Saturday, April 18, 2026
How Do You Choose Who to Call?
Dead and Gone…
How Do You Choose Who to Call?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
There is a moment that comes sooner than most people expect. It doesn’t feel like a big decision at first. But it is. Someone asks a simple question. “Who should we call?” If I were gone, I think this is the moment I would worry about more than most. Not because it is complicated. But because it happens before everything has settled.
A name is suggested. Sometimes by a hospital. Sometimes by a care home. Sometimes by someone who has been through this before.
“Just call here.” And in that moment, it can feel easier to follow that path. Not because it has been thought through. But because it is something to hold onto. I have seen families move forward with that first call without realizing they could pause.
Not because anyone rushed them. But because everything has already started to move. If I were gone, I would want my family to know something simple. They can take a moment. Even here. Even now. They can ask each other, quietly, “Do we want to speak to one or two places before deciding?”
That question does not change everything. But it changes enough. Because once that first call is made, things begin to take shape. Conversations narrow. Options become less visible. And stepping back becomes harder than it was at the beginning.
Not impossible. Just harder. There is another part of this that families often notice later.
The first conversation stays with them. Not always the details. But how it felt. Whether things were clear. Whether they felt comfortable asking questions.
Whether they felt like they needed to keep up. Those things are not always obvious in the moment. But they matter more than people expect.
If I were gone, I would want my family to pay attention to that feeling. Because it will follow them through everything that comes next. If I could leave one quiet reminder, it would be this: You don’t have to move faster than you’re ready to.
Even when everything around you has already begun. Next week, I will write about something families often notice once they begin speaking with more than one place: why the information they receive can look very different, even when the services being considered are nearly the same.
Death & taxes and how do es it Mix?
WRONG EXAMPLE
WRONG EXAMPLE
By Wayne and Tamara
I think I'm in a tight spot. My older brother is married with two young children. He was caught having a little Internet fling a few years ago. Nothing happened, but I suppose the correct way of putting it is he emotionally cheated. He felt like crud, and we all thought he had put this behind him. He and his wife have been to counseling, and he did his best to be the best husband ever. Currently they're tense whenever they are together. You can cut the air with a knife, and it seems they are always ready to snap at each other. It's not easy to be around them.
My brother and I went to lunch today. Lately he's been constantly texting on his device, and today it lit up with a text. I glanced at what he was typing, thinking it was business. I saw him type, "So u say u like to role play. Tell me…" I stopped and looked at the ground. I got a sick feeling in my stomach.
So now, what do I do? I really don't think he was texting his wife. They're not sexual or warm toward one another, and even if they were, he would know her likes by now, right? It's a new girl. Got to be. Do I tell my fiancée, who is friends with my sister-in-law?
Dennis
Dennis, will you share your thoughts and events of the day with your life partner? Or will you compartmentalize what you say to her? Your brother's marriage has reached a point where he is leading a second life away from his wife. That's not because it doesn’t concern her, but because he has become a double agent. Such a divide is always present with two people who don't belong together. You know what is right in a relationship. You saw a wrong happen, and you are affected by it. Your fiancée is also likely to be affected by it. By all means share what you saw. With her you want the closeness, love, and trust which is missing from your brother's marriage. Wayne & Tamara
Sticks And Stones
I am newly remarried and recently my husband compared a part of my body to his ex-wife, who I will call X. We were fooling around, and he grabbed my breast and said, "Nice, but X's are bigger." I freaked. I flipped him out of his chair, kicked him, and pushed him down the hallway, hitting and screaming at him. Last time I had that much anger and acted like that, I was in my 20s, angry at my first husband, and alcohol was involved. I feel bad I hit him and have made an appointment for counseling. My husband has apologized, but now I am thinking he must still be thinking of his ex, since he mentioned her body parts like that. I was not previously jealous, but now I am.
He has to maintain a relationship with her as they have a young child together. I am attractive, and she is fat and not very pretty. Should I just drop this? Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing. Staci
Staci, the old line about sticks and stones is false. Words do hurt, especially from a loved one.
The real story is your feelings toward his ex-wife. In marrying him, you became her hostage. She is a cash and time drain on your marriage. Their child is a reminder of their sexual relationship. Even though you both have a past, you have to wonder, what did he do with her? How do I compare? The issue to explore in counseling is the basis of your gut reaction. Love, not looks, is the real basis for comparison with the ex-wife. If you and your husband share the deep emotional connection which holds two people together, there is nothing to worry about.
Wayne & Tamara
The Right Attitude Helps with a Fractured Hip
The Right Attitude
Helps with a
Fractured Hip
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
No one wants to get that call. A loved one has taken a fall. There’s always the hope that it will be just a bruise and shaken confidence. But when the ensuing emergency treatment confirms a fractured hip, it’s time for everyone to bring out their best skills in patience.
Falls are, unfortunately, very common. But their consequences are anything but trivial. Research published in journals such as the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the New England Journal of Medicine has long shown that a hip fracture in later life is no walk in the park.
Yet, the major risks associated with hip fractures are well known, and medical teams are trained to mitigate the ones that can cause problems while in the hospital. Hip fracture surgery has risks, but today, most people come through it. Roughly four in five older adults survive the year following a hip fracture. Few will return to their previous level of mobility and independence. But a hip fracture today is not what it was forty years ago.
Dr. Mary Tinetti, Professor of Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, has spent a career studying why people fall. One of her observations is that it is often the more active, capable older adult who sustains the most serious injuries. They move more quickly, take more chances, and neglect preventative measures.
Falling, she argues, is rarely due to a single cause. It is the result of small changes accumulating over time. Vision becomes less reliable. Balance is easily lost. Medications interact. Muscles lose strength.
Some falls are preventable. The edges of rugs are a hazard, as is poor lighting. Showers, even with grab bars, are slippery places. Preventing a fall means slowing down so that every movement is a safe and steady one. But even with care, falls still happen.
The evidence of many studies shows that frailty, rather than age, is the key determinant of rehabilitation outcomes. So whether before, for prevention, or after a fall, for recovery, exercise is critical. That’s why physiotherapy is standard practice for post-operative treatment. At any age, but particularly after 50, experts agree that people should be engaged in resistance training 2-3 days a week, aerobic exercise at least 3 times a week, and balance training just as frequently.
Having professional physiotherapists to guide a program of exercise is ideal. Left to their own devices, people fail to do what’s good for them. In the U.S., large-scale surveys show that even after encouragement, about 80 percent of people don’t meet the guidelines.
Getting started isn’t hard. Experts say that standing on one foot, then the other, while doing the dishes is one place to start. Slowly standing and sitting without using the arms is another good exercise.
But here’s interesting news. In a longitudinal study of nearly 700 people who experienced a fall, researchers found that mindset matters. Independent of other important factors such as age, gender, and pre-fall physical function, people with positive self-perceptions of aging had significantly better outcomes as measured two years after their fall.
In sports psychology, there is an expression, “The body achieves what the mind believes.” Athletes understand. Kids too. It’s just the older set that needs to internalize this.
So patience, but resolve, if you are the unlucky victim of a fractured hip. It’s a long road to recovery, but with careful and consistent exercise, and a healthy outlook, you can ensure your place in the group of people who come through the trauma.
Not Getting Hired Doesn’t Prove Hiring is Broken
Not Getting Hired Doesn’t
Prove Hiring is Broken
By Nick Kossovan
If I had a nickel for every time a job seeker told me, "I'm doing everything right! Why am I not getting hired?" I'd be writing this column from a Southern California beachfront house. Most job seekers aren't doing everything right. They're doing what's comfortable and easy, and what self-proclaimed career coaches tell them to do.
