WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, CHOOSE COMPASSION

WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, CHOOSE COMPASSION By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support A situation many of us encounter more and more across Durham Region is a person sitting outside a store, sleeping in a doorway, carrying their belongings in bags, or asking for help at an intersection. I often get asked by community members, How Can I Help?? The best place to begin is simple. I always suggest leading with an acknowledgement. The nicest thing you can do is treat any individual with dignity. A smile, eye contact, or a quiet “Hello, how are you doing?” may seem like a small gesture, but it can be meaningful to someone who is regularly ignored. People experiencing homelessness often describe feeling invisible. Being recognized as a fellow human being can make a huge difference. If you would like to offer assistance, ask the person what they need rather than assuming. Asking if there is anything you can do that would be helpful is a great place to start. Their answer may be something as basic as water, a meal, warm socks, hygiene products, transit fare, or a cup of coffee. Sometimes, they may simply want someone to listen. Offering money is a personal decision. If you are uncomfortable giving cash, consider providing a gift card to a nearby restaurant, grocery store, pharmacy, or coffee shop. During the winter, gloves, hats, hand warmers, and dry socks can be especially helpful. In hot weather, bottled water, sunscreen or SPF lip balm are items that are always appreciated. Whatever you decide to offer, please give it without conditions or judgment. Homelessness is rarely the result of one decision or circumstance. It can follow job loss, rising rents, family breakdown, domestic violence, mental-health challenges, illness, disability, trauma, or the lack of affordable and supportive housing. Some people experiencing homelessness are also working or receiving income support, but still cannot find a place they can afford. Keep that in mind when chatting. I’ve had lawyers, teachers, landscapers and business people walk through our doors at DARS. The first time I was shocked. Now, sadly it doesn’t faze me. If someone appears seriously ill, injured, unconscious, inadequately dressed for dangerous weather, or at immediate risk of harming themselves or others, call 911. Clearly explain that you are concerned about the person’s health and safety and request a compassionate response. If the situation is not an emergency, call Durham Region’s Street Outreach Team at 311 extension 5510. They can help connect someone with local shelters, outreach, food, mental-health, and housing services. When appropriate, asking whether the person experiencing homelessness wants assistance and involving them in decisions that affect them is always a best practice. People experiencing homelessness still have the right to make choices about their own lives, even if it’s not a choice we would make for ourselves. Community organizations such as DARS and outreach teams can provide essential support, but homelessness cannot be solved through these services alone. Communities also need affordable housing, supportive housing, accessible health care, income security, and long-term services that help. Write your local politicians; all levels. Let them know you are concerned. If you are comfortable speaking directly to the person whenever it is safe to do so. It can mean the difference from a person feeling ignored or invisible. When you see someone experiencing homelessness, you do not need to solve every problem. You do not need to have the perfect words or a large amount of money. You can simply choose not to look away. Homelessness is a circumstance—it is not a person’s identity. Behind every visible sign of homelessness is an individual with a name, a history, relationships, hopes, and the same basic need for dignity that all of us share. Sometimes the most important thing we can offer is recognition: “I see you. You matter. How can I help?”

CANADA CAN’T NEGOTIATE WORTH A DAM

CANADA CAN’T NEGOTIATE WORTH A DAM By Joe Ingino People, people, people. WAKE UP. What is wrong with Canada? We are being over taken from within due to our relaxed immigration policies. Any and every country fighting a civil war either ask for us to send them money or take in the refugees. This has to stop. Do we not have any true leadership. Wait, Joe. Wake up. What are you talking about. WE DON’T. Look at the current Liberal party. We have a leader that appears to be just blowing with the winds of popularity. Canada keeps loosing opportunities and now under extreme trade attack. If we can’t negotiate with our neighbours how are we to negotiate in the global theater. So if not the Liberals. Who? Look at the current situation with Trump. What Canada is doing is not negotiations. What Canada is doing is playing right in to Trump corporate agenda. Just this week Trump got tough. Did he not only impose reasonable tariffs but also changed the name of one of our lakes. Talk about character. Talk about making a point. Yet, we in Canada keep missing it. Trump wants us to react so then he can justify further actions. Canada stop playing into their strategy. In my opinion. I would not challenge the Americans. They want to impost tariffs. Fine. Let them. Do not retaliate. This is what they want us to do. Historically, consumers, energy sectors, and integrated manufacturing supply chains in both countries have benefited most from Canada-U.S. trade under long-standing agreements like the 1965 Auto Pact and the current CUSMA framework. However, the bilateral trade relationship is currently undergoing severe disruption due to an active trade war and the collapse of recent trade negotiations. Historical Beneficiaries of Canada-U.S. TradeEnergy Consumers and Providers: The massive transboundary trade in crude oil, natural gas, and clean electricity (totaling over CAD$216 billion) has reliably supplied U.S. markets like New England and New York while driving jobs and energy security in Canada.Automotive and Manufacturing Sectors: Decades of supply-chain integration meant auto parts crossed the border multiple times before final assembly, lowering production costs for major automakers and creating shared industrial hubs in Ontario and Midwestern U.S. states. Border States and Regions: Northern U.S. states (such as Montana, North Dakota, Maine, and Vermont) and Canadian provinces have historically derived the majority of their international commerce and local economic activity from cross-border trade. Current Shifts and Pressures (2026)As of late August 2026, broad mutual benefits have stalled amid escalating tariffs: The Trade Conflict: Following the breakdown of trade talks, the U.S. administration enacted 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports (including auto parts, forestry, and furniture), and Canada announced dollar-for-dollar retaliatory counter-tariffs reaching up to 50% on key American goods. Disrupted Industries: Integrated sectors like automotive manufacturing (impacting facilities like Ford in Oakville and GM in Oshawa) are facing severe economic pressures rather than systemic benefits under the current tariff regime. Targeted Political Pressure: Canada's retaliatory countermeasures have been strategically structured to exert political pressure on specific U.S. states and economic sectors while attempting to minimize internal collateral damage. On August 25th, Canada announced its counter-tariff plan in response to the latest round of US tariffs. Canada’s counter-tariffs impact over 700 different items and will take effect on September 8th, 2026. Canada also announced changes to several of its tariff-relief programs. The United States’ 50% tariffs on a broad range of Canadian goods, took effect August 22, 2026. Impacted products include dairy, alcohol, and a wide range of items across numerous industries from electronics and building materials to apparel and agricultural goods. Notably, the tariffs apply even to CUSMA-compliant goods and have no expiry date. Prime Minister Mark Carney halted trade talks with the U.S. and recalled negotiators to Ottawa, stating that last-minute U.S. demands were unfair and uneconomic. Ottawa announced dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs targeting U.S. steel, dairy, electronics, and appliances, scheduled to go into force the Tuesday after Labour Day. There is no strategy just actions that lead no place. How much must we loose?

