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

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure By Murray Lytle Are Canadians less adventurous than they once were? It’s hard to argue otherwise. Alexander Mackenzie was only 24 when the North West Company named him chief fur trader at Fort Chipewyan, in what is now Alberta. A few years later, in 1789 he traveled north along what is now known as the Mackenzie River to become the first European to reach the Arctic Ocean overland. Four years later he crossed the Rocky Mountains and was the first European to reach the Pacific Ocean, beating Americans Merriweather Lewis and William Clark by a full dozen years. In 1898, Martha Purdy arrived in Dawson City to escape a failed marriage and make her fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. It was while climbing the notorious Chilkoot Pass that she discovered she was pregnant with her third son. She later remarried and, as Martha Black, was the second woman to be elected to Canada’s Parliament. She was also a successful entrepreneur, second woman elected to Canada’s parliament and a world-renown expert on wild flowers. Canadian history is filled with tales such as these. Explorers, soldiers, settlers and other restless souls who endured great hardships and did great things. There is a natural sense of awe that arises when retelling such lives filled with adventure. To our modern selves, they appear as fascinating aberrations, gifted men and women with unusual appetites for risky or dangerous undertakings. Their willingness to set out into the unknown strikes us today as thrilling, unnerving and more than a bit foolhardy. But while their accomplishments may be striking, they lived in more adventurous times. Today society shrinks from adventure and the unknown. Through a combination of practical circumstances, changing social standards and dramatic shifts in individual risk tolerance and government behaviour, present-day opportunities for adventure have been drastically curtailed. How can Canadians get that sense of adventurousness back? “An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered”, G.K. Chesterton once wrote. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.” There is a case to be made that adventures are simply harder to come by these days. There are no more blank spaces left on maps, and hence no places for modern-day Mackenzies to discover. The omnipresence of the Internet and GPS similarly makes it almost impossible to get truly lost anymore. And if you do, help is usually close at hand. Beyond these practical limitations, however, it seems incontestable that society today is less interested in promoting, facilitating or participating in adventurous life experiences. No one talks of running away with the circus or joining the French Foreign Legion anymore, even in jest. According to Statistics Canada, twice as many Millennials are still living at home as was the case with previous generations. And if any of these young adults do go away, it’s more than likely to be an adventure-less ‘gap year’ holiday between graduate degrees recorded in minute detail on Snapchat and Instagram. The perpetual childhood of today’s younger generations contrasts sharply with the youthful accomplishments of past eras. William Wilberforce, for example, was elected to the British Parliament at age 21 and then proved instrumental in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His friend William Pitt became Prime Minister at 24, and spent his career fighting the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who became a general at 24. Quite a lot can be accomplished when one starts early. Other factors that limit the availability of adventure in our post-modern era include the suffocating impact of the welfare state. When Mackenzie left his family home at 15 to become an apprentice in the fur industry, it was because he had little choice. He needed to make his way in the world as a teenager. The same urgency applied to Black when she decided to escape a failed marriage by travelling to the Yukon. With no government to hold your hand, adventure follows. Popular culture in earlier eras also did its bit as well by celebrating explorers and adventurers as celebrities in the same manner that we laud singers and athletes today. Just as adventure was once regarded as a social virtue to be admired, today society aggressively enforces the opposite expectation – that it is our duty to avoid risk at all costs. In their 2021 book The Coddling of the American Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff take a close look at the impact of a creeping safety culture on the behaviour of younger generations. Children, the authors observed, are now deliberately shielded from any sense of risk or uncertainty. How can anyone – young boys most of all – learn about the world around them when school principals announce at the onset of every snowfall that “All snow must stay on the ground.” The ideal of adventure and resilience has been replaced by a debilitating sense of fragility and risk avoidance. So is the dream of looking over an untravelled horizon that animated people like Alexander Mackenzie or Martha Black completely dead in the 21st century? Not exactly. Adventure should properly be considered a spirit, not a place. It is driven by a powerful mixture of curiosity, necessity and an openness to experiencing new things. And it can be found wherever uncertainty reigns. Today, that might entail travelling to strange lands, meeting new people or even engaging in uncomfortable discussions about whether Alberta should remain part of Canada forever. Wherever the unknown lies, adventure can be found.