I find many job seekers treat their job search like a hobby, something they tinker with when the mood strikes, usually between scrolling through social media and complaining that the hiring system is "broken."
Clarification that a "hiring system" doesn't exist: No two employers assess candidates the same way, so there's no universal hiring system. Individual employers design their hiring processes according to what they feel is in their best interests, which is for them, not the job seeker, to determine.
Especially in today's job market, "doing everything right" means meeting the demanding expectations of an employer whose keen business acumen considers employees as human capital investments and expects every hire to add value to their business that justifies their compensation. If you aren't getting hired, it's not because the mythical hiring system is broken; it's because you aren't positioning yourself as someone an employer needs to maintain, ideally increase, their profitability.
To protect their egos, job seekers complain that employers don't know how to hire. By blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their lack of success in their job search, they're telling themselves (read: their ego) that it's not their fault; it's the recruiter's, the employer's ATS, or [whatever].
The "it's broken" excuse is a sedative for the unsuccessful.
Ponder this: The likelihood of a high school football player making it to the NFL is about 0.2%. For hockey players aspiring to the NHL, it's about 0.11%. Do you hear the thousands of athletes who don't make the cut, screaming that the scouting and drafting system is broken? Professional sports teams are successfully filling their rosters with elite athletic talent. The system works for the NFL and NHL; it just doesn't work for those who weren't fast or strong enough to be drafted.
Imagine the stress and pressure of trying to secure a surgical residency or being selected for a major airline pilot training program. In both cases, the application and selection process is intense, resulting in the majority of applicants being rejected. Is the
selection process for a neurosurgeon "broken" because a straight-A medical student didn't get selected by their first-choice hospital? No, not at all. The application and selection process is designed specifically to select only the "best of the best."
As we delve deeper into 2026, AI is constantly moving the goalposts. AI isn't just a tool anymore; it's a viable alternative to back-office functions. In tech and white-collar sectors, entry-level roles once considered "safe" are being automated.
Increasingly, human roles are reserved for those able to deliver a healthy ROI on their compensation investment that, for now, machines are unable to match.
Job seekers who are searching for a job by the "traditional rules" are the ones who aren't getting traction. I see this often: recent graduates with impressive academic credentials wondering why their inbox is empty. They did what they were told to do, but they neglected to develop real-world skills through internships, side projects, and informational conversations.
Conversely, experienced professionals are struggling because they're failing to adapt their career story to a job market that prizes agility and digital fluency over decades of "doing things the old way."
Given that employers are hiring great candidates every day, job seekers need to ask themselves: What are successful job seekers doing right?
· Networking over Applying: They go beyond simply submitting their résumé. In a world of AI-generated applications, human connection is the only thing that scales. They create, maintain and leverage professional relationships to bypass digital gatekeepers.
· Proving their value with Data: They don't merely claim to "manage a team"; they specify the exact cost savings, or efficiency gains they achieved for their employer.
· Lifelong Skill Development: They prioritize acquiring knowledge and skills, knowing, for example, that if they don't become proficient with AI collaboration tools, they'll become obsolete.
Resisting how employers choose to hire for their business is a monumental waste of energy. It's their business, their turf, and they're taking on the hiring risks. You don't have to like that they use AI filters, demand six rounds of interviews, or prioritize "cultural fit," but you do have to adapt to the new world order.
As I pointed out, hiring processes differ from employer to employer, so there's no universal hiring system that's broken. However, universally, employers don't care whether you believe or are being told you're doing "everything right." Employers only care whether you'll create value for their business that's worth paying for.
The takeaway: Not getting hired isn't evidence that an employer's hiring process is "broken." As an outsider, you have no visibility into what goes on inside. However, it's safe to assume an employer would fix their hiring process if they were concerned it wasn't attracting the candidates they need to maintain and increase their profitability. 
The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock
The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
It did not happen all at once. No one woke up and said, “That’s it, I don’t care anymore.” It came in small moments, quiet ones, the kind you almost miss. Like standing at the grocery checkout. The screen lights up. It asks for a donation. You pause. You think. You look at your cart like it might answer for you.
Then you press “no.” Not fast. Not angry. Just tired. You glance around for a second after, like someone might have seen. No one did. Or maybe they did and just understood. That is where the story really starts. A few years ago, most of us would have said yes. A dollar. Five dollars. Maybe more if we could. It felt like part of who we were. You help where you can. You do your part. That part of us is still here. But life has changed. Walk through any store now.
People are not browsing. They are calculating. You see it in their faces. They pick something up, check the price, then put it back. A man holds two packs of meat. He only takes one. A woman counts coins before she taps her card. A young worker checks his bank app before he pays. No one says a word.
But everyone understands. Money is tighter than it has been in a long time. Food costs keep rising. Every week it feels higher. Rent keeps climbing too. For many people, it is not just hard, it is overwhelming. You pay it, and there is not much left. Young people feel it the most. They are trying to start their lives, but it feels like the ground keeps moving.
Jobs are harder to find. Good jobs feel out of reach. Some move back home. Some take whatever they can get. Some just keep trying and hoping something opens up. And in the middle of all this, the tasks keep coming. Charities call. Emails pile up. Ads show up online.
The bank asks. The store asks. There is always another cause, another need, another voice asking for help. At first, people try to keep up. They give a little here, a little there. They tell themselves it still matters.
Then reality hits. A bigger grocery bill than last week.
A rent increase. A payment that suddenly hurts more than it used to. That is when something shifts. You start saying no more often. Not because you want to. Because you have to. And here is the part people do not say out loud. Some of us have started avoiding it on purpose. We tap faster at the machine. We look away from the person with the clipboard. We scroll past the story that asks for help.
Not because we do not care. Because we cannot carry one more thing. That is when the guilt creeps in. You feel it when you walk past a donation box. When you skip a fundraiser. When you ignore a message asking for help. You tell yourself, “Next time.” You tell yourself, “When things get better.”
But next time I keep moving further away. After a while, something else happens. You start turning the volume down on that feeling. You have to. Because caring like that, all the time, costs something. It costs energy. It costs peace. It follows you home and sits with you when you are trying to rest. So you quiet it.
From the outside, it can look like people stopped caring. That is not what is happening. People are trying to stay afloat. You cannot be generous when you are scared. Picture someone in deep water. They are not thinking about saving everyone else. They are trying to keep their own head above the surface. That is where a lot of Canadians are right now. And here is the hard truth. The more people are pushed, the less they can give. When every moment feels like another ask, another reminder, another weight, people do not open up. They close off. They protect what little they have left.
Money, yes. But also their energy, their peace, their sanity. There is another side to this that makes it even harder. We still spend on small things sometimes. A coffee. A treat. Something to feel normal for a moment. Then later, we look at the bill and wonder if we should have said yes to that donation instead. That back and forth sits with people. No one talks about the moment caring starts to feel like pressure.
But it is happening. There is also the question people keep to themselves. They look at what they pay in taxes. They hear about spending, programs, and promises. They are told more is needed. But their own lives are getting tighter, not easier. So they ask, quietly, where is it going? Why does it feel like it is never enough?
Those questions hang there. And still, the tasks keep coming. This is where the warning lives. If we keep pushing people who are already struggling, we risk losing something deeper than donations.
We risk losing trust. We risk wearing down the very instinct that made people want to help in the first place. Because generosity is not endless. It needs room. It needs stability. Right now, many people have neither.
They are not bad people. They are not selfish. They are tired. They are stretched thin. They are doing everything they can just to hold their own lives together.
We still care. We just ran out of room to carry it all. If we want that caring to come back strong, we have to let people stand again first.
Ease the pressure. Give people room to breathe. Because when people feel steady again, they will give. They always have. But here is the part we should not ignore. Some people have already stopped answering the knock.