The Canada–United States Trade War: Preparing for a New Economic Reality

The Canada–United States Trade War: Preparing for a New Economic Reality by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East For generations, Canadians regarded economic relations with the United States as fundamentally secure. Disagreements arose over lumber, dairy products, pipelines and government procurement, but they were managed within a broader relationship based on geography, mutual interest and increasingly integrated industries. That assumption can no longer guide Canadian policy. The present trade war is not simply another dispute that will disappear after a few concessions. It reflects a fundamental change in Washington’s view of trade. The United States is increasingly prepared to use tariffs not merely to correct an alleged commercial imbalance, but to obtain political concessions, attract Canadian production and reinforce American economic dominance. The latest escalation demonstrates the danger. After bilateral negotiations collapsed in August, the United States imposed 50 per cent tariffs on approximately US$20 billion of Canadian products. President Donald Trump subsequently threatened 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles, trucks and automotive parts beginning January 1, 2027. Canada announced that retaliatory tariffs on American products would begin September 8. Reuters reported that the dispute followed negotiations that had appeared close to producing relief for automobiles, steel and aluminum. This confrontation is especially alarming because it coincides with uncertainty surrounding the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. The scheduled 2026 joint review did not result in the agreement’s renewal. CUSMA remains in force, but the United States has indicated that further negotiations will be required before its long-term future can be secured. The U.S. Trade Representative has made clear that Washington intends to pursue changes related to trade deficits, manufacturing and economic security. Canada therefore faces two interconnected threats: immediate sectoral tariffs and prolonged uncertainty about the rules governing continental trade. The automotive industry illustrates the consequences. A vehicle assembled in Ontario may contain engines, electronics, steel and other components that cross the border several times. A tariff imposed each time value moves through this supply chain does not punish Canada alone. It raises costs for American assembly plants, suppliers, dealers and consumers. The same logic applies to steel, aluminum, energy, agriculture and critical minerals. The two economies are not simply trading finished products; they are making things together. Tariffs placed inside such an integrated system operate like a tax on continental production. Nevertheless, Canada is more vulnerable. Approximately three-quarters of Canadian merchandise exports still go to the United States. Washington can therefore endure a confrontation longer than Ottawa, even though American workers and consumers also suffer. This imbalance gives the United States considerable negotiating leverage. Canada must respond firmly, but firmness should not be confused with indiscriminate retaliation. Counter-tariffs are sometimes necessary to demonstrate that coercion has consequences. Canada’s existing countermeasures on American steel, aluminum and automobiles reflect the continuation of U.S. tariffs in those sectors. However, retaliation must be carefully targeted. Tariffs that primarily increase Canadian household costs or damage Canadian manufacturers may be politically satisfying but economically self-defeating. Countermeasures should concentrate on products from politically influential American states, goods that Canada can source elsewhere and sectors in which pressure can be applied without severely harming Canadian consumers. The first prediction for the future is that the current confrontation will probably return to negotiation. Economic integration, business pressure and the interests of American border states make a complete commercial rupture unlikely. The threatened 50 per cent automotive tariffs may partly be intended to force Canada back to the negotiating table. However, any settlement will likely be narrow and temporary. Washington may reduce selected tariffs in exchange for Canadian concessions involving market access, automotive rules, dairy quotas, alcohol distribution or cooperation against the transshipment of Chinese products. Such an agreement would relieve immediate pressure without restoring the stability Canada once took for granted. The second prediction is that CUSMA will survive, but in a weaker and more conditional form. Its termination would disrupt American as well as Canadian industry. Yet the United States may prefer continuing periodic reviews, sectoral negotiations and tariff threats rather than granting another long period of certainty. Managed uncertainty itself has become a negotiating weapon because it encourages companies to move investment to the United States. Third, investment decisions will increasingly reflect political risk. Manufacturers considering a new plant will ask whether Canadian production will retain dependable access to the American market. Even when tariffs are eventually removed, uncertainty can redirect investment and employment southward. That may be one of the most damaging long-term effects of this conflict. Canada must therefore adopt a strategy extending beyond the next deadline. The country needs new pipelines, ports, rail capacity, electricity interconnections and transportation corridors that allow Canadian resources and manufactured products to reach global markets. Announcing trade diversification is easy; building the infrastructure that makes it possible is much harder. Canada must also remove its own interprovincial trade barriers. It is indefensible to demand reliable access to the American market while tolerating unnecessary restrictions among Canadian provinces. A genuine national economy would improve productivity, enlarge the domestic market and strengthen Canada’s negotiating position. Strategic industries require particular attention. Canada should retain greater domestic capacity in steel, aluminum, energy, defence production, nuclear technology, food processing, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals. This does not mean subsidizing every uncompetitive enterprise. It means recognizing that security of supply and national resilience have economic value. Canada should also deepen relations with Europe and the Indo-Pacific while remaining realistic. No alternative market can replace the United States in the near future. Diversification is therefore not separation from America. It is insurance against excessive dependence. Finally, Canadian diplomacy must reach beyond the White House. Governors, members of Congress, unions, manufacturers and agricultural organizations need to understand how much their own communities depend on Canadian energy, components and customers. Canada’s most effective argument is not an appeal to friendship; it is a precise demonstration of American self-interest. The trade war will eventually produce another agreement. However, it will not restore the old relationship. Canada is entering an era in which access to its largest market will be more political, conditional and unpredictable. The correct response is neither panic nor complacency. Canada must negotiate pragmatically, retaliate selectively and rebuild its capacity to act as a serious economic nation. Our goal cannot be merely to survive the next American tariff threat. It must be to ensure that Canada is never again so vulnerable to one.

Before You Vote Look at the Record

Before You Vote Look at the Record Leadership is more than campaign promises. Ask who showed up, who spoke up — and who stayed silent before there was an election to win. Election campaigns are full of promises. Candidates tell you what they will do, what they believe and what kind of leader they hope to be. But when someone is asking to lead an entire city, I believe voters deserve to ask a much more important question: What have you already done? Before the signs went up, before the campaign literature was printed and before anyone started asking for your vote, were you paying attention? Were you attending council meetings? Were you watching them? Were you reading the reports? Were you speaking up when major developments were proposed that could permanently change our communities? Were you asking questions about taxes, debt, infrastructure and spending? Were you engaged when there was no election to win and no political reward for being there? Those questions matter even more when someone is asking to become Mayor. Pickering has spent the past four years making decisions that will affect this city for decades, so voters should ask every candidate a very simple question: Where were you? Were you attending council meetings over the past four years? Were you delegating, writing to Council, challenging decisions or speaking publicly about development, taxes, debt, infrastructure and accountability? And when something happened that you knew was wrong, did you speak up — or did you stay silent? Leadership is not only about what you say when you want the job. It is also about whether you were willing to speak when there was nothing politically convenient to gain from it. If you now want to lead this city, show residents where you were, what you contributed, what you stood for and when you were willing to speak up before you became a candidate. Because silence is also part of a record. For nearly four years, the residents of Pickering have been able to see my record in real time. My votes are recorded. My motions are recorded. My questions are recorded. My opposition is recorded. So are the occasions when I stood alone. People do not have to agree with every position I have taken. That is democracy, and I would be surprised if any voter agreed with any politician on absolutely everything. There may be an issue on which you and I strongly disagree. You may disagree, for example, with my position that women and girls should have access to sex-based private spaces. I respect your right to hold a different view. But disagreement on one issue should not erase an entire record of work, and a political label should never replace an honest examination of what somebody actually believes. Too often today, difficult arguments are answered not with facts but with labels. Words such as “racist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic” or “conspiracy theorist” can become shortcuts for dismissing a person without ever addressing the substance of what they said. I do not believe maintaining privacy and sex-based spaces for women and girls means harbouring hatred toward anyone. Others are free to disagree with me. That is precisely why democratic debate matters. The same principle should apply to what voters read and hear during an election. A headline is not evidence. A social-media post is not evidence. A rumour repeated a hundred times does not suddenly become a fact. Even a newspaper column — including this one — should not be accepted unquestioningly. Go to the original source. Watch the meeting. Read the report. Look at the motion. Look at the recorded vote. Examine what was actually said rather than relying solely on somebody else’s characterization of it. That standard should apply to me just as much as it applies to every other candidate. And when I say look at the record, I mean exactly that. Look at who supported tax increases and who pushed back. Look at who supported opening Northeast Pickering to further development and who argued that Seaton should be completed first. Look at who supported plans that could open portions of our federal lands to development and who argued those lands should remain protected. Look at who repeatedly supported more growth, intensification and high-density development, and who kept asking whether our roads, infrastructure, services and taxpayers could actually carry it. Look at who supported major spending and who questioned whether taxpayers could afford it. Look at who challenged the growing use of consultants and who consistently voted to approve the spending placed before Council. And just as importantly, look at what happened to public debate. Look at who supported restricting opportunities for residents to speak at City Hall and who fought to preserve them. Look at who supported reducing delegations, limiting public questions, restricting debate and making it harder for residents to directly challenge decisions — and look at who opposed those changes. Transparency is not something you promise during an election. It is something you defend when you already hold power. Those are not campaign slogans. Those are decisions. For much of this term, I have been the opposition voice on many of the biggest issues facing Pickering. Sometimes that meant being the lone vote. Sometimes it meant putting forward motions that never received a seconder. Sometimes it meant asking questions nobody else wanted to ask. People are free to disagree with those votes, but nobody has to guess where I stood. My own record is there to examine. I have questioned major spending and the use of consultants. I have pushed for greater transparency over where taxpayers’ money goes. I have opposed opening Northeast Pickering for development while Seaton remains under construction. I have raised concerns about debt, development, infrastructure capacity and decisions that could shape Pickering for generations. I have fought for greater public participation and for residents to have a meaningful opportunity to question decisions being made with their money and in their name. Some of my positions have been popular. Others certainly have not. But they were my positions before an election was around the corner. That matters. It is easy during an election campaign to discover what residents are worried about and build a campaign around those concerns. It is considerably harder to show up year after year, read hundreds of pages of reports, take a position publicly and accept the consequences of that position. It is also easy to promise transparency after spending years silent while public participation was being restricted. It is easy to promise fiscal responsibility after tax increases and major spending decisions have already been approved. It is easy to suddenly become concerned about development after years of remaining absent from the debate. That is why I believe this election should be about record before rhetoric. Look beyond the slogans and polished campaign literature. Look beyond the rumours, labels and personal attacks. Ask every candidate — including me — to show you the record. Where were they while Pickering was making some of the largest financial and development decisions in its history? What did they say? What did they fight for? What did they oppose? Did they participate in the conversation before deciding they wanted to lead it? And when it mattered, did they speak up or stay silent? When choosing a Mayor, look at the whole picture. Ask whether that person will protect your tax dollars. Ask whether they will challenge unnecessary spending. Ask whether they understand development, infrastructure, municipal debt and the financial pressures facing residents. Ask whether they will protect your right to participate at City Hall. Ask whether they will tell you something you may not want to hear when they believe it is in the city’s best interest. Most importantly, ask whether they have demonstrated the courage to take a position before knowing whether that position would earn or cost them votes. Pickering’s next Mayor will face enormous responsibilities. Our city is dealing with affordability pressures, rapid growth, infrastructure demands, debt and difficult decisions about how much more taxpayers can reasonably be expected to carry. This is not a job that should be awarded on the strength of a slogan, a campaign photograph or a promise made weeks before Election Day. So over the coming weeks, as claims and counterclaims begin flying, I have one request of Pickering voters: do your own homework. Read the minutes. Watch the meetings. Examine the votes. Read beyond the headline. Look for the evidence. Find out who showed up, who spoke up, who challenged decisions — and who stayed silent. You may not agree with everything you find. You do not have to. But make your decision based on the whole record, not one issue, one headline, one label or one rumour. Campaigns last a few months. A record lasts much longer. Before you vote, look at the record.