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to Acknowledge the Advantages of AI-Led By Nick Kossovan Increasingly, I'm hearing from readers who prefer AI-led hiring over the traditional human-led process. In all fairness, most of my readers tend to be early adopters of technology rather than fighting the inevitable. They cite several distinct advantages: · Elimination of unconscious human bias: AI evaluates your data, not your pedigree. · 24/7 scheduling flexibility: You interview on your schedule, not the hiring manager's. · Standardized questioning for all candidates: All applicants are measured by the same yardstick. · Elimination of "mood-based" interviewer variability: You won't be disadvantaged because a hiring manager is having a bad day. · Reduced social performance anxiety: No awkward small talk or trying to read a stranger's poker face. · Ability to interview in a comfortable, private environment: Full control over your surroundings. · Focus on objective data rather than "cultural fit" stereotypes: Pivot away from "clique" hiring. · No interruptions or leading questions: You get a fair shot at making a "Why I should be hired" case. · Privacy from immediate judgment regarding physical appearance: Your words and metrics carry the weight, not your outfit or non-verbal cues. This isn't just an anecdotal whim; it's a measurable reality. A large-scale field experiment led by researchers Brian Jabarian of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Luca Henkel of Erasmus University Rotterdam, involving roughly 70,000 applicants, found that 78 percent of candidates preferred AI job interviews to human interviews. The pearl-clutching needs to stop. Humans have always gravitated toward the consistency of machinery over the unpredictability of their fellow humans. We swapped the village blacksmith for the precision of the assembly line because we wanted a product that worked every time, not just when the craftsman was in a good mood. We traded the bank teller for the ATM because it's available 24/7 and processes your transaction without judgment. Job interviews are no different; they're business transactions in which the human element is invariably the weakest link. When your candidacy is evaluated by an AI, you receive a standardized experience. Every candidate is asked the same questions, in the same tone, and assessed against the same metrics. Let's be honest: a human interviewer gets tired, hungry, or bored by the fifth candidate of the day. They rely on "gut feelings" to make hiring decisions. AI doesn't have a gut. It doesn't get hungover, it doesn't watch the clock, and it doesn't care where you went to school. AI-driven hiring processes make your skills the only currency that matters. Critics—most often frustrated job seekers—argue that AI lacks "empathy." My response: Good! Whether a candidate can debug legacy code, calculate inventory turnover ratios, or optimize supply chains doesn't require empathy; it requires objective assessment. Lindsey Zuloaga, VP of Data Science at Pattern, noted in HireVue's official industry breakdown, Decoding AI in Hiring: Unveiling Facts and Myths, published in September 2023: "AI in the hiring process allows for a more consistent and objective evaluation of candidates, focusing on job-relevant skills rather than the unconscious biases that often cloud human judgment." Furthermore, AI-led interviews offer a level of convenience that human schedules can't match. You can record your interview at 10:30 AM on a Sunday without using a "sick day" or playing calendar tag with a recruiter. AI has streamlined the hiring process to respect job seekers' time, something most human resources departments have long forgotten how to do. Let's be honest: the outcry against AI hiring is largely rooted in bruised egos. Job seekers want to feel "seen" and "heard," but corporate hiring isn't group therapy. If your objective is a paycheque and a role where you can deliver measurable value, it shouldn't matter whether the initial gatekeeper is a line of code or a human. Readers of The Art of Finding Work know my position: you're a one-person business offering a solution-based service. Professional service providers don't complain about the procurement software clients use; they navigate it to land the contract. Complaining about AI-led hiring isn't a strategy; it's an unproductive temper tantrum. It's like a horse-and-buggy driver shouting at a passing Model T. You can yell all you want; the use of AI isn't slowing down. AI-led hiring isn't a passing fad. Talent acquisition is increasingly using it because it's cheaper, faster, and, most importantly, provides data-backed results. Employers define what's "fair," not the job seeker. If employers believe AI helps them identify candidates who'll meet their KPIs and stick around for a while—there's no empirical data proving otherwise—they'll use it. For the anti-AI crowd: Whether a company uses AI in its hiring process isn't your decision. Understand that AI isn't swayed by superficial details; therefore, job seekers must emphasize measurable accomplishments, which few do. Treat your applications and AI-driven interviews as a technical audit. Employers don't owe job seekers a "human touch." They owe it to themselves to find the best candidate for their business (keywords). If employers believe AI can help them find that candidate, who's a job seeker to take issue with that? Of course, once you pass through the AI gauntlet, you'll still have to deal with a human; all the advantage AI gave you up to that point goes out the window. That's the hiring process today.