And that number is growing. That is the warning. Because when people stop answering, it is not loud. It is quiet.
Quiet enough that no one notices at first. Until one day, the knock is still there. But no one opens the door.
When Good Intentions Go Wrong
When Good Intentions Go Wrong
The Bike Lane Problem in Bowmanville There’s a difference between smart infrastructure and ideological infrastructure. Right now, in parts of downtown Bowmanville—particularly corridors like Liberty Street and King Street East—we’re not seeing thoughtful planning. We’re seeing the forced application of a one-size-fits-all policy that ignores the physical realities of the road.
Let’s be clear: this is not an argument against cycling. Cycling infrastructure, when done properly, improves safety, reduces congestion, and enhances communities. But when it’s forced into corridors that were never designed to accommodate it—by stripping away existing traffic lanes—we create the opposite outcome: congestion, driver frustration, and, ironically, new safety risks. What we’re witnessing is a classic case of policy over practicality.
Downtown Bowmanville is not a wide, multi-lane urban grid. It is a constrained, functioning corridor that already balances commercial access, parking, deliveries, and commuter traffic. Removing a live traffic lane in that environment doesn’t “calm traffic”—it compresses it.
The result? - Increased bottlenecks - Reduced emergency response efficiency
- More aggressive driving behavior due to congestion
- And in some cases, greater risk for both drivers and cyclists There is a better way—and it already exists.
Across Europe, municipalities have moved toward dedicated, off-road cycling networks wherever possible.
These are: - Physically separated from vehicular traffic
- Integrated with parks, boulevards, and secondary corridors - Designed for safety without compromising primary road function.
This is not theory. It’s proven. Instead of forcing bike lanes onto already constrained arterial roads, municipalities like Clarington—and across Durham Region—should be asking a simple question: Where can cycling infrastructure be built properly, not just conveniently?
That means: - Leveraging hydro corridors - Utilizing parkland connections - Creating parallel cycling routes off main streets - Designing infrastructure that works with traffic, not against it Because good planning isn’t about checking a box—it’s about outcomes.
Right now, the outcome in parts of Bowmanville is clear: more congestion, more confusion, and a growing disconnect between policy and lived experience. If we actually care about safety—for cyclists and drivers alike—we need to stop forcing infrastructure into places it doesn’t belong and start designing it where it does.
That’s not anti-cycling. That’s just good planning.
SALVAJES THE REAL REASON WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE
SALVAJES
THE REAL REASON WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
I remember my days as a child in Uruguay, South America. Living in the city of Montevideo a modern city as it was and is. Those in the big city generally were well educated and upheld the social norms to a ‘T”. There was no excuses for failures. There was no compromise on civic duty and responsibility. People tried real hard to fit in. To not be different. As different made you a ‘Salvaje’.
No one wanted to be a ‘Salvaje’- by definitions: Salvaje - son aquellos que viven en su hábitat natural, libres de la intervención humana para su alimentación o protección. In English: Those that live in their natural habitat, free of human intervention for their food and protection.
Wow, what a mouthful. Think this about this. Back in the day. We as a homogeneous society lived under a strict code governed by the government law and the church. The culture was one that unified the country into strong nationalism. The people did not want to be ‘SALVAJES’. They strived to be productive members of society for the betterment of Self, Family and Country. Even though we doubted religion. We lived by it’s code. Even though we may not support the government. It was our government and that elected by the people. In today’s world. We have no culture. If you think about the definition of ‘SALVAJE’. Are we not all become. We created a jungle of uncivilized beings. Survival in a modern culture is as harsh if not more difficult than having to hunt and live in harsh outdoors. The mix of different cultures that are less civilized than ours has compromised our standards our unity as a nation and turned us into a bunch of SALVAJES.
Look at the task before Trump in the middle East. Having to deal with SALVAJES. Not that they are not educated or have national Iranian pride. But that their culture. Their customs and religions makes us obviously different. Their way of life is as different as those SALVAJES roaming the jungles of South America. This is not to be disrespectful. But it is a reality. That North American standards have always been much higher. Our fear of a loving God is what has made us so compassionate and accepting to others needs, desires and wants. Look at the immigration policies both in Canada and U.S. The Iranian peace deal will never be as their definition of peace and ours are not the same. We as a civilized beings need to impose our standards as they attempt to impose their religious SALVAJE ways. I am not saying that Islam is a Salvaje religion. I am saying that some that practice fundamentalism within Islam are and this is what is compromising world peace.
Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers
Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
Canada is making some of the most complex policy decisions in its modern history—on energy, defence, infrastructure, and technology—yet the people making those decisions in the House of Commons of Canada largely lack one critical form of expertise: engineering.
Today, out of 340 Members of Parliament, only four can be clearly identified as licensed professional engineers (P.Eng.). All sit on the government benches. None are in the opposition. That is not just an imbalance—it is a structural weakness in how Canada governs itself.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a national one.
We are a country built on infrastructure, natural resources, and complex systems. From pipelines to power grids, from Arctic sovereignty to defence procurement, Canada’s strategic challenges are not abstract—they are technical. They require not only political judgment but a disciplined understanding of feasibility, risk, systems integration, and long-term consequences.
Engineers are trained precisely for this.
They are taught to solve problems within constraints. They learn to balance cost, performance, safety, and time. They are bound by a professional obligation to place public safety and welfare above all else. In short, they are trained to think in ways that public policy increasingly demands.
And yet, they are almost entirely absent from Parliament.
This is not new. During the government of Stephen Harper—a period defined by major debates over energy infrastructure, military procurement, and Arctic policy—there was effectively only one clearly identifiable licensed engineer in the House. A decade later, despite even greater complexity in national decision-making, the situation has barely improved.
The consequences are visible.
Canada’s defence procurement system has become synonymous with delay and cost escalation. Major infrastructure projects routinely face overruns and shifting timelines. Energy debates are often driven more by rhetoric than by technical clarity. These are not merely political failures—they are failures of systems thinking.
Engineering does not replace politics, but it grounds it.
An engineer in Parliament will ask different questions: Is this technically feasible? What are the system dependencies? Where are the failure points? What are the lifecycle costs? These questions do not end debate—but they elevate it.
So why are there so few engineers in federal politics?
Part of the answer lies within the profession itself. Engineers tend to work in environments where outcomes are measurable and decisions are evidence-based. Politics, by contrast, often operates in ambiguity and rewards persuasion over precision. Many engineers simply choose to stay where their skills are more directly applied.
But part of the responsibility lies with political parties. Candidate recruitment has long favoured familiar profiles—lawyers, political staffers, business figures. Engineers are not systematically sought out, nor is their value fully appreciated in the legislative process.
This is a mistake.
Canada is entering a period defined by technological transformation and geopolitical uncertainty. We are navigating an energy transition while remaining a major energy producer. We are modernizing our defence capabilities in an increasingly unstable world. We are confronting infrastructure deficits in housing, transportation, and public services. These are engineering challenges as much as political ones.
We do not need a Parliament of engineers. But we do need a Parliament that includes them.
A more balanced House of Commons—one that brings together legal, economic, social, and technical expertise—would be better equipped to govern a country like Canada. It would make decisions that are not only politically viable, but technically sound.
Professional engineers are bound by a code of ethics that prioritizes public safety, sustainability, and accountability. At a time when public trust in institutions is under strain, those are not qualities we can afford to overlook.
The numbers speak for themselves. Fewer than a handful of licensed engineers sit in a Parliament of 340 members. In a country that depends on infrastructure, innovation, and resource development, that is not just surprising—it is deeply concerning.
Canada does not lack engineering talent. It lacks a pathway to bring that talent into public life.
