important documents together. We put certain photographs in frames to look at and have others look at. We also decide which possessions are worth insuring, saving, passing along, or placing carefully in a box where they will not be damaged. That is all reasonable, and it is also incomplete in some sense of the word. After someone dies, families often discover that importance does not always follow the path they expected. The items that were carefully preserved may still matter, of course, but they are not always the things that stop people. Sometimes it is the object that was never meant to survive or to be thought about at all. Something left in a drawer, or something tucked into a book. Maybe it is something kept for no clear reason other than the fact that nobody threw it away. We have all seen people move quickly past things that had obvious value, then pause over something almost accidental. And generally it is not because it was beautiful or rare or financially meaningful, but because it seemed to contain evidence of ordinary life. That is a different kind of value, and it is harder to explain without making it sound more sentimental than it is. Someone's house can be full of possessions and still leave a family looking for traces. That is the part I find interesting, and by no means do I think it is fair to say that most people are always looking for the most important or valuable object. Sometimes they are looking for proof of the person as they actually were, in the middle of regular life, before anyone knew there would eventually be a need to remember them so carefully. And that may be why the ordinary things can become kind of complicated. They were not curated, they were certainly not chosen for legacy, they escaped attention, which is probably why they can feel more authentic later. A formal portrait tells one kind of truth, while a marked-up calendar, an old notebook, or a tool left on a basement shelf tells another. There is also a practical side to this that families know all too well. Not everything can be kept, as most of us do not have the space, time, or emotional energy to preserve an entire household. Decisions have to be made, and many of them are fairly straightforward. Keep it, donate it, sell it, or discard it. Those words are simple until they are applied to objects that belonged to someone who is no longer there to explain why they kept them. I do not think there is a perfect way through that. Some things will be saved that later seem unimportant. While other things will be let go that someone may wonder about years afterwards. That is probably unavoidable. Families are trying to make decisions with limited space, limited time, and often very little emotional distance. What I find myself thinking about is how much of a person’s life exists outside the things we formally preserve. By this I mean routines, their habits, the unfinished projects, or the way a drawer was organized, or not organized. The things they placed on a shelf and left there. None of it was meant to become meaningful and I think that is what makes it different. Maybe that is the part worth noticing, as we all spend years deciding what matters, and then time quietly makes its own decisions for us. It does not always choose the most valuable things. And it does not always choose the things we would have expected. But sometimes it does decide to choose whatever happened to remain. When all is said and done, while standing in front of a box or a drawer or a workbench, a family realizes the object they are all looking at was never really the point. It was simply one of the few places where ordinary life was still visible.