Do you have excess wealth that you plan to pass on to the next two generations

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Do you want to take care of family financially and have you earmarked a portion of your investment portfolio for them. One issue that arises is that all non-registered investment growth is eroded by taxation. A tax-free permanent insurance policy can make sure your financial legacy extends all the way to your grandchildren. Have you considered a generational wealth transfer using permanent life insurance? You can take out an insurance policy on your adult children and investment growth in these plans is not subject to annual taxation, increasing your overall wealth. As the owner of the plan, you control money growing inside and can access it during your lifetime if needed Your Child When you purchase the plan and insure your child, they have an asset right away: life insurance protection. You can transfer the policy to them at any time tax free, however most people will transfer the policy at the time of their passing. This is done seamlessly by naming them as a contingent owner on the plan. As the new owner, they now have access to all the money that is growing inside the policy. This money can be used to help buy a home, supplement their retirement, or help fund their child’s education. Your Grandchild By naming them as the beneficiary on the policy, you have helped put a foundation in place they can build on. As the named beneficiary on the policy at the time of your adult child’s death (hopefully well into the future) your grandchild will receive the death benefit proceeds tax-free. This is a great way to help extend your financial legacy. You worked hard to earn it. Make sure your loved ones are the beneficiaries.

The House in the Picture

By Gary Payne, MBA Those four words appear at the end of the online description for an Oshawa bungalow listed for sale this fall. Nothing scandalous about that. The disclosure is right there, where anyone can read it. The photographs, of course, are where I tend to start. First the kitchen, then the yard, then a quick look at whether the living room could hold the furniture. Somewhere along the way you decide if the place is worth a Saturday drive. Apparently, I may also need to ask whether the living room exists. In 2024, a brick garage on a Toronto laneway appeared in a real estate listing with a rather ambitious future. The building at 194R Chatham Ave. was still a garage, but the photographs offered something else. Some showed a polished loft. Others pushed out walls to create new rooms or imagined a much larger building. The Globe and Mail reported that 15 of the listing’s 21 images were AI renderings. The renovation had taken place entirely inside a computer. The Globe reported that callers asked whether the garage was part of a much larger building. The agent removed those exterior renderings. A prospective buyer also complained to the Real Estate Council of Ontario, or RECO. The Globe did not report an outcome. But the agent hadn’t hidden what he was doing. The listing included a warning: “Please note that some photos depict conceptual ideas, not actual representations.” The technology made an unbuilt future look a good deal further along than it was.Real estate photography has always involved a little theatre. Someone arrives with furniture that fits perfectly. The towels are folded as though nobody has ever used them. I don’t object to any of this. Sellers want their homes to look good, and buyers know the family probably doesn’t live with fresh flowers on every table. But putting a nicer chair in a room is not quite the same as putting a room in a building. For most of my life, a photograph carried a fairly simple promise. You might be seeing the house from its one good angle, but somebody had pointed a camera at something. Now the camera might never have seen the room at all. Ontario already has rules about misleading real estate advertising. RECO told the Globe that enhanced images should be identified in a listing and that buyers should visit properties to check what they’re seeing. CREA and Realtor.ca don’t regulate AI use in listings themselves. That sounds reasonable. So does RECO’s advice to go and see the place. Walk through it. Open cupboards. Ask what that stain on the ceiling is. But you can’t visit every house. The pictures help decide which ones get a visit in the first place. The Oshawa bungalow isn’t the Toronto garage. Its listing says only that some photos were virtually staged, which doesn’t necessarily mean AI was involved. There is no reason to suspect anything improper. Still, a line at the bottom of a description has to compete with aphotograph that has already done its job. The actual building was a garage. The beautiful rooms were ideas. Only one of those things was for sale.

Is a Cute Dog Better Than an Ugly One?

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Cats are nice. I respect people who prefer cats. But I’m a dog person. Nothing triggers more reader mail than a column picking pet favorites. But being close to a dog, almost any dog, warms my soul. What a wonderful world it would be if people were as generous to humankind as most of us are to our beloved dogs. What is it about dogs that makes us love them so much? Of course, it’s their unwavering devotion to us. But there’s more. Dogs trigger what scientists call the "baby schema." The idea was first proposed by Nobel Prize-winning zoologist, Konrad Lorenz. He observed that certain features in human babies – large eyes, round faces, small noses, prominent foreheads, and chubby cheeks – cause an automatic response from us. We find these features cute. We also feel protective of them. The reaction appears to be hardwired into the human brain. Researchers have since discovered that the effect extends far beyond human babies. Puppies, kittens, teddy bears, and cartoon characters activate the same response. Studies using eye-tracking technology show that young children spend more time looking at faces with stronger baby-like features. Adults do the same. We are drawn toward them. This response helped our ancestors survive. Human babies are helpless for a long period of time. If adults were not irresistibly attracted to them, babies would not fare well. Evolution established the impetus. Big eyes and round faces stimulate attention, affection, and caregiving behaviour. But upon seeing a cute dog, I notice my happiness level rises too. Is there any science to that? After all, puppies require a lot of work. Studies show that appearance plays a major role in why people select particular breeds as pets. Cuteness and physical appearance rank among the strongest motives for acquiring a pet. People report feeling intense attachment to dogs with infant-like features. It’s an odd thing, but some studies find stronger emotional bonds with flat-faced breeds such as French Bulldogs, presumably because of that snub nose. However, long-term satisfaction depends less on appearance than on behaviour and compatibility. Research on dog-owner relationships found that personality fit, attachment style, trainability, and behaviour predict whether the relationship thrives. In other words, the dog that makes you happiest may not be the cutest dog in the park. It may be the dog that fits your life. This means ugly dogs can rest easy. People become happily devoted to all sorts of pooches. The mutt with one ear standing up and the other pointing sideways may not win a beauty contest, but to its owner, the goofy look can become utterly endearing. Once we form an attachment to a dog, our emotional response to its appearance becomes part of the bond. Their familiar faces – cute or ugly – become a reliable source of pleasure. Part of the evidence is in the veterinary bills. Some breeds that humans find cutest are also prone to serious health problems. Flat dog faces may be cute, but they can also make breathing difficult. It’s not a paradox that owners remain deeply attached to these dogs despite the veterinary bills. It’s proof of priorities. So, does picking a cuter dog lead to more happiness? Apparently not. Cuteness may open the door, but it does not sustain the relationship. It’s the years of loyalty, companionship, and shared routines that matter most. Keep in mind that dogs can have downsides for your health and happiness as well. Allergies, infections, injuries, and high costs. Before you surrender to those irresistible eyes, make sure you are ready for the responsibility. And now, here comes your mail!

Hometown Boy

By Wayne and Tamara Six weeks ago my daughter got engaged. My husband and I never got to know her fiancé well because she dated him while attending college in a different town. He seemed nice and she loved him, so we believed in our daughter’s judgment. Now I am not sure anymore. Here’s the thing. She will be graduating soon which is what brought on the proposal. They will be married at his church in the town where he grew up, a two hour drive from where we live. Since reception venues need to be close by, my oldest daughter, the bride-to-be, and I spent two weekends driving up to look at possible halls. After passing our information on to her fiancé, he decided we were looking at places that cost too much. He wanted to look for himself. He made appointments at two venues, a steakhouse and a country club. He told my daughter from day one she could have whatever she wanted as long as it was within the budget they agreed upon. When comparing the two places, my daughter and I decided the country club was a better choice for the money and the occasion, and it is within budget. But her fiancé set up a slide show of their wedding day and honeymoon showcasing only the steakhouse. He constantly talks about how are they going to afford the country club. If he wants her to have what she wants, why does he keep insisting the country club costs too much when the steakhouse costs more. This stress is getting the better of my daughter and myself. Traditionally this is the bride’s job, and her fiancé seems to be taking control and making the whole experience a nightmare. Dottie Dottie, boys don’t grow up dreaming of their wedding day. Girls do. So it might seem odd the groom is digging in his heels, but there is an obvious explanation. Somehow, perhaps because the bride does not have a church of her own, this has become the groom’s wedding. It will be in his town, in his church, with his friends. It needs to fit his people. Once the wedding became his, it needed to be done his way. At least that’s what he feels. He wants the venue to be correct for the people who will be there, and his mistake was telling your daughter she has a choice. Now she needs to ask him whose decision this is. If he says no to the country club, they can work from that point. They can discuss why each wants a different venue and whether their differences are greater than their love. Wayne & Tamara Reservations My boyfriend and I met his senior year in college--I'm still in school--and he didn't want to be tied down during his last college days. Now, two years later, things have changed. I was thrilled when he wanted to take things to the next level. Recently, however, I've been encountering a grass-is-greener mindset. I am surrounded by my single friends and our campus is definitely not conducive to serious relationships. What if I'm giving up the college experience only to have him dump me down the road for some hot chick in grad school. One night I let another boy kiss me. It was wrong, I know that. But that is as far as it went. I will work harder than ever before to be loyal and good to my boyfriend. But is this enough? Kaley Kaley, loyalty comes from the heart, and your heart is full of doubt. You gave us two excuses why you have a right not to be faithful: your boyfriend played the field his senior year in college and you fear he’ll dump you while he’s in grad school. Two excuses are two too many. Wayne & Tamara