If we are serious about building a resilient, secure, and competitive nation, we need to broaden who sits at the decision-making table. That means encouraging engineers—and other technical professionals—to step forward. It means political parties recognizing the value of technical expertise. And it means voters understanding that good policy is not only about values and vision, but seriously dependent on timely execution.
In the end, governing a modern country is not unlike designing a complex system. It requires clarity, discipline, and respect for reality.
Canada would be far better served if more of its legislators understood that firsthand. 
Saturday, April 11, 2026
Dear Fellow Canadians
Dear Fellow Canadians
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
According to Statistic Canada, over $10,000,000,000 was donated from 5,000,000 Canadians to charity in 2019. All these donations are eligible for a non-refundable tax credit.
By using Life Insurance, you can increase your overall charitable donation benefiting a cause that really means something to you. Donating funds to the Canada Revenue Agency through taxation just doesn’t provide the same legacy.
Enhance Your Charitable Giving Using Life Insurance
Below are two structures that allow you enhance your donation to the charity of your choice and potentially pay less tax.
Personally Owned Life Insurance: Purchase a Life Insurance policy where you are the owner/payor of the policy with your chosen charity as the beneficiary.
Policy growth is tax-free increasing your overall donation. When you die the charity receives the death benefit tax-free. Your estate receives a tax credit of up to 100% of net income for both the year of death and the year immediately preceding it. You have access to the cash value during your life as the owner of the policy.
Can change the beneficiary at any time.
Charity owned Life Insurance:
Purchase a Life Insurance policy and make the charity the owner and beneficiary. You pay the premiums. Every year you receive a tax credit in the amount of the premium paid. Maximum donation credit is 75% of net income per year while living. Unused credits can be carried forward up to 5 years. Charity has access to cash value and they control the policy.
Using Life Insurance, you have enhanced your charitable contribution by 33.42%.
The option you choose is dependent on your income tax situation and where you want to use the non-refundable tax credit (annually or at the time of death). With both options, the legacy that you can provide a charity has been significantly increased.
If this is something that resonates with you, please reach out to discuss enhancing your
legacy.
Fighting Cancer With Precision
Fighting Cancer
With Precision
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
In my work with universities, I meet an array of Canada’s leading researchers. This week, it was Arghya Paul, Canada Research Chair in the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering and Chemistry at Western University in London, Ontario. Professor Paul and his team of young researchers are investigating new ways to fight cancer.
For decades, the war on cancer has relied on chemotherapy and radiation to kill cancer cells, treatments that often harm healthy cells too.
Now, scientists like Paul are exploring smarter ways to deploy drugs. He is working not at the scale of the tumour or the cancerous lesion, but at the biomolecular level of the nanoscale. That’s one billionth of a metre, where materials can be engineered to interact with the body in highly specific ways.
Instead of flooding the body with toxic chemicals, researchers are designing tiny biocompatible particles that travel through the bloodstream, seek out cancer cells, and act only where needed. It is a guided system rather than a scattershot approach. These particles can be activated by ultrasound waves. When exposed to a specific ultrasound intensity, they heat up and destroy tumour cells from within. Healthy cells nearby are largely spared.
Additionally, these particles can track tumor sites in the body using advanced clinical imaging systems. That means they can do more than one job at a time. They help doctors both see cancer cells more clearly and site-specifically destroy them. Detection and treatment are part of the same process.
This is a big shift in thinking. For years, medicine has treated diagnosis and therapy as separate steps. First find the disease. Then treat it. Now, the two are beginning to merge.
As Professor Paul explains, “This research represents a shift from treating cancer with blunt tools to engineering precise responses at the microscopic level. We’re beginning to program how therapeutic agents should interact with cancer cells rather than simply attacking them.”
His research lab is looking into how these systems can be built to respond to the unique environment of a tumour. Cancer cells often differ from normal cells in subtle ways. They may have slightly more acidic surroundings, different oxygen levels, or altered surface markers. Nanoparticles can be engineered to recognize these differences and act only when they are encountered.
The goal is simple in concept, but revolutionary in practice: maximum damage to cancer, minimal harm to the patient.
There is still a long road ahead. Much of this work is in experimental stages. What works in a laboratory dish or in animal studies does not always translate to human patients. Safety, long-term effects, and large-scale manufacturing are all challenges that must be overcome.
But the direction is clear. We are moving away from a model of medicine that relies on broadly toxic interventions, and toward one emphasizing precision, personalization, and control. This could mean fewer side effects, shorter recovery periods, and more effective treatments.
It could also mean catching and eliminating cancers earlier, before they have a chance to spread.
What’s another important insight? The future of medicine will not come from biology alone. It will come from the merging of physics, engineering, chemistry, and medicine. We need to stop thinking about doctors solely as people who come out of medical schools. The lifesavers may be graduates of engineering programs in advanced materials.
We are not yet at the point where cancer can be treated without risk or discomfort. But we are closer to a world where treatment is targeted, intelligent, and far less destructive, using microscopic tools designed with extraordinary precision, aimed directly at the disease, and nowhere else.
Carry on, researchers!
Practicing Water Conservation
Practicing Water Conservation
by Larraine Roulston
‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’
After reading that the Colorado River is experiencing severe low water levels, it’s a reminder that Canadian waters need our safeguarding. If you haven’t already begun, by making small changes to conserve water in your home, your water bills will be lower as well.
The family chefs can become water efficient when rinsing fresh produce. Place these foods in a bowl of water rather than running the tap. Add a little salt or vinegar and let the vegetables sit for several minutes to help remove pesticide residue.
Vegetable stock that is used to create soups can also be poured over oats to make porridge or used to boil rice. Save pasta water to thicken soups.
Allow frozen foods to thaw in the fridge rather than immersing them in running water, unless the instructions on the package state otherwise.
Run your dishwasher when full. If washing dishes by hand, rinse them first in a bowl of warm water to keep your soapy water clean and hot. Soak sticky pots and pans overnight.
Cooking with a steamer or pressure cooker uses less water than boiling veggies in a pot.
Place a jug of water in the fridge so that you don’t have to run the tap for a cold drink.
Aerators can be installed on faucets. They will mix air with water which reduces the flow rate without water pressure being compromised. Be on the lookout for leaks and dripping pipes.
Opportunities also exist in the bathroom by simply turning off the sink’s tap while shaving, brushing teeth, and soaping hands.
Taking showers with cooler water saves energy and has been noted to boost muscle recovery, increase circulation and energy levels.
Installing low-flush or dual-flush toilets and water-saving shower heads will reduce water usage.
In the laundry room, wash full loads in cold water. If you are able to catch rinse water, use it to wash matts, slippers, or to wipe floors. Wear clothes more than once, thus reducing the amount of laundry.
Use a bucket of water rather than a hose to wash the car. Strive for low maintenance landscaping that includes native plants. Replace some grassy areas with a ground cover.
Obtain a rain barrel. Water your lawn with grey water. Retain water in your garden by composting and placing mulch around plants.
Watering your garden in the early morning reduces evaporation loss and prevents fungal growth by allowing leaves to dry.
Sweep walkways, steps, and driveways rather than using a hose. When using a hose, control the flow with an automatic shut-off nozzle. Avoid water toys that require a constant stream of water.
If going to a spa, take your own robe and towels. It’s such a waste to see these being washed after a single use. Small challenges and awareness! These simple acts will help retain our waterways.
Try These ‘Offbeat’ Job Search Tactics to Shorten Your Job
Try These ‘Offbeat’ Job Search
Tactics to Shorten Your Job
Search
By Nick Kossovan
In 2026, being 'qualified' is merely the price of entry into the job market. A major challenge for job seekers is that hiring managers are inundated with AI-slop, creating 'all the same' applications that are not only uninspiring, but also render a candidate's qualifications invisible.