Mr. X-Files: Who Makes Sure the People Who Build Our Communities Get Paid?

Mr. X-Files: Who Makes Sure the People Who Build Our Communities Get Paid? By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE The importance of payment surety in public construction. When your municipality builds. When your municipality builds a new fire hall, community centre, arena, public works facility or police station, most people see the name of the general contractor on the construction sign. What they don't see are all the businesses behind that contractor. The electricians. The plumbers. The concrete contractors. The HVAC companies. The drywall crews. The excavators. The roofers. The equipment suppliers. And very often, those businesses aren't giant national corporations. They're businesses from our own communities. They employ our neighbours. Their employees coach local hockey teams, shop in our stores, pay property taxes and raise their families here. Yet there is a vulnerability in the way public construction works that taxpayers rarely hear about. The municipality may pay its general contractor in full - but that doesn't necessarily mean everybody further down the construction chain has been paid. That's where payment surety becomes so important. A Labour and Material Payment Bond is essentially financial protection for eligible subcontractors and suppliers working beneath a bonded contractor. If the contractor fails to pay qualifying amounts owed, the bond can provide another avenue through which an eligible claimant may seek payment, subject to the particular bond's terms, notice requirements and deadlines. Think about why that matters. A $50,000 or $100,000 unpaid invoice may be an accounting problem for a huge corporation. For a family-owned electrical, concrete or mechanical contractor, it can be devastating. Payroll still has to be made. Suppliers still need to be paid. Equipment leases don't disappear. WSIB, insurance, fuel and taxes continue coming due. The employees already did the work. And the public facility is already benefiting from it. Public construction should come with public responsibility Municipalities rightly spend enormous amounts of time protecting taxpayers when they procure construction. We require insurance. We require health and safety compliance. We require performance security where appropriate. We scrutinize bids. But procurement shouldn't stop protecting the public interest the moment the municipality pays the prime contractor. There is another public interest involved: making sure the businesses and skilled tradespeople who actually delivered the project aren't left holding the bag. Payment surety is one important tool for doing that. It also protects the integrity of the procurement system itself. Responsible contractors price work expecting to pay their subcontractors. If companies could obtain public work, receive public money and then simply leave legitimate subcontract accounts unpaid without meaningful protection for those businesses, responsible contractors would be placed at a competitive disadvantage. That's not a procurement system municipalities should want. Maybe taxpayers should start asking another question. When council approves a multimillion-dollar construction contract, councillors routinely ask: How much does it cost? Who won the tender? When will construction begin? When will it be completed? Perhaps there should be another question: What protection is in place to make sure the subcontractors and suppliers who build this project actually get paid? And municipalities should be able to answer it. That doesn't mean every payment dispute is the municipality's fault. It isn't. Nor does a payment bond automatically mean every disputed invoice will be paid. Bond coverage depends upon the contract, the claimant, the work performed and the requirements of the particular bond. But government procurement can establish safeguards before anybody ever steps onto the job site. For significant public construction, payment protection shouldn't be treated as obscure paperwork sitting somewhere in a procurement file. It should be part of responsible public contracting. Because behind every subcontract isn't just another corporation. There are employees. There are apprentices learning skilled trades. There are suppliers extending credit. There are families depending upon those paycheques. And there are local entrepreneurs putting their own capital and reputations on the line to build the infrastructure the rest of us use every day. We spend a lot of time talking about buying local. Maybe we should spend a little more time making sure that when local businesses help build our communities, they get paid. If local businesses help build our communities, they should get paid.

"Time is money"

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life "Time is money" By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Sly prides himself on being a master of opportunity. If there was a weakness, he’d find it. If there was a gap, he’d slip through it. But tonight, behind your house, he felt like he was staring at a fortress disguised as a suburban home. He crept along the back wall, keeping low, scanning for the usual soft spots. The back door? Reinforced deadbolt. The windows? Reinforced glass. The porch? Lit like a stage. He grumbled under his breath, annoyed that you’d clearly done your homework. Still, he wasn’t ready to give up. He moved toward the basement window; the one he’d assumed would be his golden ticket. Basement windows were usually flimsy, forgotten, easy to pry open. But when he reached it, he's stopped cold. The glass looked ordinary enough, but behind it sat an interior window guard—solid steel bars mounted inside the frame. He leaned closer, squinting through the glass. The guard was bolted directly into the masonry. No screws he could reach. No hinges he could exploit. No angle he could work. He couldn’t even touch it. All he could do was stare at it. Sly exhaled sharply. “Seriously?” he muttered. He tapped the window lightly with a knuckle. The vibration was dull, muted. He knew exactly what that meant. polycarbonate. With a Reinforced frame. And worst of all—an alarm sensor sitting neatly in the corner, blinking its tiny red warning light. He imagined breaking the glass. The explosion of sound. The lights are flipping on. You rushing to the window. The police already on their way. And him, scrambling through a window, he couldn’t even fit through because the guard blocked every inch of space. It wasn’t worth it. Not even close. He stepped back, shaking his head. The whole house was like this—every entry point hardened, every weakness eliminated. You hadn’t just secured your home; you’d anticipated him. You’d built layers, barriers, deterrents. You’d made sure that even if he tried, he’d fail loudly. Sly wasn’t used to being outplayed, but he had to admit it: you’d done everything right. Target hardening wasn’t just a strategy—it was a message. A very clear one. He glanced at the basement window one last time. The guard gleamed faintly in the moonlight, unmoving, unbothered, unbeatable. He felt a flicker of respect, the kind he rarely gave anyone. “Alright,” he whispered, backing into the shadows, “you win.” He slipped away into the night, defeated but wiser. There were easier houses out there. Softer targets. Places where people assumed locks were enough. But not yours. Your house stood quiet, secure, and absolutely off‑limits to thieves like Sly. Not on watch Sly, next week, let’s look at the upper windows, are they vulnerable?