Protect the Bay. Protect the Taxpayer. Show Us the Deal

Frenchman’s Bay is one of Pickering’s greatest natural treasures. It is part of our identity, our waterfront and our history. I want it protected. I want it preserved for future generations. And I support bringing the Bay into public ownership if the deal is responsible, transparent and in the best interests of the people of Pickering. But supporting the Bay does not require taxpayers to stop asking questions. In fact, when millions of public dollars and one of our community’s most important natural assets are involved, we should be asking more questions, not fewer. The City has announced that the Frenchman’s Bay acquisition has reached an important milestone and that the key parties are now in place to establish a funding agreement and long-term management model. It has also acknowledged that important work remains and that final agreements and arrangements are still being worked through. That matters. A press release is not a purchase-and-sale agreement. A headline is not a contract. And an announcement about everyone working together does not tell taxpayers exactly what they are ultimately agreeing to. On August 6, Council considered a confidential report concerning the acquisition of Frenchman’s Bay. When Council returned to open session, the public motion approved the confidential direction provided to staff. Five members voted in favour. I voted against. One member did not participate in the vote. The public can see the motion and the vote. What the public cannot see is what that confidential direction actually contained. And because those discussions took place in closed session, I am limited in what I can disclose. That puts me in an unusual position. I can tell residents that I have concerns. I can tell them that the details matter. But I cannot simply repeat confidential information to prove why I am asking the questions I am asking. That is exactly why the agreements themselves should be made public before taxpayers are irrevocably committed. Residents deserve straightforward answers. What exactly will the City of Pickering own? What will other governments, agencies or conservation organizations own or control?Who will manage the Bay? Who will be responsible for maintenance, environmental obligations, dredging, infrastructure and future capital costs? What restrictions or conditions will apply? What financial obligations could fall on Pickering taxpayers after the purchase? And when all of the agreements are read together, does the deal being signed match the deal residents believe they are getting? Those are not anti-environment questions. They are not anti-waterfront questions. They are basic due-diligence questions. I have seen enough municipal agreements during my time on Council to know that the headline rarely tells you everything you need to know. The real obligations are often found in the conditions, schedules, responsibilities, long-term commitments and fine print. That does not mean something improper is happening. It means responsible elected officials should read before they celebrate and verify before they commit taxpayers. And that is why I voted the way I did. My vote was not a vote against Frenchman’s Bay. It was a vote for knowing exactly what Pickering residents are signing up for. If I am elected Mayor, once disclosure can legally occur and before final closing where possible, I will push to make the purchase-and-sale agreement and related agreements available to the public, subject only to redactions genuinely required by law. Where something must remain confidential, residents should be told why. No political spin. No carefully selected pieces of the story. The documents. The obligations. The costs. The ownership. The complete picture. Because if this is truly an excellent deal for Pickering, transparency will not hurt it. Transparency will strengthen it. Let me be perfectly clear: I support protecting Frenchman’s Bay and bringing it into public ownership. What I will never support is asking taxpayers to write a blank cheque or accept a headline in place of the agreement. Protect the Bay — absolutely. But protect the taxpayer too. Before anyone celebrates, show taxpayers the agreements. Because the headline is one thing — the legal reality can be something very different. Frenchman’s Bay belongs at the heart of Pickering. And Pickering residents belong at the heart of the decision. It’s your money. It’s your waterfront. You have a right to know.

Hiring Is Ruled By 'Similar to Me' (And What You Can Do About It)

By Nick Kossovan You don't logically analyze why you immediately trust a stranger who shares your taste in music, nor do you deliberate over ordering your usual at a local diner. You aren't making logical choices; you're following evolutionary hardwiring. We instinctively embrace biases that draw us to people and groups we connect with effortlessly or that we believe are safe. Be honest: it's comforting when someone shares your generation, ethnicity, gender, political ideology, or love of golf. You instinctively interpret those shared traits as commonalities, not differences, that signal safety rather than threat. I don't know anyone who doesn't gravitate toward people they feel comfortable with. Seeking allies is basic human psychology; after all, we're tribal by nature. Nevertheless, let's acknowledge a collective hypocrisy: the moment a hiring manager's alleged bias conflicts with a job seeker's self-interest, the job seeker makes unsubstantiated claims that “isms" are preventing them from being hired. This reaction is naive. HR rhetoric wants job seekers to believe that recruiters and hiring managers operate like objective evaluation algorithms, but that's fiction. As human beings, they're inherently biased and emotional, and they hire largely based on affinity. Most hiring decisions don't hinge on a rigorous skills assessment; they're driven by the subconscious "similar-to-me" effect. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman nailed it: "We are not only rational animals; we are also rationalizing animals." We don't decide logically; we rationalize our gut instincts afterward. Accepting this aspect of human nature isn't defeat; it's a reminder that, as a job seeker, you must obsessively focus on triggering those gut instincts first. You can't erase another person's biases, but you can try to influence them to your advantage. Because most self-proclaimed career coaches profit from keeping job seekers angry and anxious, standard (read: cliché) job-search advice overlooks a fundamental truth: biases aren't prejudices, preferences, or tribal affiliations; they're cognitive mechanisms. They're simply the brain's way of simplifying decision-making, whether choosing a restaurant, selecting a financial advisor, or hiring Candidate A over an equally qualified Candidate B. This isn't a design flaw; it's human nature. Navigating a hiring manager's biases requires deliberately engineering the signals you send. You can use biases to your advantage only if you manage them intentionally. The moment you enter the room, your appearance, mannerisms, vocal inflection, and posture immediately signal your professionalism and self-assurance. Visual and auditory cues are entirely within your control. Assuming an interviewer must accept you "as you" isn't strategy; it's entitlement. Nobody owes you acceptance. The following five visual, auditory, and mannerism-related cues are under your control: 1. Dress for stature: Wear clothing that conveys authority and competence. 2. Match vocal cadence: Mirror your interviewer's pace and tone to reduce psychological defences. 3. Command presence: Maintain a steady posture, open body language, and direct eye contact to project confidence. 4. Signal active engagement: Nod and confirm key points to foster shared understanding. 5. Project thoroughness: Arrive early and be over-prepared to make an unforgettable first impression. When biases such as ageism work against you, generic advice like “removing dates” is garbage, as if your age won’t become evident somewhere in the employer’s hiring process. Although bias is hardwired into our DNA, it’s also lazy thinking. Savvy job seekers counter that lazy thinking by treating their resume and LinkedIn profile like precision-guided missiles designed to cut through bias. If anything is confusing or ambiguous, a recruiter’s or hiring manager’s cognitive bias won’t prompt investigation; they’ll move on. Overcoming any bias requires crystal-clear clarity. Harvard economist Dr. Iris Bohnet asserted that defeating bias requires “designing systems that neutralize gut instincts." Because most employers fail at this, you must manage the psychological friction yourself. Starve their biases of oxygen with undeniable proof. No ironclad guarantees exist when navigating human nature, but remember this: Just as you expect your values and beliefs to be respected, you must respect an interviewer's cognitive defaults. Your job isn’t to change their hardwiring; it’s to appeal to the analytical side of their brain. Explicitly communicate how you’ll increase their profitability, because that’s ultimately how employers determine a candidate’s value. Counteract inherent hiring biases with these five strategies: 1. Quantify impact: Eliminate listing duties. Replace arbitrary descriptions ("great team player") with results-oriented metrics ("increased operational efficiency by 22%"). 2. Employ their language: Use the terminology, jargon, and abbreviations of your industry, profession, or the employer to elicit a "one of us" response. 3. Demonstrate your ability to drive business: Describe your employment history in terms of revenue growth, cost reduction, and risk mitigation. 4. Feature social proof: Showcase recommendations, published articles, testimonials, association and board memberships, and public engagements. External validation disarms internal skepticism. 5. Explain employment gaps: Don't leave them open to interpretation. Provide a brief, logical explanation for any gap. Until humans stop making hiring decisions, bias isn't going anywhere. The expectation that an employer's hiring process should be fair is a highly subjective standard that breeds bitterness and anger. You can't change someone's hardwiring; you can only change your strategy. Therefore, focus on the one variable you can control: the signals you broadcast. You mitigate bias by framing your candidacy as offering employers undeniable value, which is all you can do.