Nowadays, job seekers need a job search strategy that catches the attention of recruiters and hiring managers; to do this, they must 'be different.' Being different involves thinking creatively about how to showcase your skills and enthusiasm to contribute to the company's profitability, which is often more important than your qualifications.
Here are some 'offbeat' tactics to get an employer's or recruiter's attention.
Compile a Failure Portfolio
It's through failures that meaningful lessons emerge and wisdom grows, which is why I'm drawn to comeback and 'here's what I learned' stories.
Employers are terrified of risk, and, as a 2025 Harvard Business Review article noted, hiring managers are increasingly seeking "psychological safety through candidates who've already survived their biggest mistakes."
Create a one-page document that shows you've learned from your mistakes. List your three biggest professional 'train wrecks,' the lessons you've gained, and the safeguards you now have in place to avoid repeating them. Use this document to demonstrate you're a reliable candidate because you've 'been there, done that.'
Before Your Interview, Send a '30-60-90 Day Action Plan'
I favour proactive candidates because they demonstrate their ability and willingness to self-manage.
Prepare a 30-90-Day Action Plan detailing how you'll approach your new job, integrate with your new colleagues, and become a valuable employee as quickly as possible. As with a Failure portfolio, the key is to submit your action plan before your interview. Doing so shifts the conversation from "Do you have the skills?" to "How do you plan to make an impact?" and shows you aren't just looking for a paycheck.
Mail a Physical 'Technical Brief'
With 99% of communication being digital, a physical object arriving on a desk feels revolutionary.
Print a coil-bound' Technical Brief' that discusses a challenge the company is facing, such as a decrease in customer satisfaction scores or a slow product rollout, and how you'd address it. This document, to be sent by registered mail to your potential boss, provides evidence that you understand the company's pain point and possess the qualifications to address it.
Create a 'Video Proof of Concept'
In a job market rife with bad actors, claiming you can use Salesforce or use Solver to create predictive models often elicits skepticism. Prove you're the real deal! Record a two-minute screen share showing how you'd optimize Salesforce or media spend allocation using Solver. Video proof shifts the decision to hire you from mere trust to tangible evidence, eliminating the 'onboarding anxiety' that often slows hiring decisions. In the words of tech leaders, "The demo is the deal."
Review the Hiring Manager's Public Statements and Offer a Critique
Flattery is cheap and easily ignored. Instead, find a recent article, podcast, or LinkedIn post by the hiring manager and send them a professional, assertive critique or an 'extension' of their idea via email. For example: "When you were a guest on Austin Becak's podcast 'The Dream Job System Podcast,' you spoke about your thoughts on call centre churn, but you overlooked the impact of tiered incentive structures on Tier 2 agents." Sharing your opinions, ideas, or perspectives positions you as a peer rather than a subordinate and demonstrates that you have the confidence to speak up rather than be another 'yes-man,' which often turns hiring managers off.
Treat the Job Posting as a Request for Proposal (RFP)
Who's a less risky hire: a full-time employee, taking on a long-term financial liability, or a contractor with no long-term liability? In case you missed the memo or haven't been paying attention to all the layoffs happening, employees are essentially free agents, so why not start acting like one? The next time you see a job posting for a role you believe you're qualified for, instead of applying, consider submitting a proposal as if you're a consultant (free agent). Include sections like 'Terms of Service,' 'Projected Deliverables,' 'Cost-Benefit Analysis,' and 'Length of Contract.'
Proposing a consultant arrangement not only offers the employer a low-risk, cost-effective alternative to hiring a full-time employee, but also encourages the hiring manager to evaluate you on business grounds rather than against an HR checklist.
Offer to Do the Work
An employer's biggest concern is hiring someone who isn't the right fit or lacks the necessary skills. Ease that concern by offering to do an hour of actual work—such as identifying a process bottleneck, troubleshooting a live technical issue, or outlining a plan for vendor negotiations. Say: "Don't take my word for it; let's spend sixty minutes solving a live problem." A 'try-before-you-buy' approach—walking your talk—is very appealing.
Playing it "safe" keeps you invisible and unemployed. The aforementioned offbeat tactics do more than make you different; they show employers you have the grit and initiative most job seekers lack. As Henry Ford once said, "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got." 
When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore
When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Have you noticed how quickly people are labeling each other now? It shows up in conversation, online, and in how people describe who they are. It may seem harmless at first, even helpful, but it carries a risk that should not be ignored. Because once labels take hold, judgment follows. There are no official cards being handed out in Canada.
No one is lining up to receive papers that define them. But in a different way, something similar is starting to appear. Labels are being worn openly, almost like identity cards.
Not in your wallet, but in how you present yourself and how others decide where you belong. That should give people pause. History has shown what can happen when societies begin sorting people into fixed groups. In the Soviet Union, citizens were classified by class. Worker. Farmer. Enemy.
These were not just labels. They shaped lives and limited opportunity. In the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution, people were judged by family background. Good class or bad class. Those labels followed individuals for years and often defined their future. Most Canadians would agree those systems went too far. And today, there is no formal version of that here. But the warning is not about what exists on paper. It is about what is forming in practice.
The shift begins quietly. Words like privilege and victimhood are used more often. People are grouped before they are understood. In many cases, the goal is to address real issues such as inequality and fairness. Those are important conversations.
But something changes when the focus moves from helping people to defining them. The label comes first. The individual comes second. Critics say the New Democratic Party reflects this shift, with messaging that focuses on groups defined by disadvantage or privilege. Supporters call it fairness.
Critics say it risks turning people into categories first, citizens second. That concern is part of a wider shift, not just one party or one idea.
And that is where the warning becomes clear. Because once a society becomes comfortable assigning identity based on group, it becomes easier to assume things about the person in front of you. It becomes easier to judge. It becomes easier to divide. A man standing in line at a grocery store is not thinking about labels. He is thinking about the price of food. But in the wider conversation, he may already be placed into a group before anyone knows his story. That is where the disconnect begins.
Across communities, people are saying similar things in plain language. I just want to be treated fairly. I work hard, but I feel judged before I even speak.
No one sees my situation. These are real voices. Some, especially men of European background, say they feel they are being viewed through the lens of the past rather than their own actions. They hear conversations about history and feel that weight placed on them, even though they had no role in those events.
At the same time, others point out that history still shapes the present. Access to jobs, education, and opportunity has not always been equal. Ignoring that would also be a mistake. Both realities can exist at once. You cannot inherit guilt.
But you can inherit circumstances. The problem begins when those realities turn into fixed labels. Because labels are simple. Too simple. They reduce complex lives into single categories. They overlook effort, struggle, and personal story. They replace understanding with assumption.
And once that happens, something changes. Trust weakens. Conversations break down. People stop listening to each other. History shows that this kind of shift does not happen overnight. It builds slowly. One label at a time. One assumption at a time. That is why this moment matters.
Most people in Canada still see themselves as Canadian. They are not thinking in categories. They are focused on daily life. Paying rent. Buying groceries. Raising their children. Trying to move forward.
Many newcomers feel the same way. They are grateful for the opportunity to be here. They want to work, contribute, and build a stable life. That is the quiet majority. But there is also a smaller group that pushes these ideas more strongly. They speak loudly about identity and categories. They try to define people before those people can define themselves. That is where the concern grows. Because once people accept labels without question, they begin to see others through them.
And that changes how people are treated. It changes how decisions are made. It changes how a country sees itself. The danger is not in recognizing problems. The danger is in deciding who a person is before you know them. Because that decision can be wrong. It can be unfair.
And it can close the door to understanding before it even begins. This is why the idea of a modern card system, even as a metaphor, matters. Not because cards exist. But because the thinking behind them can grow quietly. And when it does, it shapes everything. It shapes language. It shapes judgment. It shapes how people treat each other. So this is the warning. Be careful with labels.