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore?

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore? By Dale Jodoin Walk through almost any downtown today and you will run into something called “art.” Sometimes it is beautiful. Sometimes it makes people stop and think. Other times people stand there wondering how it ended up funded, displayed, and protected from criticism. That is not an insult. It is a real question many ordinary people are asking. What exactly is art anymore, and who gets to decide? Years ago the word artist brought certain images to mind. A painter over a canvas. A sculptor shaping stone. Somebody is making pottery by hand. A musician spending years learning an instrument. A poet writing from heartbreak or experience. Even if people did not personally like the work, they could usually see the skill and effort behind it. Today the definition feels much wider. One person types words into AI software and creates a stunning image in seconds. Others place random objects into a gallery and call it an installation worth thousands of dollars. Somebody splashes paint across plywood while critics praise it as a deep expression. Meanwhile a man making handmade leather goods in his garage may never once be called an artisan. A mechanic rebuilding a classic car engine with creativity and precision is rarely invited to arts festivals. A woman writing poetry online that touches thousands of people may never receive a grant or public recognition. So where is the line now? That question makes some people uncomfortable because art has become strangely protected in modern society. The moment somebody questions whether something is truly art, the reaction can become defensive very quickly. People are told they simply do not understand creativity or culture. But ordinary people are allowed to ask questions, especially when taxpayer money is involved. Cities across Canada, including Oshawa, spend public money every year on grants, installations, festivals, and arts programs. Some programs are valuable. Community pottery classes, painting workshops, music programs, and theatre groups can bring people together in meaningful ways. The problem is many residents never even hear about them. Most people do not know where the funding goes, who receives it, or how certain projects get selected. Sometimes it feels like the same small circles approving each other while the public stands outside the conversation. That creates frustration. People begin wondering whether art has become less about community and more about politics, connections, and social groups. Modern art is also tied heavily to identity and ideology now. Conservatives celebrate one kind of expression. Progressives celebrate another. Activist art gets praised in some places while traditional work gets ignored. In other circles modern abstract work is mocked while realism is treated as the only “true” art form. Everybody seems to have their own definition. Maybe that has always been true. Art has always been subjective. One person sees emotion in a painting while another sees nothing at all. One person hears poetry that changes them while another shrugs and walks away. But what feels different today is how stretched the word has become. The label “artist” now covers almost everything. If everything is art, does the word still carry meaning? That is not an attack on AI either. AI art raises fair questions. If somebody uses imagination and detailed descriptions to create an image through technology, is that really less creative than abstract painting? Some people say yes because software produces the image. Others argue the human idea behind it matters most. There is truth on both sides. Photography faced similar criticism when cameras first became common. Traditional artists once argued photography was not real art because the machine captured the image. Today photography is accepted almost everywhere as an art form. AI may eventually follow the same path. Still regular people see contradictions. A carpenter building a handcrafted table is called a tradesman. Somebody arranging objects inside a gallery is called an artist. A welder creating functional work is labour. A welder shaping metal into abstract forms is culture. Who decides which one receives praise, grants, and public attention? Critics? Committees? Universities? Social trends? Money? Sales complicate things even more. Some people argue art proves itself through value. If buyers are willing to spend thousands then clearly it matters. But popularity alone has never been proof of quality. Fast food sells more than gourmet meals. That does not make it better cooking. The same applies to culture. Sometimes art becomes important simply because influential people say it is important. Galleries promote it. Critics praise it. Institutions fund it. Eventually many people become afraid to question it because they do not want to sound ignorant. Meanwhile talented local creators often remain invisible. There are painters quietly working in apartments. Craftsmen building furniture by hand. Musicians performing for tiny crowds. Seniors teaching carving, pottery, sewing, and woodworking after decades of experience. Most will never receive headlines or grants. Yet many ordinary people would probably connect more deeply with their work than with another abstract steel structure sitting in the middle of a public square. Maybe that is the real issue. Not whether modern art is fake. Not whether AI counts. Not whether abstract work matters. The real problem may be that communities no longer feel included in the conversation. Art became something discussed inside committees, institutions, and cultural circles while ordinary people drifted further away from it. People want art they can connect to. They want open events, public discussions, and community festivals where culture feels shared instead of managed from above. Maybe art is not dying at all. Maybe the definition has simply become so broad, so political, and so protected from criticism that regular people no longer feel welcome inside it. And when that happens the word itself begins losing weight. Not because creativity disappeared. But because too many people stopped asking the simplest question of all. What actually makes something art?