WHEN JUSTICE BETRAYS THE PEOPLE

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Compassion must protect victims, too. Immigration is not the enemy. The real fear is losing our culture, our laws and the right to expect justice. People are not necessarily afraid of immigration. They are afraid of losing the country they grew up in. And perhaps the greatest threat is not arriving at our borders. Perhaps it is sitting in our legislatures and courtrooms. Before somebody shouts racism, consider what culture means. It is our laws, freedoms, traditions and the belief that everyone deserves equal protection. Our grandparents fought two world wars defending those freedoms. Immigrants came here seeking them. So why do so many people question whether governments still protect those principles? Look at England. The Rotherham scandal exposed the sexual exploitation of at least 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013. Investigators found that some officials feared being called racist for identifying offenders' ethnic backgrounds. Children suffered while authorities failed to act. Where were the politicians? Where was the protection? And who was answering to those children? That is what happens when protecting an institution's reputation becomes more important than protecting victims. Now consider Canada. In 2022, Parliament passed Bill C5, expanding access to conditional sentences, including house arrest, for certain eligible offenders. Supporters argue that rehabilitation matters. Fair enough. But victims matter too. Imagine being assaulted, threatened or robbed, then discovering the person responsible may serve a sentence at home. What message does that send? Not every offender deserves prison. But every sentence deserves an explanation. Judges must follow the law. Politicians write much of that law. Both must answer for the decisions they make. Judicial independence protects courts from political interference. It should never become an excuse for avoiding legitimate public scrutiny. When a serious offender receives a sentence the public struggles to understand, Canadians deserve to know why. Consider California. Proposition 47 reduced certain theft offences involving $950 or less to misdemeanours. Theft remained illegal, but the penalties changed. In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36, increasing penalties for some repeat offenders. What about the small shopkeeper facing repeated theft? The employee losing a job? The family losing its business? Who speaks for them? Compassion for offenders and people struggling with poverty matters. But what about compassion for victims? And this brings us back to immigration. Nobody should abandon their ancestry, religion or traditions to become Canadian, British or Australian. But everyone, whether born here or arriving yesterday, must respect the same laws and freedoms. We cannot blame immigrants for decisions made by politicians and judges. Nor should governments dismiss legitimate concerns about public safety as prejudice. Canada has many cultures, including those of Indigenous peoples and generations of newcomers. Our shared responsibility is to protect the rights of everyone. I do not have all the answers. But I know this much. Politicians should have to defend the laws they pass. Judges should have to explain the sentences they impose. And victims should never feel forgotten. A government that demands respect must first earn the public's trust. A nation does not lose its identity when strangers arrive at its door. It loses something far more precious when its own government forgets who the law was written to protect.

John Gray and Oshawa: A Record Worth Remembering

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington There is an old saying in municipal politics that people have short memories. I was reminded of that this week when I came across a social media advertisement questioning the record of former Oshawa Mayor John Gray, particularly the investments made in recreational facilities during his time in office. Now, John Gray is a friend of mine. I make no secret of that. But more importantly, I had a frontrow seat to some of the most significant economic decisions affecting Oshawa and Durham Region during his years as mayor. As the former Mayor of Clarington and Chair of Finance for Durham Region, I worked alongside John on matters involving industrial taxation, economic development, infrastructure and the future of our largest employers. And I believe that history deserves a closer examination. The General Motors Centre One of the projects now being criticized is the General Motors Centre, today known as the Tribute Communities Centre. Opened in 2006, this facility represented a significant investment in Oshawa’s recreational and entertainment infrastructure. It provided a modern home for the Oshawa Generals, community ice facilities, and a venue capable of hosting concerts, sporting events and other major gatherings. Was it expensive? Certainly. Were there legitimate debates about financing, operating costs and the responsibilities of municipal taxpayers? Absolutely. But a serious examination of the project should consider both the costs and the public facilities that were created. The same applies to the Legends Centre and other recreation investments made during that era. Municipal infrastructure is not simply an expense recorded in the year it is built. It is an asset intended to serve residents for decades. Protecting General Motors and Manufacturing Jobs This is where my own involvement becomes particularly relevant. During my time as Durham Region’s Chair of Finance, one of the major challenges we faced was the competitiveness of our large industrial employers.General Motors was the economic backbone of Oshawa. Its operations supported thousands of direct jobs and an enormous network of suppliers, contractors and service businesses. John Gray understood the importance of maintaining a competitive environment for manufacturing. Working at the regional level, we advanced changes to the large industrial property tax structure to help keep Durham competitive with other Ontario jurisdictions. This was not simply political rhetoric. On November 22, 2006, John appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and spoke directly about the manufacturing economy and Durham’s decision to eliminate the large industrial tax class effective in 2007. He understood that municipal taxation, economic development and job retention were connected. That work involved multiple municipal and regional leaders, but I can personally attest to John’s involvement and his commitment to Oshawa’s industrial economy. Bringing the Durham Courthouse to Downtown Oshawa Another important chapter in Oshawa’s development was the decision to locate the new Durham Region Courthouse in downtown Oshawa. In December 2005, the Ontario government announced that the consolidated courthouse would be built in the city’s downtown. The project brought together court services previously spread across the region and ultimately delivered a modern facility with 33 courtrooms. The provincial government identified the courthouse as a major opportunity to stimulate downtown redevelopment, attract legal and professional services, and generate additional economic activity for surrounding businesses. John Gray was mayor when the location was announced, when construction began and when the completed facility was unveiled. He publicly recognized the importance of the investment to Oshawa’s downtown. Of course, this was a provincial project involving many participants. No mayor can claim sole credit for such an undertaking. But municipal leadership matters when provincial institutions are deciding where to invest, and the courthouse remains a substantial part of downtown Oshawa’s civic infrastructure. Building Relationships With Ontario Power Generation - There is another part of this history that I remember personally. During John’s time as mayor, he was already reaching out to Ontario Power Generation to develop stronger relationships and explore opportunities for an expanded office presence in Oshawa. I participated in discussions concerning those opportunities through my involvement in the nuclear sector. John recognized the importance of OPG as a major employer and economic institution in Durham Region. This was long before OPG’s much later announcement concerning its new corporate headquarters in Oshawa. It would be inaccurate to suggest that one individual or one administration secured that later decision. But the earlier outreach illustrates something important about economic development: relationships between municipalities and major employers are often built over many years. A municipality cannot wait until an investment opportunity is announced before beginning those conversations. Looking Beyond a Single Project The broader record also includes downtown revitalization planning, brownfield redevelopment initiatives and efforts to diversify Oshawa’s economic base. In his 2006 parliamentary testimony, John discussed the downtown Oshawa action plan, brownfield redevelopment and other economic development initiatives. Those were important subjects for a city whose identity and prosperity had long been closely tied to automobile manufacturing. Not every initiative produces its intended results. Not every municipal investment achieves its original financial projections. And no mayor makes every decision correctly. John Gray’s administration, like every administration, should be examined with that reality in mind. But judging an entire period of municipal leadership by attaching a price tag to one recreational facility tells only part of the story. The Value of Institutional Memory I have served in municipal government long enough to know that one of the most valuable resources a community possesses is the experience of people who have already dealt with major challenges. They remember why decisions were made, which options were considered, which relationships were established and what lessons were learned. That experience can be useful to the next generation of municipal leaders, whether those former officials hold elected office or not. John Gray was involved in an important period of Oshawa’s development, from recreation infrastructure and downtown investment to industrial competitiveness and relationships with major employers.His record includes decisions that deserve scrutiny, as well as projects and initiatives that deserve recognition. For Oshawa’s next mayor, the lessons of that period are worth understanding. History should not be rewritten to suit an election campaign. Nor should it be reduced to a single dollar figure on a social media advertisement. It should be examined in its entirety. And when we do that, we give residents something far more valuable than another political argument. We give them the facts needed to understand how their city was built. John Mutton, known as “Mr. X,” is the former Mayor of Clarington, former Chair of Finance for Durham Region, and Chair of the Ontario Nuclear New Build Council.