Be careful when you apply them to yourself.
Be careful when you apply them to others. Because the moment you decide who a person is before you understand them, you step into something dangerous. And that danger does not stay in one place. It spreads through conversation, through assumption, through everyday life. Until one day, the label matters more than the truth.
Canada works best when people are judged as individuals. Not as categories. Not as assumptions. Just people. So stay aware. Watch how people treat you. Watch how you treat others. Because the real danger is not the label. It is the moment you stop questioning it.
STRONG MAYOR POWER CARRIES TO REGION
STRONG MAYOR POWER CARRIES TO REGION
Strong Mayor Powers Ontario have just made their way to the Regional Municipality of Durham — and with them comes something far more consequential than most people realize.
This isn’t just governance reform.
This is the beginning of the end of regional government as we know it.
The Shift No One Is Talking About
The Province is moving to:
- Appoint the Regional Chair
- Grant strong chair powers
- Centralize authority at the top
On paper, it looks like efficiency.
In reality?
It’s an admission that the current system doesn’t work.
Mr. X’s Position (On Record)
I made a recommendation to the Province of Ontario:
- Eliminate regional councillors
- Convert the Chair into a Speaker of the House
- Let Mayors vote with weighted authority
This isn’t theory — it’s already been accepted in principle at the Regional Municipality of Niagara.
And it works.
The Core Problem: Duplication & Dysfunction
Regional government today is:
- Redundant
- Politically bloated
- Structurally inefficient
You have:
- Local councils doing local work
- Regional councils duplicating governance layers
- Staff reporting through parallel systems
The result?
Delay, cost, and zero accountability.
What Strong Chair Powers Really Mean
The Province isn’t “empowering leadership.”
They’re trying to:
- Force decisions
- Override gridlock
- Streamline approvals
But here’s the truth:
If you need strong mayor powers at the regional level…
The structure itself is broken.
The 4-Year Warning
Regional government has 4 years to prove it can justify its existence.
If it doesn’t:
- It will be dismantled
- Or fundamentally restructured
The Only Path Forward
Regions must become a Services Board — Nothing More
That means:
- Eliminate duplication
- Focus ONLY on:
- Water / wastewater
- Major roads
- Transit
- Mandated services under the Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario)
Everything else?
Gone.
The Real Future Model
- Mayors run the show
- Weighted voting replaces regional councillors
- Chair becomes procedural, not political
This is not radical.
It’s inevitable.
Final Word
The Province didn’t just change legislation.
They sent a message:
“Fix it — or we will.”
Regional governments can either:
- Reinvent themselves as lean, service-focused bodies
OR
- Go down as one of the most inefficient governance experiments in Ontario history
Mr. X Verdict:
This is not reform.
This is a countdown.
TWO OUT OF ELEVEN AIN’T BAD
TWO OUT OF ELEVEN AIN’T BAD
From The Bottom Of The Corporate Sea
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Most of you reading this can relate to Meat Loaf song, TWO OUT OF THREE AINT BAD. A romantic song that speaks of a man love for a woman.... relatable to taxpayers for the love of the City of Oshawa. Unfortunately. In this case... It is two out of eleven ain’t bad....
Baby (Oshawa), we can talk all night
But that ain't gettin us nowhere (thank god for 2026 elections)
I told you everything I possibly can (council members do not return phon calls)
There's nothing left inside of here (we are over taxed and no one cares)
And maybe you can cry all night (it does not make a difference on the huge tax increases)
But that'll never change the way that I feel (taxpayer’s been screwed for way to long)
The snow is really piling up outside (the needs of the city are real and no one is doing anything)
I wish you wouldn't make me leave here (things will be different in 2026 with your vote)
I poured it on and I poured it out (the people have spoken you have failed to listen)
I tried to show you just how much I care (citizens have been ignore for way to long)
I'm tired of words and I'm too hoarse to shout (false promises and wasteful spending ‘parks’)
But you've been cold to me so long ( 8 years of diminishing quality of life in Oshawa)
I'm crying icicles instead of tears (tired of waiting for different outcomes and left to pay)
And all I can do is keep on telling you (deaf years)
I want you (I want you) (to listen to the people)
I need you (I need you) (I need you to do what you are elected to do)
There ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you (The suffering is to great in our city)
Now don't be sad (don't be sad 'cause) (do something.. as your empty excuses have not worked)
'Cause two out of three ain't bad
Now don't be sad ('cause)
'Cause two out of three ain't bad
The ending of this song should be 2 out of 11 aint bad... No one can argue that our city under this current Carter leadership is a mess. From our drug, homeless and crime infected downtown to the quality of life in many of your neighborhoods. Thank God Carter is not returning... but wait. There are rumors that he may be appointed Regional Chair by the Province.
God Help Us All.
If it was left up to me. I start by getting rid of both Ward 1 councillors. Councillors that have allowed for farm lands to be raped into modern day Ghettos. There is no excuse. Neil has been in office for numerous terms... what has he produced? Rosemary McConkey, the same. What has she accomplished for her ward? They have to go.
Ward 2 councillor both have to go. Jim Lee, the newly elected council member had potential but sat on his hands. He rather join the ‘good old boys club at city hall than represent the constituents. He has to go. Then we have Tito-Dante Marimpietri a long standing council member. Now running for mayor. I have a question. What has he accomplished for all the years he has sat in office? Now we the taxpayers are expected to pay him more to do more of nothing.
In my opinion he is no Mayoral material.
Ward 3 - Chapman has been in municipal office for way to long. Can anyone please list his accomplishments for the betterment of Oshawa? He needs to be retired in 2026. Bring in new blood to that ward. No on the other hand we have Bradley Marks I keep. In my opinion a diamond in the rough. A person with the right intellectual scruples that has been forced silenced. I think he would make a great Mayor of Oshawa. His talents have not yet come through as he recognizes the perils of speaking out of rank in the old City of Oshawa boys club.
Ward 4 - The front line of the battle ground over Oshawa’s downtown core. Rick Kerr has pushed the arts for way to long and the city keeps looking like a third world country. NO MORE. We have to replace him with someone that is ‘PRO’ business downtown. How are we to expect wonders when he has never owned a business in the core.
The we have Derek Giberson. A disaster politician. He according to rumors was responsible for the drug trade in the core as he sat on the board responsible for the actions that took place out of a church downtown Oshawa. A church that encouraged open drug use. He has to go.
Ward 5 - Brian Nicholson has to go. His attitude and his support for local business is shameful at best. Once a political dynamo. Today nothing but a bitter voice that has allowed GM to walk out.
Now John Gray. I keep him. He has proven to have what it takes... as he works the issues in the best interest of the people.
2 out of 11 ain’t bad. What’s your take?
Remembering the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 109 Years Later
Remembering the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 109 Years Later
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
There are moments in history when a nation does not merely act—it becomes. For Canada, that moment came on the cold, scarred heights of Vimy Ridge in April 1917.
Between April 9 and 12, more than 100,000 Canadians fought together for the first time as a unified corps. They faced a fortified German position that had defeated previous Allied assaults and was widely considered impregnable. Yet, through meticulous preparation, disciplined execution, and collective resolve, the Canadians did what others could not: they took the ridge.
Vimy was not simply a battlefield victory. It was the forging of a national identity.
The cost was staggering. Canada suffered over 10,600 casualties in just four days, including 3,598 killed. April 9 remains the bloodiest day in Canadian military history. These were not professional soldiers alone—they were citizens in uniform. Farmers, labourers, students, immigrants. French and English Canadians, Indigenous soldiers, and newcomers all fought side by side. In their shared sacrifice, they revealed the essence of Canada before it fully knew itself.