BUY CANADIAN, BUT ARE WE BUYING REAL FOOD?

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin BUY CANADIAN, BUT ARE WE BUYING REAL FOOD?   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Some familiar grocery products may not be quite what shoppers think they are. Buy Canadian. Support Canadian farmers. Support Canadian workers. Keep our money here at home. I agree. But Canadians should add one more question before putting something in the grocery cart. If we choose to buy Canadian products, do we really know what food we are buying? That question started bothering me after looking at Canadian grocery shelves. Not illegal food. Not poisoned food. Food that can be sold legally but sometimes looks or sounds different from what is actually inside the package. Take pancake syrup. Great Value Original Table Syrup sold by Walmart Canada lists glucose, sugar, water, flavours, preservatives, salt, cellulose gum and caramel colour. Maple syrup is not listed. That is legal because the product is called table syrup, not maple syrup. That small wording matters. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says the common name on a package must accurately describe the food and must not mislead consumers. And that is where a closer look becomes important today. But how many shoppers study those words? Most people are trying to get groceries and get home. They see a bottle shaped like syrup, sitting where syrup belongs, and put it in the cart. Cheese brings up another example. Processed cheese is not simply fake cheese or a pile of chemicals. It can contain real cheese or milk ingredients, along with added water and other permitted ingredients. Canada has separate standards for cheese, processed cheese and processed cheese food. So a wrapped cheese slice and a block of cheddar are not necessarily the same food. Then there is whipped topping. Great Value Original Whipped Topping lists water first, followed by sugars, palm kernel oil, sodium caseinate, emulsifiers, flavouring and gums. It contains milk, but it is not simply a tub of whipped cream. Coffee whitener tells the same story. Great Value Coffee Whitener lists glucose, coconut oil, sodium caseinate, dipotassium phosphate, mono and diglycerides, silicon dioxide, flavour and colour. It is made to replace milk or cream in hot drinks. Walk to the freezer and the wording changes again. Canada has a legal standard for ice cream, including requirements for milk fat and solids. That is why some frozen products that look like ice cream carry different names. Fruit products deserve an even closer look. A package can show bright berries or tropical fruit while its ingredient list includes concentrates from other fruits, sweeteners, flavours and colours. A fruit flavoured snack may contain some fruit ingredients, but that does not make it the same as eating an apple, orange or handful of berries. Then we have imitation crab. It looks like crab meat, tastes somewhat like crab and is used in seafood dishes. Yet one imitation crab product sold through Walmart Canada is made mainly from Alaska pollock or Pacific whiting, along with starches, sugar, egg whites, flavouring and colouring. It is a real fish. It just is not crab. This is where the investigation becomes bigger than Walmart or any single company. Canada requires a common name on the main display panel of packaged foods. The CFIA says that name should describe the food in simple and direct terms so people can make an informed purchasing decision. The question is whether modern packaging has become better at attracting our eyes than the legal wording is at informing them. Pictures are bigger. Brand names are bigger. Flavours jump off the package. The important words may be legally there, but they are not always the words that catch our eye. Canadians do not need to fear every ingredient they cannot pronounce. Nor should every processed food be called fake. But we deserve to know the difference between the traditional food we think we are buying and a product created to resemble or replace it. Buy Canadian when we can. Support our farmers and workers. But we should also know exactly what we are buying and what we put on the family table. Because before we worry about where our food comes from, maybe we should know what our food actually is.

TRUST HAS BECOME THE ULTIMATE GATEKEEPER IN HIRING

Trust Has Become the Ultimate Gatekeeper in Hiring By Nick Kossovan Increasingly, hiring managers and recruiters are dealing with a persistent headache. Applicants breeze through virtual screenings on the strength of a stellar resume, only to unravel during a face-to-face interview. While that at least spares the company a bad hire, remote recruitment offers no such safety net. When hiring remote employees, I have seen employers hire and onboard candidates they've never actually met in person, only to discover shortly afterward that they are unable to write basic code, draft a coherent strategic plan, handle elementary tasks, or navigate workplace dynamics. Simply put, many job seekers fail to live up to their claims. Candidates lying isn't new. Job seekers have been exaggerating and outright lying since the first job interview in human history. Long before AI, I caught many applicants exaggerating their skills—everyone claims to be an expert with Excel—and fabricating achievements. But generative tools have dramatically escalated the problem. It's shockingly easy for proxy candidates or deepfake video feeds scripted by off-screen LLMs to impersonate applicants in real time. This is no longer just a matter of a few isolated incidents of applicants "behaving unethically"; it's a systemic crisis forcing employers to overhaul their hiring process, especially in candidate vetting. Every hiring decision boils down to a single core element: trust. Without that foundation of trust, there's no "Yes, you're hired!" Hiring decision-makers need to feel confident that you're who you say you are and that you're capable of handling the job. Hiring is fundamentally an act of buying a candidate's labour; hence, the adage "buyer beware" has become inescapably pertinent, making "trust" no longer a soft metric but a primary risk filter. Consequently, the extra scrutiny has lengthened the timeline from application to hiring decision, prompting job seekers to complain about drawn-out processes, an indication of how little they understand about the risks associated with hiring. The numbers back up job seekers' widespread dishonesty. According to GCheck's 2026 Trust Hiring Report, 93% of 1,500 surveyed job seekers admitted to embellishing or lying during the hiring process, ranging from minor exaggerations of skills to outright fabrications of work history. 60% believed they wouldn't have been hired if they had been completely honest. The widespread practice of resume and interview cheating is the result of a perfect storm: a tightening job market with fewer open roles, a surging pool of increasingly desperate candidates, and unprecedented access to generative AI tools that instantly fabricate "too good to be true" resumes and cover letters perfectly tailored to any job posting. Maybe it's just me, but nowadays I rarely hear hiring managers brag, "I can spot an AI-generated resume or cover letter from a mile away." Desperate job seekers prompt AI to invent unearned skills, while proxy stand-ins conduct remote interviews on their behalf. To cheat in real time, job seekers are using covert earpieces or AI teleprompters to bluff their way through technical tests. However, the legal hammer is coming down. The Toronto employment law firm Piccolo Heath LLP notes that employers increasingly treat resume fabrications as a fundamental breach of contract, leading to swift, just-cause terminations. When companies are burned by "too good to be true" hires, they deliberately introduce friction into their hiring process, including assignments, multi-round live technical assessments, strict camera-on policies with identity verification, and exhaustive background checks. Employers are also actively looking for red flags: resume details that conflict with LinkedIn profiles, unexplained audiovisual delays, robotic responses, frantic typing immediately after a question is asked, and aggressive demands for remote-only arrangements to avoid in-person accountability. Complaining about lengthy hiring processes is pointless. Employers have every right to protect themselves against opportunistic dishonesty. It's the job seeker's responsibility to prove they're who they claim to be. With employer skepticism at an all-time high, actively earning trust gives you a distinct competitive advantage. This advantage can be achieved through five fundamental strategies: 1. Initiate direct human contact: Skip applying online, which is like playing the lottery. Instead, reach out to recruiters and hiring managers directly, even if it means picking up the phone. A clear human voice sets you apart from the avalanche of automated spray-and-pray applications. 2. Build visible industry proof: Active engagement in your field creates an irrefutable public record. Publishing original insights, speaking on panels, or contributing to industry bodies leaves a footprint no AI prompt can fake. 3. Provide documentation of past productivity: Don't just claim you can deliver results; show tangible proof. Share work samples, post-campaign analyses, or performance reports to demonstrate that you deliver. 4. Offer professional references upfront: Before being asked, provide contact details for past managers and peers. Verifiable references dissolve a hiring manager's skepticism faster than an impressive interview answer. 5. Demonstrate real-time problem-solving: Offer to conduct an unscripted whiteboarding session or a live diagnostic exercise. By walking an interviewer through a problem live, you prove your expertise is real, not fed to you via an earpiece or a second monitor. Employers aren't intensifying their hiring processes to frustrate job seekers; they're protecting themselves against fraudulent job applicants and fraudsters. With distrust becoming the default assumption in hiring, proving your trustworthiness can be your biggest competitive advantage.