Halloween is a time for "Trick or Treat" not steal and cheat

By Tom Reimer Halloween is a time for spooky costumes, glowing pumpkins, trick-or-treating, and neighbourhood fun. But while families prepare a night of frightful delights, it is also a time to be extra vigilant about home security. With homes often left unattended, doors opening frequently, and strangers moving from house to house, taking a few simple precautions can help keep your property safe from unwanted visitors of a different kind. On a quiet street in a friendly neighbourhood, the Wilson family was busy preparing for Halloween. Their front garden was decorated with skeletons, cobwebs, and flickering lanterns. The children were excited about trick-or-treating, while their parents planned to accompany them around the neighbourhood. Before leaving, Mr Wilson remembered a safety tip he had heard recently: burglars often look for easy opportunities. He checked that all windows were locked, secured the back door, and made sure the garage was closed. Mrs Wilson switched on the porch light and set a timer for the living room lights to make it appear that someone was home. They also avoided posting their Halloween plans on social media. Although it was tempting to share pictures of the children in their costumes, they decided to post them after returning home instead. Small decisions like these can help prevent strangers from knowing when a property is empty. As the evening grew darker, a suspicious-looking individual walked along the street, glancing at houses and checking which properties appeared unoccupied. At the Wilsons' home, the lights were on, the doors were locked, and a security camera covered the front entrance. There was nothing obvious to suggest that the house was an easy target. The individual continued down the street. Meanwhile, the Wilsons had reminded their neighbours to keep an eye out for unusual activity. Their next-door neighbour, who was staying home that evening, agreed to report anything concerning to the authorities. The family also made sure that garden tools, ladders, and other equipment were securely stored, so they could not easily be used to gain access to the house. When the Wilsons returned, they found their home exactly as they had left it. The children excitedly emptied their bags of sweets onto the kitchen table, unaware of the potential danger they had avoided. Mr Wilson smiled, relieved that a few simple precautions had helped protect their home. The lesson was clear: home security is not about living in fear. It is about being prepared, aware, and sensible. As Halloween approaches, remember these essential tips: Lock every entrance: Secure doors, windows, sheds, and garages, even if you are only stepping out briefly. Make your home look occupied: Use timers for indoor lights and consider motion-activated outdoor lighting. Protect your privacy: Avoid announcing your absence or sharing real-time holiday plans online. Secure valuables: Keep keys, wallets, electronics, and other valuable items out of sight. Look out for one another: Build good relationships with neighbours and report suspicious behaviour to the appropriate authorities. Check your security equipment: Ensure alarms, cameras, and outdoor lights are working properly. This Halloween, enjoy the costumes, laughter, and sweet treats—but remember that a little vigilance goes a long way. The scariest thing on Halloween should be a ghost at the door, not the discovery that your home has been burgled.

Alberta’s Referendum: Gambling With a Province and a Country

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada cannot afford to treat Alberta’s referendum as another passing confrontation between a provincial premier and Ottawa. What is at stake reaches beyond political messaging. It concerns economic confidence, constitutional stability, national security and the future of a country already facing formidable external pressures. Governments that encourage separatist uncertainty must accept responsibility for the consequences. Governments that dismiss the grievances behind it must accept their share as well. On October 19, Albertans will face ten referendum questions. The question attracting greatest attention asks whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada or begin the legal process toward a future binding referendum on separation. This initial question is non-binding. By itself, it will not take Alberta out of Confederation. Nevertheless, its political significance is considerable: it could give separatism an institutional foothold and prolong uncertainty. The distinction between expressing dissatisfaction and authorizing a separation process must remain clear. A voter angry about federal energy policy may intend to send Ottawa a warning. Separatist organizers may interpret the same ballot as permission to pursue independence. Once that interpretation takes hold, political leaders cannot guarantee that the movement will remain a manageable bargaining instrument. A protest can acquire momentum far beyond its original purpose. Alberta’s frustration deserves serious attention. Its energy industry contributes to Canada’s prosperity, supports employment across provincial boundaries and provides resources essential to our economic security. Federal governments should recognize those contributions through dependable policy, timely decisions and practical infrastructure. Albertans are entitled to challenge decisions they believe unfairly restrict their future. National unity becomes harder to defend when citizens conclude that their concerns receive speeches instead of solutions. Yet legitimate grievances do not establish that separation would improve Alberta’s position. Independence advocates must explain how their proposed country would function, what it would cost and which arrangements other governments would actually accept. Promises of prosperity are inadequate without credible accounts of taxation, debt, pensions, trade, public administration and security. Voters deserve a practical plan detailed enough to withstand independent scrutiny before embarking on such a consequential journey. The economic danger begins before any border changes. Businesses invest against expectations about future conditions. A credible prospect of separation could complicate decisions about major projects, financing and expansion. Investors would need answers about the currency, legal framework, market access and regulatory continuity of an independent Alberta. No responsible government should assume that uncertainty carries no price simply because its consequences are difficult to quantify in advance. Alberta’s geography presents another unavoidable challenge. It is landlocked. Its resources must reach customers through transportation networks crossing other jurisdictions. Independence would not provide a coastline, eliminate pipeline disputes or guarantee favourable transit arrangements. It could instead turn disagreements within Canada into negotiations between separate countries. Access to ports and markets would depend on relationships that Alberta’s government could influence but could never control by proclamation. Nor should anyone assume that closer dependence on the United States would deliver greater freedom. A smaller state negotiating with a vastly larger economy faces an obvious imbalance of power. Alberta’s energy wealth would remain valuable, but wealth alone does not guarantee favourable treatment. Canadians should examine carefully any argument suggesting that abandoning influence within Confederation would produce stronger bargaining power abroad. Economic vulnerability can increase even while political independence is proclaimed. The constitutional obstacles are equally substantial. Canadian law provides no unilateral route for a province to secede. The Clarity Act requires a clear expression of support before federal negotiations can proceed, and lawful separation would require constitutional amendment. Even a future referendum favouring independence would therefore open a demanding negotiation rather than guarantee a completed departure. Political campaign slogans cannot settle the terms on which a country might divide. Indigenous peoples cannot be treated as spectators in that negotiation. Their rights, interests and territorial claims would require attention, alongside possible changes to provincial borders, minority protections and the division of assets and liabilities. These are explicitly recognized in the Clarity Act. Any suggestion that a provincial vote could simply carry every community and all existing territory into a new country overlooks fundamental questions that a referendum cannot resolve alone. For ordinary families, the debate must become concrete. What would happen to federal benefits, pension administration, citizenship arrangements and employment across borders? How would public debt be allocated? Who would pay for institutions currently provided through the federation? These questions should never be brushed aside as details for later. They concern household security. Retirees, workers and young families deserve answers before political leaders ask them to accept years of negotiation. The risks also extend across Canada. Separation would raise difficult questions about transportation corridors, defence arrangements, national finances and relations among the remaining provinces. A country absorbed by internal fragmentation would have less political attention available for trade diversification, infrastructure and security. At a time when Canada needs the capacity to act decisively, a prolonged constitutional struggle could consume the energy required to strengthen its independence and economic resilience. Premier Danielle Smith’s government must therefore exercise disciplined leadership. Permitting a vote does not absolve a government of its responsibility to explain consequences honestly. Ottawa must show equal discipline by addressing practical grievances and resisting the temptation to dismiss every dissatisfied Albertan as disloyal. Both governments should concentrate on measurable improvements: reliable energy policy, stronger transportation links, fair treatment and cooperation that produces visible results for the public. Canada’s unity requires work, competence and mutual respect. Alberta should insist on a better federation, and Ottawa should help deliver one. However, launching a separation process as political leverage could expose both province and country to consequences far exceeding any expected advantage. Leaders entrusted with public authority should resolve grievances through responsible action. They should never gamble with the economic security of their citizens or the integrity of Canada.