Historians have long argued that Vimy marked the moment Canada stepped out from Britain’s shadow and asserted its own capability and confidence on the world stage. Brigadier-General Alexander Ross famously described witnessing “the birth of a nation.” That phrase endures not because it is poetic, but because it captures a profound truth: Canada emerged from Vimy more unified, more self-assured, and more conscious of its destiny.
Yet the lesson of Vimy is not found in symbolism alone. It lies in how the victory was achieved.
The Canadian Corps did not rely on luck or sheer courage. They rehearsed relentlessly. They mapped every trench, studied every metre of terrain, and coordinated artillery with unprecedented precision.
The creeping barrage—moving in timed increments ahead of advancing troops—allowed infantry to follow closely behind a curtain of fire.
This was not reckless sacrifice; it was disciplined innovation.
That Canadian approach—thorough, methodical, intelligent—became a hallmark of subsequent victories. Under the leadership of Arthur Currie, Canadian forces refined tactics that emphasized planning over impulse and effectiveness over spectacle. From Hill 70 to Amiens, the Canadian Corps earned a reputation not just for bravery, but for competence.
And that may be Vimy’s most enduring lesson.
Because today, Canada faces a different kind of battlefield—one shaped by geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, and shifting global power dynamics. The war in Europe has shattered illusions about lasting peace on the continent. The Middle East remains volatile. Great power competition is intensifying. The rules-based international order, long taken for granted, is under strain.
At home, Canadians are grappling with economic pressures, housing challenges, and questions about national resilience. We are no longer insulated from the turbulence of the world. Geography alone cannot protect us. History reminds us that complacency is not a strategy.
Just months after Vimy, the world was struck by the Spanish influenza, which claimed millions of lives globally and deeply affected Canada. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global systems and tested national cohesion. Each crisis—military or medical—has reinforced the same truth: resilience is built before the crisis, not during it.
Vimy teaches us that success is never accidental. It is the product of preparation, unity, and leadership.
Today, that means strengthening Canada’s defence capabilities—not as an act of aggression, but as a responsibility in an increasingly dangerous world. It means investing in our armed forces, modernizing our infrastructure, and ensuring that Canada can contribute meaningfully to collective security alongside its allies.
But it also means something deeper.
The soldiers at Vimy did not fight as isolated individuals. They fought as Canadians—with a shared sense of purpose and duty.
That civic responsibility must not be lost in our time. A strong nation is not built solely through policy; it is sustained through the character of its citizens.
We must rediscover that sense of collective obligation—to one another and to the country we share. In an age of division and uncertainty, unity is not a luxury. It is a necessity.
As we reflect on Easter 1917, we should remember not only the courage of those who advanced across that shattered ridge, but the discipline and preparation that made their success possible. We should remember that nationhood is not a fixed achievement, but an ongoing responsibility.
And we should ask ourselves a difficult but necessary question: are we living up to the legacy they left us? Are our leaders demonstrating the foresight and resolve required for the challenges ahead? Are we, as citizens, prepared to shoulder our share of responsibility?
The answers will define the Canada of tomorrow.
Because Vimy is not just history. It is a standard.
A reminder that in moments of uncertainty, Canadians have risen—not through rhetoric, but through action. Not through division, but through unity. Not through chance, but through preparation.
The men who fought at Vimy Ridge did their duty.
Now, the question is whether we are prepared to do ours.
Lest we forget.
FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
FACT vs FICTION
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
By Maurice Brenner
Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering
There has been a lot of discussion about intensification across Pickering from Altona Road to the Brock, triggering concerns raised about the impact it will have on our aging limited infrastructure and already congested roads.
While it’s fact that Pickering Planning has processed or is actively reviewing (33) development proposals that collectively include (103) towers exceeding seven storeys in height. These proposals represent a mix of high-density mixed-use buildings, retirement residences, long-term care facilities, and a hotel.
It’s also fact, that these proposals are at various stages of the planning and building permit approval process, ranging from the initial review of Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment applications, to projects that have received planning approvals, only a limited number are under construction with several towers currently on hold or inactive.
In the spirit of transparency , City Planning Staff at my request prepared a breakdown of the current status of towers in the development approval process:
-On hold / inactive development proposals (16 towers)
-Appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (20 towers)
-Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment under Review by the City (30 towers)
-Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment approved by Council (19 towers)
-Site Plan Applications under review (11 towers)
Of this total, only (7) Building permits have been issued and are currently under construction.
The following towers have received all required planning approvals and building permits and are currently under construction:
• Two high-density mixed-use towers by CentreCourt at Shops at Pickering City Centre.
• Two high-density towers by Chestnut Hill Developments at Universal City (UC6 & UC7).
• Two mixed-use high-density towers by Tribute at the VuPoint project.
• One 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare, which was approved through a site-specific enhanced Ministers ’Zoning Order
Contrary to the belief that Pickering is on the verge of becoming a concrete jungle, only (7) of the (103) proposed towers are currently under construction. Of these, (6) are for high-density mixed-use developments located in the City Centre, while the remaining tower is for a 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare on Valley Farm Road.
While additional towers may proceed in the future, City staff anticipates that up to (11) more towers could be constructed over the next 5 to 10 years. Development of the remaining towers is long-term and uncertain, and will depend on many external factors that caused the current condo market to crash, and unlikely to recover for many years.
These same developers that saw yesterdays boom as a winning lottery ticket will need to find new ways that meet the new realities of today and into the future.
Friday, April 3, 2026
Hard Lessons
Hard Lessons
By Wayne and Tamara
I know this is all my fault. I know I had the right to say no, but I didn’t because everyone deserves a chance. The thing that hurts most is he knew the complications he was bringing into my life.
My parents believe in arranged marriage, and they disapproved of this man. But I felt terrible thinking he knew I was intentionally not returning his calls, when he called five or six times every night. Gradually I gave in. During one of our conversations he told me what I now doubt really happened. His story was he loved a girl since high school, but she cheated on him. It didn’t end there. He kept stressing the disappointments that came his way, his hard childhood, and the betrayal that always followed him. I treated him with care, and he stressed that I could trust him no matter what. As things progressed he started nagging me to sleep with him, and that was my biggest mistake. I became emotionally sealed to him, and whenever he made the suggestion to meet for sex, I no longer fought it.
Everything was good until I asked him what he would do if his parents decided to arrange his marriage. I was shocked when he told me that he wouldn’t fight it. Prior to this he told me he goes by his own rule. He even asked me to continue being with him until his parents arranged his marriage. One day I saw his car at the hotel we went to. I peeked through the keyhole and saw him and a girl naked. I can’t get that image out of my mind. When I confronted him, he treated me worse than a dog. I called his mother. His mother’s reaction still has me baffled. She was totally cold, like she just didn’t give a damn what happened to me, or what he might do to another girl. I want him to pay, but I have resolved to leave him and his mother in the hands of God.
Throughout high school I fought peer pressure only for this to happen. I have decided not to tell my parents, and I have reached out to a few friends. I am undecided as to whether I should fulfill the promise I made about helping out with his study materials. I talked to a religious friend, and his opinion is promises should be fulfilled.
I always wanted to live life without regrets, but thanks to my stupidity, I can no longer do that.