Retirement Is Bad for You and the Economy

Retirement Is Bad for You and the Economy Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The last days of summer are a good time for a break. The lake, a lawn chair, a park bench, or the couch. People want to relax for a bit, knowing that come September, it’s back to the grindstone. And that’s what work commonly is – a grindstone of labour to make ends meet. It’s tempting, therefore, when the time finally arrives, to make a permanent leap into retirement. But I don’t want to get rusty, and you won’t catch me sitting idle for long. There’s a big difference between retiring and changing one’s work. I recommend the latter. Researchers can design all sorts of studies trying to determine whether retirement is good or bad for health. One study published in the BMJ followed 14,000 workers before and after retirement. Retirement was associated with substantial reductions in mental fatigue, physical fatigue, and depressive symptoms. Sounds good, right? However, retirement did not appear to alter the incidence of major chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, or respiratory illness. Too bad. Indeed, the research is all over the place. Studies have found that some retirees become more physically healthy as a result of more time for playing sports and taking other steps towards healthy living. Other studies show deteriorating health. A 2025 systematic review concluded that retirement is often associated with lower cognitive functioning, faster cognitive decline, and a higher risk of dementia. Although researchers noted that the effects vary considerably depending on education, occupation, and post-retirement activities. Does engaging in work help maintain brain health? Will leaving work accelerate decline? Here’s the key point. People who retire and pick up something else to do – like another job they truly enjoy, volunteering in their community, taking a course or learning something new – are going to fare better cognitively than those who retire and become disengaged. But there’s another important consideration. Retirement isn't just a personal decision. In ageing populations, it is also an economic decision that affects all of us. Take the Canadian situation. The OECD's Employment Outlook 2025 estimates that Canada could increase growth by mobilizing older workers in good health. Canada currently has an employment rate of about 55% among people aged 60–64. Another OECD report estimates that workforce ageing accounted for about 10% of Canada's decline in productivity growth between 2002–07 and 2014–19, partly because older workers are less likely to move between firms and into more productive jobs. A fascinating finding: firms with a 10% higher-than-average share of workers aged 50+ were 1.1% more productive! The researchers attribute this not only to the productivity of older workers themselves but to the combination of older and younger workers transferring knowledge and experience. But if working with paid income is not your game upon reaching retirement age, you can still be a powerful cog in the economy. In California, for example, researchers found that pension payments to retirees generate an annual $28 billion in economic activity. Think about it this way. People do better – in their own personal health and as members of society – when they have purpose. Upon reaching retirement age and thereafter, the happiest and healthiest people are those who remain productive. I don’t have any plans for heading out to pasture. I enjoy what my father used to say, "I'll retire ten years after I'm dead." If your circumstances make retirement the right choice, then by all means retire. But don't retire from life. And don’t assume that retirement means no work. You may have exactly the skills, experience, and attitude, that a new workplace would value.

For Love Or Money

For Love Or Money By Wayne and Tamara I’ve been married twice and think I was a good husband. Shortly after my son was born, my first wife started staying out until the wee hours. I cared for our two young children while she prowled for men. She became hostile anytime I objected, and screamed at me in front of our children. At the urging of her family, I divorced her and now have my children most of the time. My second marriage ended when I found my wife having relations with the frozen food deliveryman. The truth is neither of my wives loved me. They liked my earning potential, but they did not love me. In any case, reading websites promoting affair-repairing services, I wondered why infidelity was such a deal-breaker for me. Was I simply a less evolved, less forgiving type? I know in my day-to-day existence I am not a grudge holder. I couldn’t put my finger on why, after finding my wives were cheaters, I had no desire to reconcile. You articulate the reasons very well: the desire to be loved to the exclusion of all others, and an aversion to having to remain ever vigilant in the future. Your view makes so much sense to me. Gil Gil, emotion used to be considered the poor cousin of reason, but contemporary neuroscientists now see our emotions as part of how we reason. Our emotions evolved over eons for a purpose. Just as revulsion at the sight of maggots tells us not to eat the meat, so the soul sickness we feel at discovering infidelity is intended to protect us. Your follow-up letter, below, may reveal the source of your problems. Wayne & Tamara Rest Of The Story After my second divorce and a period where I wanted to be alone and take care of my kids, I went on a date. I really like this woman, and we became close. I was honest about my kids being a big priority, and she seemed fine with that. After four months and hearing she loved me and was so happy, she came to me one night and broke up, citing her trepidation about being in a relationship with a guy with young children. I was saddened but thanked her for her honesty. Two days later I called to return the books she loaned me. She was not home so I left a message I would leave them on the porch, wrapped up. When I got to her house, she was home and invited me in for coffee. She then asked for a hug and tried to kiss me. I excused myself and said goodbye. Two weeks later she began emailing, saying how hard this was and how her heart was breaking. The last email included her photo in a revealing, see-through dress. After one email from her describing how compatible we were, I asked if she wanted to still be a couple, as I had strong feelings for her. She said no, due to my obligations to my kids. Why on earth does she keep emailing me? Gil Gil, this woman is offering you a choice. “You can have what I’m offering in the photo, or you can have your children. But you can’t have both.” Women who exude sexuality may offer excitement, but excitement is not fidelity or love. When a woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants from you, believe she will use it on other men as well. Ask yourself if that is not the story of your two marriages. Sex may be your Achilles’ heel. If you confuse unvarnished sexuality with the sexuality which flows from love, or if you unconsciously use money to generate female interest, that may explain your problem with women. You want to know why this happened to you before, and it appears you are in the midst of doing it again. Wayne & Tamara

How Probate Fees Work in Ontario

How Probate Fees Work in Ontario ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Probate fees in Ontario are based on the total value of an estate. When someone passes away, their assets may need to go through probate, which is a court process confirming the validity of a will. In Ontario, probate fees—officially called the Estate Administration Tax—are calculated based on the value of the probable estate. As of 2026, there is no Estate Administration Tax on the first $50,000 of estate value. Above $50,000, the tax is approximately 1.5%, or $15 for every $1,000 of estate value. For example, if an estate is worth $500,000, the probate fee is $6,750. Planning ahead can help reduce these fees, ensuring more of the estate goes directly to your beneficiaries rather than taxes. Key Takeaways Probate fees in Ontario apply to assets that pass through your estate, including Ontario real estate, bank accounts, and investments. Probate fees are based on the fair market value of your estate at the time of death. Estate planning strategies such as trusts, joint ownership, and certain investment accounts with named beneficiaries can help reduce or avoid probate fees. If the named executor cannot act, the court may appoint a succeeding estate trustee to administer the estate. Probate delays can slow the distribution of assets and create financial strain for beneficiaries. Working with an experienced lawyer and estate planning professionals can help reduce unnecessary probate costs and legal complications. Planning ahead helps ensure your assets are transferred efficiently while minimizing delays, expenses, and administrative hurdles. A good plan starts with good comminating with your family and professional; advisors.