WELL THIS IS IT

By Joe Ingino Experienced candidates enter the final stretch of Oshawa’s municipal election with advantages, but several open council seats leave room for change when voting concludes October 26. An assessment of candidate registrations, previous results and public backgrounds suggests returning councillors remain competitive. However, without credible published ward polling, these projections represent preliminary judgments rather than measured voter intentions. Each ward elects one regional and city councillor and one city councillor. In Ward 1, the regional contest remains too uncertain to call. Christopher Biancaniello, Nadea Clarke, Martin Franssen and Selvan Sinnadurai offer different professional and community backgrounds, but available evidence does not establish a leader. If a leader was to be elected Biancaniello appears to be the choice. For the local seat, incumbent Rosemary McConkey holds a cautious advantage. Her eight-vote victory in 2022 demonstrates how competitive this ward can become. Recognition helps, but her previous margin provides little protection against a strong challenger. Ward 2 presents two open contests. Bradley Marks receives a preliminary edge over Cameron Anderson for regional and city councillor because of his council experience. However, Marks currently represents the status quo that may work against him. Ward 3, meaning his previous support cannot automatically transfer across ward boundaries. Jane Hurst appears favourably positioned for Ward 2’s local seat. A former ward councillor, she finished second in 2022 and brings an established electoral history. In Ward 3, regional incumbent Bob Chapman appears comparatively well positioned after winning 72.39 per cent in 2022. Timothy Dobson, Katherine Pollard and Rizwan Javed must overcome that substantial historical base. The open local ward 3 - contest gives former councillor Roger Bouma a tentative edge, although elected school trustee Shailene Panylo offers significant competition. Confidence remains low. Roger Bouma has a bad reputation in the community that may see him toppled. Ward 4 could deliver close contests. Regional incumbent Rick Kerr receives a narrow advantage, but Doug Sanders remains a credible threat after finishing fewer than 400 votes behind him in 2022. Jeff Davis and Jack O’Donnell add uncertainty. Dave Thompson receives a tentative edge for the local seat after placing second in 2022. A crowded field, including former trustee Deb Oldfield, makes that projection fragile. In Ward 5, Brian Charles Nicholson remains favoured against Kristen McKinnon for the regional seat, while John Gray’s previous majority supports his position in the local contest. The strongest preliminary favourites are Chapman and Gray. The greatest uncertainty surrounds Ward 1 regional, Ward 3 local and both Ward 4 races. With online voting underway, final turnout could overturn expectations before election night. At the Mayoral level: You have three incumbent politicians fighting for the incumbent vote. Titto, Lee and Derek are fighting it out for Carters supporters vote. The rest of the field have little or no real chance to win as the majority of votes will end up on one of the three. This election is a turn of a historical page. One that demands real understanding and real action. Time will tell.

When a Mother Has Nowhere Safe to Go, Pickering Must Ask Harder Questions

By John Meloche Recently, I saw an anonymous online post asking a simple, frightening question: Is there a women’s shelter in Pickering? Someone replied that the closest one was in Ajax and was full. I cannot verify that shelter’s availability at that particular moment. But the question stopped me. Because when I was very young, my mother and I depended on a women’s shelter ourselves I know what that kind of help can mean. For a mother and her child, a shelter is more than a bed. It is safety, dignity and a chance to begin again when the alternatives feel impossible. That is why I started looking into the situation facing women and children in Durham. And the numbers deserve our attention. YWCA Durham’s 2025 annual report says its Y’s WISH Shelter referred 319 women to other agencies because it lacked capacity. In 2024, that number was 351. Across two years, one Durham shelter reported 670 capacity-related referrals involving women. Its crisis line also answered 759 calls in 2025 alone. These are regional figures, not Pickering-specific totals. We do not know how many women were subsequently housed elsewhere or whether the same people sought help more than once. But the pressure on this part of the shelter system is real. Women escaping violence are not always visible in homelessness statistics. Some remain in unsafe homes because leaving seems even more dangerous, or because they cannot see a way to afford a new start. Their children are living through that uncertainty too. A lack of local data is not evidence of a lack of need. Now imagine facing that uncertainty with a frightened child beside you. You may need to leave your home tonight, but you still have to think about school tomorrow, transportation, medication, meals and keeping your family together. We have excellent organizations doing difficult work. Herizon House in Ajax operates a 30-bed emergency shelter for women and children fleeing abuse and serves Pickering residents. Other Durham organizations provide shelter, counselling and housing support. But published regional listings do not identify a dedicated women’s emergency shelter within Pickering itself. That does not automatically mean Pickering needs its own building. Sometimes safety requires placing a family away from its home community. It does mean we should understand whether local women face unmet needs and what would actually help. Would a Pickering-based support worker make services easier to access? Could municipal space be provided for confidential appointments? Could partnerships improve emergency transportation, childcare or transitional housing? Are more shelter beds needed? Those questions require answers from experienced providers and women who have lived through the system. There is a municipal role here. Durham Region manages housing and homelessness services, and senior governments fund much of the shelter system. But Pickering already committed to addressing intimate partner violence through its Community Safety and Well-Being Plan in 2023. We should find out what that commitment means in practical terms. I want City staff, Durham Region and established shelter organizations to report on demand from Pickering residents, identify gaps and present costed options. No blank cheques. No ribbon-cutting promises. Just evidence, collaboration and measurable results. Start with a public report within 90 days, protecting survivors and shelter locations. Someone objected to my saying the original post “triggered” me. The word is less important than why it affected me. I was once the child whose mother needed somewhere safe to go. I will never consider that a trivial matter. Budgets, jurisdiction and accountability matter. But a child looking to their mother for safety cannot wait for another round of finger-pointing. No woman should have to choose between an unsafe home and nowhere to go. Pickering must be prepared to do its part. John Meloche is a Pickering resident, business owner and candidate for City Councillor in Ward 2.

Find solutions for homelessness requires more than a catchy slogan

By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support If you are concerned about homelessness, it is important to understand what each candidate in your town or city is proposing. Local elections shape decisions that affect people experiencing homelessness, even when your municipality is not the main funder of housing and homelessness services. In Durham Region, municipalities such as Pickering, Ajax and Whitby may not hold primary responsibility for funding these services. That does not make local elected officials powerless. They make decisions about land use, planning and development. These important choices can affect whether supportive housing, affordable homes and emergency services can be built, and where. Council can also decide how municipal land and facilities are used. They can identify local barriers, and bring community partners together to work on solutions. Local representatives also have a voice beyond city or town boundaries. They can raise urgent needs with the Region and provincial and federal governments, advocate for funding, and press for coordinated action. Their public comments matter, too. When elected officials speak about homelessness with care and accuracy, they can help build understanding. When they rely on stereotypes or treat people’s needs as someone else’s problem, it can deepen stigma and make effective responses harder. That is why campaign platforms deserve a close look. Do candidates recognize homelessness as a local concern? Do they support practical steps such as increasing the supply of affordable and supportive housing, making municipal land available for suitable projects. Are the committed to improving coordination with regional services, and consulting people with lived experience? Do they explain how they will work with other levels of government and community organizations? A platform should offer more than a slogan: it should show what a candidate intends to do, who they will work with and how they will measure progress. Learning about candidates’ positions helps voters ask informed questions and hold elected officials accountable after the election. It also helps communities identify who is prepared to work across political boundaries and levels of government and who will stick their neck out when it really matters. Homelessness is experienced locally. It affects our neighbourhoods, public spaces and service agencies. Even when funding decisions sit elsewhere, local leadership can influence whether communities make room for solutions. If we want a meaningful response, we need to know where our candidates stand before we cast our ballots. Be informed before you VOTE

Do you understand the CDIC protection:

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Protecting your deposits Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC) is a federal Crown corporation that insures more than $1 trillion in deposits held in member institutions. CDIC is fully funded by our members, and coverage is free and automatic. You don’t have to sign up for this service. CDIC protects eligible deposits in Canadian and foreign currency for up to $100,000 (Canadian dollars) in each of CDIC's insurance categories. What’s covered? Deposits in Canadian or foreign currency (including via payroll, Interac e-transfer, or cheque). Guaranteed Investment Certificates (GICs). Other term deposits What’s not covered? Mutual funds,Stocks and bonds, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), Cryptocurrencies Example: Jane Doe has placed the following funds at a CDIC member institution. Here’s what does and does not   qualify for CDIC coverage: $ 40,000 in a GIC - $ 25,000 in a savings account $ 25,000 in a chequing account - $ 130,000 in mutual funds $220,000 (not Covered) Total Portfolio $ 90,000 - Total Eligible Deposits $ 90,000 Total Deposits Protected by CDIC Jane’s GIC, savings and chequing accounts are in her name only and all qualify for CDIC coverage within the same coverage category (deposits held in one name). As a result, total amounts in these accounts are combined and are insured for up to a total of $100,000 in the event a member institution’s failure. A word about financial service providers, products, and deposit protection CDIC deposit insurance may be available for eligible financial products offered by a CDIC member, another financial institution, a broker, a third-party financial service provider (for example, a financial technology company), or other providers. To find out if your deposits are protected by CDIC, speak to your financial service provider. What happens if a CDIC member fails? In the unlikely event of failure of a CDIC member institution, CDIC provides access to insured funds (including interest) within days. It’s automatic – we will contact you. What you can do to know what is covered and what is not. Keep your address, phone number, and email up-to-date at your financial institution. Ask your broker or financial advisor about CDIC’s rules for deposits held in trust including keeping up-to-date beneficiary information. Remember Ask about the `` The Simple Question Process TM``

The House in the Picture

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print Those four words appear at the end of the online description for an Oshawa bungalow listed for sale this fall. Nothing scandalous about that. The disclosure is right there, where anyone can read it. In fact, it's the sort of information buyers should be getting. The photographs, of course, are where I tend to start. I've spent enough evenings browsing real estate listings to know the routine. First the kitchen, then the yard, then a quick look at whether the living room could hold the furniture. The furnace and property taxes can wait. Somewhere along the way you decide if the place is worth a Saturday drive. Apparently, I may also need to ask whether the living room exists. In 2024, a brick garage on a Toronto laneway appeared in a real estate listing with a rather ambitious future. The building at 194R Chatham Ave. was still a garage, but the photographs offered something else. Some showed a polished loft. Others pushed out walls to create new rooms or imagined a much larger building. The Globe and Mail reported that 15 of the listing's 21 images were AI renderings. The renovation, as impressive as it looked, had taken place entirely inside a computer. Apparently it raised some questions. The Globe reported that callers asked whether the garage was part of a much larger building. The agent removed those exterior renderings. A prospective buyer also complained to the Real Estate Council of Ontario, or RECO. The Globe did not report an outcome. But the agent hadn't hidden what he was doing. The listing included a warning: “Please note that some photos depict conceptual ideas, not actual representations.” He wasn't claiming those rooms had been built. His explanation was understandable. A bare garage is hard to picture as a home, and he wanted buyers to see the possibilities. Some of the imagined changes would have needed city approval. The technology made an unbuilt future look a good deal further along than it was. Real estate photography has always involved a little theatre. Someone arrives with furniture that fits perfectly. The towels are folded as though nobody has ever used them. The camera finds the corner that makes a modest room look like a ballroom. I don't object to any of this. Sellers want their homes to look good, and buyers know the family probably doesn't live with fresh flowers on every table. But putting a nicer chair in a room is not quite the same as putting a room in a building. For most of my life, a photograph carried a fairly simple promise. You might be seeing the house from its one good angle, but somebody had pointed a camera at something. That wasn't a guarantee of much, but it was a start. Now the camera might never have seen the room at all. Ontario already has rules about misleading real estate advertising. Agents must make their best efforts to keep their representations accurate and not misleading, and they're prohibited from engaging in misrepresentation. RECO told the Globe that enhanced images should be identified in a listing and that buyers should visit properties to check what they're seeing. The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board allows virtual staging provided it doesn't materially misrepresent the property. CREA and Realtor.ca don't regulate AI use in listings themselves. That sounds reasonable. So does RECO's advice to go and see the place. Walk through it. Open cupboards. Ask what that stain on the ceiling is. But you can't visit every house. The pictures help decide which ones get a visit in the first place. By the time you get to the front door, they've already done a good deal of selling. The Oshawa bungalow isn't the Toronto garage. Its listing says only that some photos were virtually staged, which doesn't necessarily mean AI was involved. There is no reason to suspect anything improper. Both listings included disclosures, and that's how it should be. Still, a line at the bottom of a description has to compete with a photograph that has already done its job. The actual building was a garage. The beautiful rooms were ideas. Only one of those things was for sale.

Take the Stairs!

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Most people are less physically active than they should be. So when you get the chance to take a flight of stairs, do it. Think of the escalator as your enemy and the stairs as your friend. A new analysis reinforces the message that climbing a few flights is well worth the effort. Researchers combined the results of nine studies involving almost half a million people. The participants were followed for about 14 years. Those who regularly climbed stairs had a 39 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular death and a 24 per cent lower risk of death from any cause than those who did not regularly climb stairs. Those are impressive numbers. Climb the stairs! But here’s a lesson in understanding these kinds of studies. They were observational, meaning there was no random assignment of half a million people to climb stairs and the other half to take elevators. Instead, researchers arrived at their conclusion by watching what people were already doing and then looking at what happened to them over many years. This opens the door to a problem called reverse causation. Think about two people standing in the lobby of an office building. One walks toward the staircase. The other presses the elevator button. It is tempting to conclude that the person taking the stairs is healthier because stair climbing is making that person healthier. But perhaps healthier people like to take the stairs as a matter of course. Maybe these people already have stronger legs, better balance, better lungs and healthier hearts. Maybe they are lighter, more active and less likely to have arthritis. Those waiting for the elevator may already have heart disease, shortness of breath, bad knees or some other condition that makes climbing stairs difficult. In that case, the stairs are not necessarily the cause of the difference. They are instead a marker of the difference. This is what scientists mean by reverse causation. The apparent cause and effect can run in the opposite direction from what we assume. It is an important caution because headlines are very good at turning associations into prescriptions. Benjamin Franklin would have understood the argument. In 1772, when he was 66, Franklin wrote to his son about the virtues of exercise and observed that walking a mile up and down stairs provided more exercise than walking five miles on level ground. He also pointed out the convenience: stair climbing could be done indoors when bad weather discouraged going outside or when a person was short of time. More than 250 years later, the inventor in Franklin would surely have admired the innovation of elevators, escalators and all sorts of other conveniences. But as an astute observer of the world, would he have recognized that in making life easier, we have also made ourselves less active? Unlike walking on level ground, climbing requires lifting our body weight against gravity. The large muscles of the legs have more work to do. Heart rate and breathing rise quickly as they demand more oxygen and energy. Stair climbing can therefore deliver a vigorous cardiovascular workout in a short time. Take the stairs at work. Walk to the store. If you drive, park further away. Get a dog and walk it. Do these things with happiness. Don’t let modern conveniences lull you into poor health. But remember, stairs demand our respect, especially as we age. Balance, vision, muscle strength and reaction time change. Medications add to the risk of falling. A staircase is an excellent piece of exercise equipment when using it deliberately. But use the handrail! Mind your footwear. Remove any obstacles. Stay safe while being healthy.