Karmageddon

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Wesleyville: Ontario's Nuclear False Prophet? A Mr. X-Files column on nuclear economics, procurement reality, and political signalling By John Mutton | Chairman, Ontario Nuclear New Build Council Ontario is absolutely serious about nuclear expansion. That is undeniable. The province has approved four small modular reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. It has moved ahead with major refurbishment and expansion at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. And it has publicly directed Ontario Power Generation to explore new nuclear generation at Wesleyville in Port Hope. But the key question is this: Is Wesleyville a real project - or simply political signalling? That is where the argument becomes powerful, because this is not an anti-nuclear argument. It is a pro-reality argument. It is about economics, procurement reality, financing structure, and whether a government announcement is the same thing as a bankable project. The Core Thesis - There are three entirely different economic models at play in Ontario's current nuclear conversation. Project Why It Works - or Does Not Yet Work. Darlington SMRs Smaller modular design lowers capital exposure and construction risk. Bruce Expansion Massive existing infrastructure plus a private partnership structure. Wesleyville No proven economic model yet. 1. Darlington SMRs Are Not Traditional Nuclear This is the critical distinction. The province learned painful lessons from the original large-scale reactor procurement discussions at Darlington years ago. I remember when Ontario was procuring for the possibility of a new 1,000 megawatt reactor at Darlington. The cost came in way too high. Traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear requires massive up-front capital. It carries huge financing exposure. It involves decade-plus timelines. And it creates catastrophic political risk if budgets explode. That is precisely why small modular reactors became attractive. The BWRX-300 model at Darlington is being sold politically and financially as modular, repeatable, factory-based, faster to deploy, and cheaper per unit of construction risk. The province can justify the first units because the site already exists. The transmission exists. The workforce exists. The regulatory framework exists. And Ontario is trying to establish itself as the North American SMR leader. Darlington is not just a power project. It is an industrial policy strategy. 2. Bruce Is a Completely Different Animal - Bruce is economically unique. Why? Because it is already one of the largest nuclear sites in the world. It already has massive transmission infrastructure. It has an established skilled labour ecosystem. And, importantly, it operates under a partnership and private capital structure that spreads risk differently than a pure OPG government megaproject. That is the point many people miss. Bruce is not a clean-sheetgreenfield nuclear build. It is expansion of an already mature nuclear ecosystem. That dramatically changes the economics. 3. Wesleyville Has None of Those Advantages - This is where the 'false prophet' line lands hard. Because Wesleyville currently appears to have no approved reactor technology, no defined financing structure, no committed industrial partner, no finalized transmission plan, no announced procurement model, and no public capital estimate that survives scrutiny. What exists right now is exploratory consultation, impact assessment work, municipal engagement, and political messaging. That is not the same thing as a financeable nuclear project. Wesleyville may sound impressive. It may sound strategic. It may sound like the next great chapter in Ontario's nuclear story. But without the economics, the procurement structure, the risk allocation, and the capital partner, it remains a concept wrapped in a press release. The Killer Point - If Ontario could not economically justify another traditional 1,000 MW reactor at Darlington years ago - at an existing nuclear site - why would a far riskier greenfield project suddenly work at Wesleyville? That is a devastating economic question. Because Darlington already had nuclear zoning, nuclear workforce, supply chain, grid integration, public acceptance history, and operational expertise. If that struggled economically, then Wesleyville becomes difficult to explain unless the province eventually deploys SMRs there too, Ottawa absorbs major capital risk, or taxpayers subsidize the project heavily. And that is the part that has to be said out loud. Nobody should confuse a possible future site with a real nuclear project. Nobody should confuse long-term energy optionality with a funded, risk-allocated, procurement-ready build. And nobody should pretend that Wesleyville is in the same category as Darlington or Bruce unless the underlying economics are explained. The Political Reality - Wesleyville may also serve another purpose: strategic optionality. Governments often announce potential projects, future sites, exploration frameworks, and long-term nuclear corridors because electricity demand forecasts are rising. Electrification is accelerating. AI and data centres are exploding. EV manufacturing is growing. And Ontario wants to signal long-term supply confidence. That does not necessarily mean shovels are coming soon. In fairness, there is nothing wrong with long-term planning. Ontario should plan. Ontario should secure future energy options. Ontario should protect potential generation sites. Ontario should examine whether future nuclear could fit into the grid. But planning is not procurement. Exploration is not financing. A press release is not a project. And a political signal is not a business case. Mr. X Closing Darlington is real. Bruce is real. Wesleyville today looks more like a concept wrapped in a press release. Until somebody explains the economics, the financing, the procurement structure, and who carries the risk, Wesleyville may be Ontario's nuclear false prophet. That does not mean Wesleyville can never become real. It means the burden of proof is on the people promoting it. Show the technology. Show the financing. Show the partner. Show the transmission solution. Show the procurement model. Show who carries the risk. Show why this site works when even a 1,000 megawatt reactor conversation at Darlington could not survive the cost reality. Until then, Wesleyville is not Darlington. It is not Bruce. It is not yet a project. It is a promise. And in politics, promises are cheap. Nuclear is not.