The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right

Dead and Gone… The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right For a while, one of the easiest ways to make artificial intelligence look ridiculous was to ask it about a strawberry. Specifically, how many times does the letter R appear in the word strawberry? The answer is three, something most of us can establish without advanced mathematics or a graduate degree. ChatGPT, however, became famous for sometimes answering two and then, in the especially entertaining versions shared online, explaining why two was correct. This went on long enough that on April 28 of this year, the official ChatGPT account on X posted "at long last" alongside a demonstration showing that ChatGPT could finally get the strawberry question right. The internet responded exactly as you would expect. Somebody changed the fruit. Users tried cranberry, and screenshots appeared showing ChatGPT confidently getting that wrong instead. A TechRadar writer tried it independently and also received the wrong answer. I find this funny. There is something wonderfully humbling about technology capable of writing computer code being defeated by the produce section. The problem is that most of the questions we are beginning to ask these machines aren't about berries. Earlier this year, two Tennessee lawyers learned that distinction rather expensively. In Whiting v. City of Athens, a U.S. appeals court found more than two dozen fake citations and factual misrepresentations in briefs submitted to the court. Some cases didn't exist. Others existed but didn't say what the lawyers claimed they said. Each lawyer was ordered to pay a $15,000 punitive sanction, along with legal fees and double costs. The court did not determine that artificial intelligence had created the bad citations. In fact, its larger point was more useful than that. It didn't really matter whether the information came from AI, another lawyer or somewhere else. The lawyers were responsible for checking it before putting it in front of the court. That is a long way from miscounting the R's in cranberry. The same problem becomes easier to understand when it leaves the courtroom and lands somewhere much more familiar: trying to get a straight answer from an airline. In November 2022, Jake Moffatt was travelling after the death of their grandmother and went to Air Canada's website looking for information about bereavement fares. The airline's chatbot said a ticket could be purchased first and the reduced bereavement rate requested afterward, as long as the application was made within 90 days of the ticket being issued. Moffatt relied on that information, travelled and later asked Air Canada for the refund. Air Canada said no. Its actual policy said the opposite. Bereavement fares could not be applied retroactively after the trip. Moffatt eventually took the dispute to British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal, where Air Canada argued, in effect, that it should not be responsible for inaccurate information provided by its chatbot. Tribunal member Christopher Rivers called that a "remarkable submission." The chatbot was part of Air Canada's website. The company was responsible for the information it provided there. Moffatt was awarded $650.88 in damages, plus interest and tribunal fees. That case gets closer to what bothers me about all of this. The machine doesn't have to sound confused when it is confused. There is no hesitation, no scratching of the head and no "I might be wrong about this." A completely invented answer can arrive in the same calm, polished language as one that is absolutely correct. Calling that a lie is technically unfair. A lie requires somebody to know the truth and deliberately say something else. ChatGPT isn't sitting somewhere thinking, "I'm going to have some fun with Gary today." But from the other side of the screen, the distinction can become surprisingly academic. If I believe the answer and act on it, the damage doesn't particularly care whether the machine intended to deceive me. None of this has made me stop using AI. Quite the opposite. I use it because it can be extraordinarily useful, and I suspect most of us are going to use much more of it in the years ahead. What it has changed is the weight I give the answer itself. For most of my life, confidence has been one of the little signals we use to decide whether somebody knows what they're talking about. We listen for hesitation, notice uncertainty and become suspicious when somebody starts qualifying every second sentence. AI changes that equation because the confidence can be manufactured along with the answer. Sometimes it will be right and sometimes it will be wrong, but I no longer confuse how confidently something is written with how likely it is to be true.

Clothing Is Not Consent

Clothing Is Not Consent There is a certain kind of conversation you only have on a doorstep. No microphone, no agenda, no gallery watching. Just two people and whatever they actually believe. I was canvassing in Pickering, talking about the things residents raise most often when you give them the chance — safe streets, safe parks, human trafficking in Durham, and whether a woman can walk home at night without doing the arithmetic every woman learns to do. A man I was speaking with looked me in the eye and told me that women and girls bring rape upon themselves by the way they dress. That men have a right to act on those weaknesses. I have been called a great many things in the last four years, and I have learned to keep my composure through most of it. I did not keep it well that afternoon. I stood on a sidewalk in the city I have spent my adult life serving, and I felt something closer to grief than anger. So let me be clear, in the plainest words I own. No girl brings rape upon herself. No woman asks for it. A woman does not surrender her safety, her dignity, or her bodily autonomy because of what she chose to wear that morning. Clothing is not consent. Appearance is not permission. And rape is the responsibility of the rapist — full stop, no footnote, no context that softens it. I want to be careful here, because this is where these conversations usually go wrong. I am not talking about one man at one door. If it were one man, it would be a story and not a column. I am talking about an idea — an old, tired, cowardly idea that has outlived every civilization that ever indulged it, and that still finds a hearing in living rooms in this country. The idea that a man's impulses are a force of nature and a woman's clothing is the thing that provokes them. The idea that self-control is optional equipment. It is not optional. It is the price of admission to a free society. We do not build our laws, our streets, or our cities around the appetites of whoever refuses to govern himself. We build them around the rights of the people he would otherwise harm. And notice what that idea really asks of us. It asks us to lower our expectations of men. I decline. I have more respect for the men of this city than that — for the fathers who walk their daughters to the rink, for the sons who call their mothers, for the men who would put themselves between a stranger and harm without being asked twice. Those men are the rule here, not the exception, and they are insulted by the excuse-making more than anyone. Tell a good man that his character is a weakness he cannot help, and watch how quickly he corrects you. No belief, no culture, no tradition, and no supposed weakness in men excuses sexual violence. I say that knowing exactly how the sentence will be read by people who make a living reading sentences unkindly. I am not indicting anyone's faith or anyone's homeland. I am holding every man in this city to the same standard, which is precisely what equality means. A rule that bends for some men is not a rule at all — and the women it fails to protect are always the women with the least power to complain.Here is the part where a column like this usually asks government to do something, so let me tell you what a city actually can and cannot do. A city cannot legislate a man's character. What a city can do is refuse to be a comfortable place for the alternative. Lighting on the paths where our kids walk. Cameras and patrols where they are needed, not where they photograph well. Front-line training so the staff who deal with trafficking know exactly what they are looking at. Partnership with Durham Regional Police instead of turf war. Support for the shelters and the crisis lines that catch women when everything else has failed them. And a Council that will say the words out loud instead of routing them to a subcommittee.That last one matters more than people think. Silence is a policy. When leaders will not name a thing, residents conclude the thing is negotiable. It is not negotiable. And no woman in Pickering should have to wonder where her Mayor stands on whether she asked for it. I have knocked on thousands of doors in this city. The overwhelming majority open onto decent people. But I will not pretend I did not hear what I heard, and I will not soften it for the comfort of the record. Our daughters are not responsible for other people's self-control. They never were. Clothing is not consent. No man has the right. If we can still say that plainly in Pickering — and mean it, and hold to it — then we are the kind of city worth handing to our daughters. Lisa Robinson is a Pickering City Councillor and a candidate for Mayor. If you or someone you love needs help, 211 or 905-668-9200 - 24-hour Crisis and Support Line is available 24 hours a day.

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution?

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution? ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist You are the contract owner and the only one who can make any changes ? No you are not. The lending institution is the contract owner. It can make changes to the terms and conditions at any time. You choose your insurance amount? Lending institution. This amount can therefore remain fixed even if the balance of the loan decreases. Typically, the insurance amount decreases in line with the outstanding mortgage balance. Known as decreasing term coverage. Premiums are guaranteed for the duration of the coverage. Premiums may stay the same however as coverage decreases this means your premiums are going up. Rates are established based on your age, sex, and smoking status. This is correct however very few medical questions are asked so all medical information will be required at time of claim. Premiums are not necessarily guaranteed and can increase according to the group claim rate under the group insurance contract. Some institutions can even increase the loan interest rate to include the cost of insurance, which represents an additional cost. This is correct The contract can remain in force after the loan has been paid. No this will not happen. You can convert part or all of this term insurance into permanent insurance? No you cannot convert these plans. The contract ends when the mortgage loan balance has been paid. The coverage remains unchanged even if you change lending institutions. No you will lose your coverage when mortgage is paid off or you move to a new institution overage can be applied to insure other loans when needed? No this is not possible. The insurance is cancelled if you change lending institutions. You must requalify for new life insurance. Yes correct You choose your beneficiaries. No usually, the lending institution designates itself as the beneficiary Beneficiaries have the freedom and flexibility to use the insurance amount as they see fit. Only the balance of the loan will be reimbursed You can add a rider for critical illness or total disability, with benefits paid directly to the insured person, to address different needs. The benefit is paid directly to the lending institution When applying for mortgage coverage ensure you ask these questions and ensure you have documentation to confirm all coverages are provided bases on your need.