Less Than

By Wayne and Tamara I am a 24-year-old girl that has been dating a guy, 28, for over a year. When we are together things are so great; we never argue and we like doing the same things. Then out of the blue he will tell me he needs space. So I give it to him. I don’t call him, write him, nothing. Then he calls again and we get back together. He makes statements like "let’s have a baby" or "help me find a place to buy near where you live.” But nothing comes from it. It’s a continuous cycle, and I have absolutely no idea if I am someone he really wants or loves. Lately he says he wants us to work on being "best friends," but we still act like a couple. I love him with all my heart. He is always there for me when I need him emotionally and physically. But does he want me? Seriously, this boy is giving me whiplash. Kelsey Kelsey, in the law, a lesser included offense is one which shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater offense. For example, manslaughter is a lesser included offense in murder, and trespassing is a lesser included offense in burglary. In the same way, while sex is included in romantic love, it is not love. Prostitution shows this, and so does the term “friends with benefits.” Genuine love cannot be proven from the existence of a lesser included element. You cannot sift through what someone tells you solely for what you want to hear. That’s like keeping the spam and throwing away the email. Don’t expect to have a future with a man who wants a baby with you one day, and wants you out of his life the next. Don’t expect to be treated well by a man you allow to treat you badly. Wayne & Tamara She Works Hard... I was recently called into my department head's office and given a formal reprimand because I have been experiencing problems with tardiness (arriving to work five, 10, or 15 minutes late) and making personal calls at work. The room in which I work has three cubicles, which include myself, a coworker, and my supervisor. We'll call her Lisa. Lisa also acts as supervisor for my coworker, whom we'll call Eddie. His actual direct boss works remotely and is only available thru phone and email. Since receiving this reprimand, which was mortifying, I have made a huge effort to arrive at work on time. However, I’ve found myself in an increasing state of resentment as I continue to observe Eddie strolling into work 10, 15, or 20 minutes late almost every day. On one occasion he only worked five and a half hours and took a long lunch. I also hear Lisa's personal calls throughout the day. I feel like I had the right attitude in responding to this reprimand, and I wanted to step up and prove myself, but it's becoming harder to maintain this feeling of positivity when I observe my coworker and boss doing the exact same things I was reprimanded for. Maggie Maggie, sometimes success in the workplace has little to do with merit. Instead it’s like cliques in school. What matters is who is liked by whom and who plays the best social game. That’s a given. The second given is human beings detest unfairness. People do bad things like stealing simply as a protest against what others are getting away with. The third given is pointing a finger at others is never a winning defense against rule violations. So try this. Don’t look at your supervisor and coworker; look at who has provided your job and what they expect. Go back to your job interview and what you promised. Focus on that. Ultimately hard work and performance will set you apart.

The Art of Finding Work

By Nick Kossovan You don't logically analyze why you immediately trust a stranger who shares your taste in music, nor do you deliberate over ordering your usual at a local diner. You aren't making logical choices; you're following evolutionary hardwiring. We instinctively embrace biases that draw us to people and groups we connect with effortlessly or that we believe are safe. Be honest: it's comforting when someone shares your generation, ethnicity, gender, political ideology, or love of golf. You instinctively interpret those shared traits as commonalities, not differences, that signal safety rather than threat. I don't know anyone who doesn't gravitate toward people they feel comfortable with. Seeking allies is basic human psychology; after all, we're tribal by nature. Nevertheless, let's acknowledge a collective hypocrisy: the moment a hiring manager's alleged bias conflicts with a job seeker's self-interest, the job seeker makes unsubstantiated claims that “isms" are preventing them from being hired. This reaction is naive. HR rhetoric wants job seekers to believe that recruiters and hiring managers operate like objective evaluation algorithms, but that's fiction. As human beings, they're inherently biased and emotional, and they hire largely based on affinity. Most hiring decisions don't hinge on a rigorous skills assessment; they're driven by the subconscious "similar-to-me" effect. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman nailed it: "We are not only rational animals; we are also rationalizing animals." We don't decide logically; we rationalize our gut instincts afterward. Accepting this aspect of human nature isn't defeat; it's a reminder that, as a job seeker, you must obsessively focus on triggering those gut instincts first. You can't erase another person's biases, but you can try to influence them to your advantage. Because most self-proclaimed career coaches profit from keeping job seekers angry and anxious, standard (read: cliché) job-search advice overlooks a fundamental truth: biases aren't prejudices, preferences, or tribal affiliations; they're cognitive mechanisms. They're simply the brain's way of simplifying decision-making, whether choosing a restaurant, selecting a financial advisor, or hiring Candidate A over an equally qualified Candidate B. This isn't a design flaw; it's human nature. Navigating a hiring manager's biases requires deliberately engineering the signals you send. You can use biases to your advantage only if you manage them intentionally. The moment you enter the room, your appearance, mannerisms, vocal inflection, and posture immediately signal your professionalism and self-assurance. Visual and auditory cues are entirely within your control. Assuming an interviewer must accept you "as you" isn't strategy; it's entitlement. Nobody owes you acceptance. The following five visual, auditory, and mannerism-related cues are under your control: 1. Dress for stature: Wear clothing that conveys authority and competence. 2. Match vocal cadence: Mirror your interviewer's pace and tone to reduce psychological defences. 3. Command presence: Maintain a steady posture, open body language, and direct eye contact to project confidence. 4. Signal active engagement: Nod and confirm key points to foster shared understanding. 5. Project thoroughness: Arrive early and be over-prepared to make an unforgettable first impression. When biases such as ageism work against you, generic advice like “removing dates” is garbage, as if your age won’t become evident somewhere in the employer’s hiring process. Although bias is hardwired into our DNA, it’s also lazy thinking. Savvy job seekers counter that lazy thinking by treating their resume and LinkedIn profile like precision-guided missiles designed to cut through bias. If anything is confusing or ambiguous, a recruiter’s or hiring manager’s cognitive bias won’t prompt investigation; they’ll move on. Overcoming any bias requires crystal-clear clarity. Harvard economist Dr. Iris Bohnet asserted that defeating bias requires “designing systems that neutralize gut instincts." Because most employers fail at this, you must manage the psychological friction yourself. Starve their biases of oxygen with undeniable proof. No ironclad guarantees exist when navigating human nature, but remember this: Just as you expect your values and beliefs to be respected, you must respect an interviewer's cognitive defaults. Your job isn’t to change their hardwiring; it’s to appeal to the analytical side of their brain. Explicitly communicate how you’ll increase their profitability, because that’s ultimately how employers determine a candidate’s value. Counteract inherent hiring biases with these five strategies: 1. Quantify impact: Eliminate listing duties. Replace arbitrary descriptions ("great team player") with results-oriented metrics ("increased operational efficiency by 22%"). 2. Employ their language: Use the terminology, jargon, and abbreviations of your industry, profession, or the employer to elicit a "one of us" response. 3. Demonstrate your ability to drive business: Describe your employment history in terms of revenue growth, cost reduction, and risk mitigation. 4. Feature social proof: Showcase recommendations, published articles, testimonials, association and board memberships, and public engagements. External validation disarms internal skepticism. 5. Explain employment gaps: Don't leave them open to interpretation. Provide a brief, logical explanation for any gap. Until humans stop making hiring decisions, bias isn't going anywhere. The expectation that an employer's hiring process should be fair is a highly subjective standard that breeds bitterness and anger. You can't change someone's hardwiring; you can only change your strategy. Therefore, focus on the one variable you can control: the signals you broadcast. You mitigate bias by framing your candidacy as offering employers undeniable value, which is all you can do.