Eva
Eva, this man used two stratagems against you. He portrayed himself as a victim to evoke pity, and he insinuated himself into your life. He is a predator who stalked you, knowing all along what he wanted. Don’t give him the study materials. That promise was elicited through lies, and despicable behavior should never be rewarded. Aristotle viewed anger as a legitimate reaction to injustice. He felt anger protects us from making excuses for wrongdoing. You have every reason to be angry with this man, but don’t turn that anger inward. You were tricked. That happens to people at different stages of life, and they must be able to forgive themselves and move on. We cannot go through life attributing the best of intentions to others, and we cannot go through life attributing the worst of intentions to others. We must respond to others in a way appropriate to who they are. When we encounter predators, the wisest course is eliminating all contact. The wise thing now is to continue with your plans as they were before you encountered this man. You are a young woman with your life in front of you. It is easy, when we are young, to think some event has ruined our life. But life has many ups and downs, and it is in mastering the ups and downs that we master life.
Wayne & Tamara
LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT
Leading the Life
You Want
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
There’s something quietly heartbreaking about waiting too long to start living the life you might have had all along.
An 83-year-old reader wrote to me recently. For decades, this person lived with social exclusion, low self-esteem, and fear. Then, just last year, they did something about it. They signed up for modern line dancing at a local community centre. I don’t know if it was a decision taken after a lot of soul searching, or if it was a whim, something more frivolous. But the same result, either way. Everything changed. Some things were evident right away. Others came over time, and they were physical, mental, emotional, and social. Enough for the reader to report, with a sense of regret, “It makes me want to start life over again… and do things differently. Better. With more enjoyment.”
That last line lingers.
It invites the question. Why do people wait? Not everyone does. Hopefully not long-time Gifford-Jones readers. But my suspicion is that a lot of people do. They wait until retirement to travel. They wait until illness to value health. They wait until loneliness becomes noticeably painful before reaching out. They wait for permission to be a little bit different than everyone has come to expect. Well, guess what? That permission is not coming.
Years ago, I heard a story about a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. He asked an older, wiser fellow for advice. The answer was stark. “Go to the beach. Sit there. Look at the ocean. And don’t come back until you know.”
The suggestion to go away and think deeply about it sounds absurd in today’s lightening-paced, hyperconnected world. But it’s not that hard to do, in fact. Just put the phone down and shut away any other distractions. Schedule time for focused thinking in blocks of two or three hours. Set up a spot for thinking – someplace not too comfortable, but attractive. Then go there and do your thinking – for as many sessions as it takes. You’ll figure something out soon enough.
And then you have to go for it.
We don’t give ourselves the time or the discomfort needed to think clearly about what we want. We fill every quiet moment with noise and distraction. And so the years pass, not in crisis, but in drift.
Research in psychology has long shown that novelty and social connection are powerful medicines. Trying something new. Even something as unassuming as line dancing can stimulate the brain, improve balance and cardiovascular health, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s not just about the activity. It’s about stepping outside the box quietly built around ourselves. At 83, you can still change your life. At 63, you can still change your life. At 23, you can still change your life.
The difference is how much time you have left to enjoy it. But if you are at the older end of the spread, you know it’s not all about duration. Quality of experience, even if flirting, can last a lifetime, even retroactively.
So here’s the drill. Take a step. A small one is enough. Sign up for something. Call someone. Go somewhere. And if you truly don’t know what you want? Find your own “beach.” Sit quietly. Think deeply. And don’t get up until you know.
I did just this upon the passing of my father several months ago. And now I’m writing this column. It’s an intensely high-quality weekly experience that I hope will last for a long time.
Dead and Gone… When No One Talked About It
The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice
The Quiet Majority:
When Survival Replaces Voice
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
I am a columnist . I deal in facts, not noise. And here is a hard one to sit with. Most Canadians are not part of the fight you see every day.
They are trying to survive.
That is not a slogan. That is the reality showing up at kitchen tables across this country. Bills stacked. Phones buzzing with payment reminders. People doing the math in their heads before they even get out of bed.
Something has shifted. You can feel it. This is not just about politics anymore. It is about pressure. The kind that builds slowly, then all at once. The kind that makes people pull back from everything except what keeps them afloat.
Rent is high. Food costs more than it should. Gas prices jump without warning. One week it feels manageable. The next, it does not. A simple drive to work turns into a quiet stress you carry all day. People are not arguing about big ideas. They are asking simple questions. Can I afford groceries this week.Can I fill the tank. Can I keep the lights on. That is where the country is sitting right now.
And while that is happening, something else is going on at the same time.
There are voices with time, energy, and support pushing hard for attention, for change, for recognition. Some of that is fair. Some of it is needed. But it is loud. Constant. Hard to ignore.
And then there is everyone else.
The majority. They are not pushing anything. They are not organizing. They are not showing up to every debate. They are working. Raising families. Looking after aging parents. Trying to hold their lives together. They are not silent because they do not care. They are silent because they are overwhelmed. That difference matters. When you are stretched thin, you do not take on extra weight. You drop what you can. And for many Canadians, what gets dropped is the larger conversation.
Not out of anger. Out of survival. But silence has consequences.
When the majority steps back, the conversation does not stop. It shifts. The loudest voices fill the space. Policies get shaped. Narratives get built. Decisions move forward. And the people who stepped back look up one day and think, when did this happen That is where the unease starts. It is not loud anger. It is something quieter. A feeling that things are moving without you. That your daily struggle does not count the same way. That your problems are too ordinary to matter.
Because being able to pay your bills is not seen as an urgent policy. But it is urgent to the people living it. Look at the systems people rely on.
Education is under strain. Parents worry about what their kids are learning, but also about what is missing. Classrooms are stretched. Teachers are doing what they can, but it feels like something is slipping. Then there is health care. This is where the fear turns real.
People are afraid to go to the hospital. Not because they doubt the people working there, but because they know what they might face. Long waits. No doctors available. Hours that turn into a full day sitting in a chair, watching the clock.
And it is worse when it is not you.
It is your father struggling to breathe. Your wife is in pain. Your child with a fever that will not break. You sit there, waiting, hoping nothing gets worse before someone can help.
That stays with people. It changes how they think. It changes what they fear.
So when another debate starts, when another issue demands attention, people look at their own lives and think, I cannot carry that too. That is how the quiet majority is formed. Not by choice. By pressure.
At the same time, there is a growing push to tell people how they should think, what they should say, what they should support. Even when the intention is to help, the delivery can feel forced. That creates a quiet resistance. People do not argue. They do not protest. They step back further.
They nod, stay polite, and return to their lives. But here is where it gets dangerous. When the majority steps away, even for good reason, it leaves the direction of the country in fewer hands. Not necessarily bad hands, but fewer. That is how imbalance grows. A small group, driven and active, can shape the path. A large group, tired and silent, can lose its influence without even noticing. And over time, that gap widens.
The country starts to feel unfamiliar, not because it changed overnight, but because most people were not part of the change as it happened. That is the quiet shift happening right now.
It is not loud. It is not dramatic. It is slow.
And that is what makes it harder to see.
Most Canadians are not extreme. They are not hateful. They are not looking for conflict. They want stability. They want fairness. They want a chance to live without constant pressure closing in on them. They wake up tired. They go to work. They come home and try to make things work again the next day.
If you listen, really listen, you hear the same line everywhere.
I do not have a problem with anyone. I just want to live my life.
That should mean something.
But right now, it is getting lost.
Because systems do not respond to quiet. They respond to pressure. So the people who are struggling the most, the ones holding everything together, are also the ones least heard.
That is not just unfair. It is risky.
A country cannot stay balanced if its majority is too tired to take part. It cannot stay steady if the people carrying the weight feel like they are not part of the direction. Eventually, something gives.
Not all at once. Not with a bang.
But slowly. People disconnect. Trust fades. The sense of shared ground weakens. And when that happens, it becomes harder to bring things back together.
This is not about picking sides.
It is about recognizing what is happening before it goes too far.
The quiet majority is not the problem.
But if it stays quiet for too long, it may not recognize the country it helped build.And by then, speaking up will feel a lot harder than it does today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)