Traditions

Traditions By Wayne and Tamara I have just one sister and am close to her three children, who are now married with children. They are in their late 20s and 30s. I live in southern Spain, not near them, so often I send birthday or holiday gifts by mail. The problem is I never hear a thank you. Not only do I feel it is extremely bad-mannered, I don't even know if they received the gift! Whenever possible I give their gifts when I see them, even if the holiday is not for a month or so, so I can enjoy the moment of giving. Not having children myself, perhaps I am old-fashioned and don't understand this generation may feel a sense of entitlement from growing up so comfortably. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel a responsibility as a family member to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Once after taking the entire family to a Christmas theatre production, two of them left without even saying goodbye, let alone thank you! My husband, who is European, is always taken back that he can walk into my sister's house for a family get-together and the kids don't bother to say hi. This pertains to their spouses as well. I've mentioned this to my sister but either she doesn't pass it on, or if she has, it hasn't made a difference. She says they are adults and she can't tell them what to do any longer. I did convince her to talk to one daughter-in-law about calling my father with condolences when my mother died. Even my sister was offended she hadn't called in three days because bad feelings were being formed. I was sure the girl didn't realize what she was doing, and in the end that was it. May I note that they are all well-educated professionals, but obviously missing the social part. Without being a pushy aunt, how do I let these "kids," who I love dearly, know how unacceptable this is. Or maybe I shouldn't be so appalled? Kathleen Kathleen, why is failing to acknowledge a gift wrong? The superficial answer is, because it’s bad manners. The deeper answer is, because it makes a giver less apt to give. Giving strengthens relationships. As John Donne said, we are not scattered leaves. When I give to others and others give to me, we are all stronger. But when gifts are unacknowledged, the giver feels less valued. It is as if their offering was cast in a lake. The only time a gift shouldn’t be acknowledged is when the giver gives to gain leverage or advantage over the recipient. Then the gift is a manipulation and should be refused or returned. In a classic experiment, one researcher bought subjects a Coke. Once they accepted, he hit them up to buy raffle tickets. Feeling obligated, most people bought two tickets, five times the price of the Coke! Members of your family act as if they don’t value your presents or your presence. It’s too bad, but it’s not your job to make them better people. Even more to the point, it’s not within your power. There are certain rewards in being bad and certain pains in being good. But each of us picks what we want: the pains and pleasures of being good or the pains and pleasures of being bad. What you get from gift-giving is the good feeling Ebenezer Scrooge got knowing that Tiny Tim lived and that he was “as good a man, as the good old city knew.” When you visit your family, give as you normally have. When you are away, send them a card saying you’ve made a donation in their name to some person, group, or charity you haven’t previously given to. When you stop sending gifts, will they call and say, “Where are our presents?” Not likely. But if they do, you will have the teachable moment you hoped for. Wayne & Tamara

Organ Donors Needed

Organ Donors Needed But Do Your Homework Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones What’s the emotion that comes with the moment of giving consent to be an organ donor? It might be a mix of deep generosity and dreadful fear. You check the box and hope for the best. If the time comes, your organs may give someone else a second chance at life. But organ donation is a very complicated business, and as recent headlines show, many of us have no idea that there is a lot more involved than simply checking a box. Doctors have become adept at keeping the human body functioning when a person is near death. At the same time, transplant specialists have become adept at putting functioning organs into somebody else's body. This has resulted in challenging questions at the heart of organ donation. When is a person considered “dead”? Who decides? And what safeguards are in place to ensure organs are not being taken too soon? A recent report in the BMJ shared a disturbing case. In Kentucky, Anthony “TJ” Hoover II had been declared dead after a drug overdose and was being prepared for organ donation in 2021. Staff noticed that he was moving, “thrashing and crying.” The organ retrieval did not proceed and Hoover survived. The organ procurement organization involved has disputed allegations that it pressured staff to continue. Another case, in New Mexico, involved 38-year-old Danella Gallegos, who had been in a coma. Her family agreed to organ donation after being told she was unlikely to recover. As preparations were made for the procedure, her family noticed tears and movement. A doctor asked her to blink. She did. The operation was stopped, and Gallegos eventually made a full recovery. The organ-donation organization has disputed allegations that its coordinators interfered with medical decisions. These are horrifying cases. They are also rare, and they should not be used to undermine one of modern medicine's greatest achievements. By my estimate, roughly one million North Americans are living today because somebody donated an organ. But instances of grave mistakes should give rise to questions. We tend to think of organ donation as a personal decision. “I decide what happens to my body after death.” But that decision now enters systems involving doctors, hospitals, organ-donation organizations, transplant teams, lawyers, governments and, often, our families. Determining death has become more complex. A person may be declared dead because there is irreversible loss of brain function. Or life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn after a decision that further treatment is no longer appropriate, followed by determination of death when circulation stops. The details differ between jurisdictions. The laws differ. The safeguards differ. And this is where the organizations involved owe people more information than they usually have in hand when making decisions. Let’s suppose you sign an organ donor card. Don’t think this is the only important decision. There are a lot of factors to consider depending on where you live, the guidance you have given in your will or advance care directive, how your medical team functions, and the practices of your local organ donor organization. What’s one of the biggest obstacles to donation among willing donors? It’s their own family members. When your wishes collide with your family’s wishes, and you cannot argue your case, guess who wins? A decision to donate used to be a highly personal matter. But dying in the modern medical system is anything but. If you want your wishes honoured, do your homework about the laws and organizations involved. Then make your wishes known – and do it while you are healthy and able.

10 Job Search-Related Questions I'm Asked Most Often (Part 2 of 2)

10 Job Search-Related Questions I'm Asked Most Often (Part 2 of 2) By Nick Kossovan In Part 1, I answered five of the ten most common job search questions readers ask me. I discussed how to get noticed, why finding your tribe is better than applying online, how entitlement turns off employers, and why a cover letter is essential. This final installment focuses on real-world execution. Here are my pragmatic answers to the remaining five of the 10 most common questions from readers wondering why recruiters and hiring managers are ignoring them. 6. "I keep updating my resume and LinkedIn profile, but I'm still not getting interviews. What else can I do?" No amount of tweaking your resume and LinkedIn profile will get you interviews unless you refine your value proposition and audit your digital footprint. First, ensure every statement on your resume and LinkedIn profile answers: How does this save or make money? If your accomplishments aren't directly tied to bottom-line impact, rewrite them until they are. Second, check your digital footprint. Google your name, audit your social media and forum comments, and review your online presence. Address damaging posts, risky comments, or a total lack of online visibility, which can be equally damaging, by: · Deleting inflammatory, political, or unprofessional posts. · Publishing high-value LinkedIn posts twice daily that analyze current trends in your industry and profession. · Asking former colleagues for LinkedIn recommendations highlighting your work ethic. · Investing in a privacy or data-removal service such as DeleteMe, Incogni, or Optery. 7. "Is there such a thing as an ATS-friendly resume? No. The persistent belief in an "ATS-friendly" resume is a self-serving myth perpetuated by predatory resume writers and self-proclaimed career coaches who sell resume templates to desperate job seekers. Essentially, an ATS (Applicant Tracking System) is a digital filing cabinet. Here's how ATSs are set up and used: · Information filing: When you submit your resume, the ATS reads it and organizes your information into digital folders. · Customization rules: Every company uses its ATS differently. Company A might program its ATS to hide anyone with less than 10 years of experience, while Company B might program its ATS to rank applicants by how often certain keywords appear. · Human decision: Real people—recruiters and hiring managers—review the sorted files, scan your resume, and decide if you're worth interviewing. Regarding instant auto-rejections, those aren't algorithmic cruelty; they're knockout questions. A rapid rejection email means you said "no" to a baseline requirement, such as work status, travel, or a required licence. Learn how ATS software works on Jobscan.co. Don't waste time trying to outsmart a basic database. Connecting with hiring decision-makers is a far better strategy than uploading your resume into an overflowing ATS. 8. "I'm an introvert who hates small talk. How can I network without feeling fake?" Labelling yourself an "introvert" is a self-imposed limiting belief. Business is a contact sport. Avoiding human interaction by hiding behind a psychological label guarantees career stagnation. Reframe your interactions so they feel like a reverse transaction. When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself: How can I help this person? Instead of pitching yourself, uncover where you can add value by asking low-pressure questions such as · "What's keeping you busy these days?" · "What are you working on right now that you're excited about?"· "What's the trickiest thing on your radar right now?" · "What's sucing up all your time right now?" · "What's the biggest topic everyone in your field is arguing about right now?" 9. "What does having a personal brand mean? How important is it to have one?" When hiring, the easiest "Yes!"s are when you know and understand the person. Your personal brand is what people know and assume about your credibility, reliability, and track record. In today's hyper-connected world, word of mouth spreads instantly, and reference checks are used to verify your reputation. Additionally, you need to consider your visibility. Exceptional skills and experience are useless if nobody knows you exist. Doing great work in isolation is like screaming your qualifications into a pillow. Never underestimate this truth: Networking and visibility are how you bridge the gap between being accomplished and being hired. Trust is the ultimate currency, but it only pays off if people know you exist. You can't fake a personal brand, nor can you build one in the shadows. You establish it by staying visible in professional communities, delivering above-average results, sharing your expertise, and proving you get sh*t done. 10. "Employers have become extremely picky about hiring. What the f*ck do they want?" Employers aim to reduce hiring risks. Bad hires entail financial and morale costs, including wasted salary and training, as well as the need to start over. Generative AI has amplified hiring risk, with fraudsters flooding the job market with fake candidates and applicants inflating their qualifications. Today, most job seekers submit polished, slick resumes and cover letters filled with inflated claims that collapse during an interview. Understandably, employers are hesitant to hire someone who talks a good game but fails in practice; hiring managers and recruiters no longer believe "hype." Employers are looking for candidates who can demonstrate their competence and how they will increase profitability, not smooth talkers.