All Victims Deserve Protection

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Compassion must protect victims, too. Over coffee, we talk about helping people who have lost everything. We should. A lost job, illness, or rent increase can leave someone without a home. Nobody deserves to be treated as worthless because they sleep outside. But when did compassion become a reason to leave other people defenceless? The person sleeping in a tent deserves safety. So does the shopkeeper, the employee walking home, and the family worried about someone breaking into their house. We cannot judge every homeless person by the criminal element operating among them. Edmonton police have described gangs embedded in encampments, selling drugs and using fear and extortion for profit. People without homes need protection from these criminals, too. This crosses borders. American prosecutors have alleged that Los Angeles gang members used tents to blend into the homeless population while dealing drugs. In Seattle, a man was sentenced for his role in a trafficking organization selling narcotics in homeless encampments. These examples show why we must separate people needing help from people exploiting their hardship. Downtown businesses need protection as well. A little store may represent someone's savings, a second mortgage, and years of work. Behind that counter is a person trying to pay bills and keep employees working. A hungry person asking for food is one thing. Someone saying, “You'll be sorry,” if a shopkeeper refuses free food or calls police about theft is another. That is intimidation. Using threats to demand something for free is the extortion I am talking about. Police should be asked what complaints they receive and what business owners are facing. When customers become afraid to visit, income drops. When windows break or stock disappears, bills still arrive. If a business closes, jobs disappear and the community loses another taxpayer. Oshawa offers grants for security and safety improvements. That helps. But locks, cameras, and guards cannot become a substitute for public protection. What about the business that cannot afford a guard? What about ordinary homeowners? They already pay taxes. Must they pay again just to feel safe? You can understand why people might feel abandoned. City halls should demand more help from Ottawa and provincial governments. I want mayors and councillors speaking plainly when government responses fall short. Polite words mean little to someone sweeping broken glass before opening. And courts must answer for decisions that leave victims feeling forgotten. When repeat offenders return to hurt people, public confidence suffers. In my view, courts that fail to give public safety weight help destroy the country's faith in justice. Police do their work. Victims report crimes. Yet if accountability never seems to follow, why should either believe the system will protect them? Ask officers how repeated arrests affect their morale. Ask victims what a court appearance costs them. I will say this: judges who repeatedly disregard public safety when dealing with proven criminal harm should not be judges. Why must victims keep paying for the same offender’s next chance? Blind justice should serve fairness, not socialism or any political cause. It must never be blind to suffering. We need housing, mental health care, and addiction treatment. We also need consequences for those who threaten, steal, exploit, and attack. Without that balance, compassion can turn cold. People may demand that everyone living outside be locked away. Innocent people would suffer alongside criminals. Around our coffee tables in Oshawa, ask what history will say. Did we help neighbours and protect our streets, or leave everyone to fend for themselves? Our unborn children will inherit that answer.

THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW Clarington’s Rising Taxes and Council Salaries: A Question of Fiscal Accountabilty

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington There is a fundamental principle in municipal government: elected officials are entrusted with spending taxpayers’ money responsibly, transparently and with a clear understanding of the financial pressures facing the people they represent. In Clarington, Mayor Adrian Foster’s record raises important questions about how municipal taxation and elected-official compensation have evolved during his time in office. The numbers deserve public examination. Sixteen Budgets and a 70.49% Compounded Increase According to a compilation of Clarington’s published municipal budget increases, the annual increases compounded to approximately 70.49% between 2011 and 2026, covering 16 municipal budgets during Foster’s mayoralty. The municipality’s published increases cited in the compilation include 4.06% in 2023, 4.52% in 2024, 5.32% in 2025 and 3.00% in 2026. These figures describe increases to Clarington’s municipal tax levy, not the percentage increase to an individual household’s total property tax bill. Regional and education taxes are separate components. Nevertheless, the compounded municipal figure raises a legitimate question: have residents received sufficient value, service improvements and long-term financial benefits from the additional revenue collected? What Happened to the Mayor’s Compensation? Public compensation records summarized in an earlier remuneration briefing show that Foster’s combined disclosed salary increased from $157,691.53 in 2022 to $207,232.98 in 2025. That represents an increase of $49,541.45, or approximately 31.4%, over three years. It is important to recognize that this figure reflects combined disclosed compensation, rather than a single salary increase approved by Clarington Council. In June 2023, Clarington Council approved a compensation adjustment designed to offset the federal government’s earlier elimination of the one-third tax exemption for municipal elected officials. Municipal staff estimated the financial impact of that adjustment at $129,136, based on 2023 salaries. The policy was subsequently implemented through By-law 2023-056. Council’s decision had a stated rationale. Other comparable Durham municipalities had already addressed the elimination of the exemption, and Clarington’s compensation had fallen behind those municipalities. But an equally legitimate question remains: should elected officials approve adjustments to their own compensation, or should such decisions be subject to independent review? Taxpayer Affordability and Municipal Priorities Clarington has pointed to infrastructure requirements, inflation, growth-related pressures and comparatively low property taxes in explaining its budget decisions. Those considerations deserve recognition. Roads, emergency services, recreation facilities and municipal infrastructure all require sustainable funding. Yet budget pressures also demand scrutiny of spending priorities, operational efficiencies and the financial consequences of decisions made by Council. Residents should be able to determine how much additional revenue has been collected, where that money has been spent, and what measurable improvements have resulted. The same standard of transparency should apply to the compensation of elected officials. Fiscal Responsibility Requires More Than a Balanced Budget A municipality can adopt a balanced budget while continuing to increase the amount collected from taxpayers. A balanced budget is a legal and financial requirement. It is not, by itself, evidence that every spending decision represents the best use of public money. The appropriate questions are whether expenditure growth is sustainable, whether alternatives were properly considered, and whether residents are receiving value for the taxes they pay. The record of tax increases and compensation decisions provides a factual basis for asking those questions of Mayor Foster and Clarington Council. It does not, on its own, establish that every increase was unnecessary or that every compensation decision was unjustified. Those conclusions require examination of the underlying budgets, services, inflation, infrastructure needs and Council’s recorded votes. Accountability Begins With the Public Record Residents deserve clear answers about the financial decisions made in their name. Why were particular tax increases necessary? What spending reductions or efficiencies were considered? What measurable benefits have residents received? And should decisions affecting elected officials’ own compensation be made through a more independent process? These are not personal questions. They are questions of public accountability. After 16 budgets under Mayor Foster, Clarington residents have every reason to examine the cumulative financial record and expect detailed explanations of the decisions behind it. Fiscal accountability is not simply about how much a municipality collects. It is about demonstrating why the money was needed, how responsibly it was spent, and what taxpayers received in return. John Mutton is a former Mayor of Clarington and former Chair of Finance for the Regional Municipality of Durham.

As Christmas Approaches, Metalex Showcases Rockglass to Combat Retail Crime

By Tom Reimer As Christmas approaches, concerns about crime and property security continue to grow. The festive season brings increased shopping, valuable stock, and extended trading hours, creating additional security challenges for retailers and homeowners alike. Residential and commercial property owners are increasingly looking for effective ways to protect their premises, assets, and livelihoods. For the retail industry, the stakes are particularly high. Businesses displaying valuable merchandise can attract opportunistic criminals, making display cases and shopfronts potential targets for smash-and-grab attacks. Traditional security measures remain essential, but businesses are increasingly recognising the need for stronger physical protection to deter criminals and reduce potential losses. Metalex will be showcasing Rockglass to the Canadian Jewellers Association (CJA), highlighting an innovative approach to strengthening retail security during this critical period. Rockglass is designed to make jewellery display cases highly resistant to smash attacks, helping protect valuable merchandise from criminals attempting to gain quick access to stock. By incorporating protective glazing into display cases, retailers can introduce an additional barrier between thieves and the products they are targeting. However, the benefits of Rockglass extend beyond display cabinets. When installed in suitable windows and doors, Rockglass can also help retailers strengthen vulnerable entry points and reduce the risk of nighttime break-ins. With businesses often closed and unoccupied overnight, reinforced glazing can provide an important additional layer of physical security, making unauthorised entry more difficult. For retailers, this means the opportunity to protect merchandise both inside display cases and throughout their premises. Combined with alarms, surveillance cameras, access controls, and appropriate security procedures, Rockglass can contribute to a more comprehensive approach to crime prevention. The need for stronger protection is not limited to jewellery stores. Residential properties face their own challenges as families travel, attend festive celebrations, and leave homes unattended. Securing windows and doors is an important consideration for homeowners seeking to reduce opportunities for intruders. As criminal methods evolve, security solutions must evolve too. Investing in more resilient glazing can help businesses and homeowners address vulnerabilities before an incident occurs. While no security product can guarantee complete protection against every attempted break-in, strengthening vulnerable areas can make a meaningful difference. Metalex's presentation to the Canadian Jewellers Association comes at an important time for the industry, offering retailers an opportunity to explore how Rockglass can support their security strategies as the busiest shopping season of the year approaches. This Christmas, security should be a priority, not an afterthought. By introducing Rockglass to the CJA, Metalex aims to highlight the importance of stronger display cases, reinforced windows, and more secure doors in protecting valuable assets. Metalex and Rockglass: helping retailers strengthen security against smash-and-grab attacks and nighttime break-ins this Christmas and beyond.