If We Want to Buy Canadian, Let Canadians Build Canadian

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin If We Want to Buy Canadian, Let Canadians Build Canadian   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Here's something to argue about over your coffee. If somebody opens a bakery and creates four jobs, why don't we think of that person as an investor? We celebrate when a corporation announces 500 new Canadian jobs. We should. But fifty little businesses creating ten jobs each just created the same 500 jobs. Nobody holds a press conference for them. The young woman baking cakes from home who dreams about opening a bakery is an investor. So is the guy buying a food truck, the woman sewing clothes for a flea market or the mechanic considering a small garage. They are risking their money and their time. Canada needs them. Small businesses represented 98.2 percent of Canadian employer businesses in 2024. They employed about 5.8 million people, almost 47 percent of Canada's private sector workforce. That's millions of paychecks. Yet before the first customer walks through the door, the bills start arriving. Rent. Insurance. Equipment. Permits. Licences. Taxes. Utilities. Of course we need rules. Nobody wants unsafe food or dangerous workplaces. But how much regulation protects Canadians, and how much simply protects paperwork? The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated businesses spent $51.5 billion complying with government regulation in 2024. It estimated almost $18 billion represented red tape that could be removed without harming the public interest. Maybe small businesses don't need another government program. Maybe it needs less government. Fewer forms. Lower taxes. Simpler rules. Keep the regulations that protect people. Get rid of the ones that accomplish little except creating another form. We're not asking the government to run the bakery. We're asking the government to give the baker a fighting chance to open it. Canada needs government workers. We need nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and people delivering public services. But government employment cannot replace private economic growth. Public services require tax revenue. Canada needs a private economy strong enough to help pay for the services we expect. We need factories, manufacturing, oil and gas, exports and international investment. But those things alone don't create a local economy. A billion dollar investment doesn't necessarily reopen an empty downtown storefront. Local economies grow differently. Someone opens a business and hires three people. Those workers spend money nearby. The restaurant calls a local plumber. The plumber buys parts from another local business. Nobody announces it. Money simply starts moving around town. And here is the contradiction governments need to answer. Canada says it desperately needs jobs, investment and affordable communities. Then somebody tries to create three jobs using their own money, and we make it expensive and complicated for them to do it. How does that make sense? We're also spending enormous energy building housing. We need homes. But a community isn't fifty new houses. It's fifty houses surrounded by jobs, stores, restaurants, garages and bakeries. Without that, we haven't built a community. We've built a subdivision. This matters to younger Canadians. Your first business might be one oven. One sewing machine. One toolbox. One market table. One food truck. One good idea. Government doesn't have to hold that person's hand. But it doesn't need to have its hand constantly in their pocket either. Look seriously at lower taxes for genuinely small businesses. Make municipal fees reasonable. Make permits understandable. Give people room to grow. We keep hearing two words lately. Buy Canadian. Fine. But buy Canadian from whom? If the bakery never opens, the manufacturer cannot afford to expand and the young entrepreneur gives up before getting through the paperwork, there won't be much Canadian left to buy. Maybe Canada's next great business isn't sitting in a corporate boardroom. Maybe it's sitting at a kitchen table tonight. Someone has a coffee beside them, a calculator on the table and an idea that could someday employ five people. They're deciding whether Canada is still a good place to take that chance. So when politicians tell us Canada needs more jobs, investment and stronger communities, perhaps we should ask them one question: When a Canadian is ready to risk their own money and create those jobs, are we giving them a reason to say yes?

"Time is money"

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life "Time is money" By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Last week the topic was on “How do you rob a thief” Well this all comes down to efficiency and how quickly a task can be done to provide a monitory reward, leading to a phrase "Time is money" in "Advice to a Young Tradesman", an essay by Benjamin Franklin that appeared in George Fisher's 1748 book, The American Instructor: or Young Man's Best Companion. My ultimate goal, your security advisor, and you the homeowner, is to ensure that we don’t provide any monetary rewards, take away the time needed to remove your stuff and peace of mind. In our last episode, our unwelcome guest just spent the last 4 minutes attempting to break in through the front entrance with no reward, Sly is still determined and figures that he may have better luck at the side, you gave him access with the unlocked gate. padlock would make him climb over the fence, but he’s in and with the side door tucked in behind the garage and a tall fence with trees to give him cover Sly feel safe in the shadow. Last week's episode all it took is for Sly to grab a convenient garbage can to get him up to the large window beside the door and it wasn’t latched or it will be easily prided open. So, what can be done? Remember, if you take away the time needed to gain entry, you can almost certainly avoid the crime. 1.) all gate latches have a means of using a pad lock and this is a simple first defense. 2.) fortify the door the same way that we locked down the front with 3” long screws on the hinges and dead bolt, guardian flip latches, I prefer a minimum of two, 6” down from the top and the same up from the bottom. If you have a window on the door then a mesh grille on the inside that will discourage an attempt that will prevent a broken window taking away the ability to unlock the dead bolt, you can also purchase polycarbonate sheet that overlaps the glass by 2” on the sides, top and bottom drill holes every 4 to 6” and screw it down to the outside of the door, this will make the glass unbreakable. On the window beside the door, make sure that you don’t leave tools and items that can give a leg up. Obviously, make sure the window latch is in the locked position and a simple set of bars over the window will create the necessary barrier that will reduce the large opening into a space that can’t be breached, if you don’t like to look of bars then Security screens will do the job keeping out bugs to burglars, very discrete! Now, if you have other windows along the side then you should use the same efforts to keep them secure as well! Physical barriers need to be your first line of defense; in addition, I like the visual ones! By that, I’m talking about props like a dog bowl, dog leash, maybe a rawhide bone all chewed up and gnarly, anything that will make Sly imagine that “Rex” the 150 lb. bull mastiff is silently waiting behind the door, ready to attack. We have now used up the bulk of time that Sly is willing to use but if he is going to foolishly carry on then next week, we will discuss the rear. Hey Sly, you might be better off getting a job! Not on my watch, Sly, Till next week.