Praise the Pollinators

Praise the Pollinators by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ “Spring is here, and with it, a renewed opportunity to take action for nature.” —The Sierra Club Canada. This year, National Pollinator Week is celebrated on June 22-26. Pollination occurs when butterflies, moths, wasps, bats, hummingbirds, and bees seek food and shelter on plants. Pollination also happens through the activities of some snails, beetles, flies, snails, mosquitoes, slugs, birds, and ants. Life in a beehive is one of the marvels of nature. These insects work as a team and always put the well-being of the hive before themselves. Of the thousands of bees in a honey bee colony, only the queen lays eggs. In the summer she can lay 2000 eggs a day. Those eggs hatch into white, legless young. Caring for them is the job of young adult bees. These young bees also build comb from the wax that they secrete from special glands in their bodies, clean the hive, make honey, feed and clean the queen, guard the hive, and help ventilate it by beating their wings. As they age, they leave the hive to collect nectar and pollen from flowers. The nectar is turned into honey which, together with pollen, feeds the colony. Bees breathe through 10 pairs of spiracles on the sides of their body. Their five eyes detect light, sense the presence of a predator, and make bees brilliant navigators. Allow some dandelions, daisies, and clover to flourish on your lawn. These are especially great for the bees in early spring. Avoid bee-killing pesticides. Use only natural pesticides and fertilizers. Ladybugs, spiders and praying mantises will naturally keep all of nature’s populations in check. When a monarch caterpillar is ready to become a butterfly, it climbs onto a safe place. The skin begins to split along the back forming a green chrysalis that pushes the old skin away. The chrysalis twirls and whirls, attaching itself to the sticky pad that the caterpillar had previously spun. Finally, it stops moving and anchors itself in place. Hanging upside down, the caterpillar pulls itself up into the shape of a ‘J’. The chrysalis then hardens into a jewel-like jade with gold trim and spots. For 10-14 days the transformation takes place and a beautiful butterfly can be seen through the chrysalis shell before it emerges. Eventually, the chrysalis begins to split down the front, and a monarch butterfly with small wings and a big abdomen swings out. Within minutes the new butterfly pumps liquid from its abdomen into the veins of its wings. The butterfly also uncoils and coils its proboscis repeatedly, in order to knit the two pieces into a solid straw-like tongue used to sip flower nectar. It is now ready to soar and begin its life as a monarch butterfly. Truly, this is one of the great natural phenomena of the insect world. On Insects: “The little things that run the world.” —E.O. Wilson 1987: American biologist, naturalist, and author.

TWO ZEROS EQUAL ONE... ONLY IN CANADA

TWO ZEROS EQUAL ONE... ONLY IN CANADA By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Are we not only becoming a third-world country, but also a nation with no real leadership qualities? You look at the Feds, and it does not matter who is doing the driving — the Canadian quality of life is not improving. Then there is the sunken NDP with their “we are the people” rhetoric, and the PCs, whose leader cannot even win his own riding. Locally, so far for Mayor of Oshawa, we have Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Jim Lee, another fellow council person. Tito has been in politics forever and a day, but what has he accomplished? How has he contributed to the quality of life in Oshawa? What is his biggest accomplishment? If zero comes to mind, you are not too far from the truth. I openly asked him to please disclose his accomplishments during his terms in office. Then you have Jim Lee. He won an election and has done nothing for the people in his ward — and I am one of them. I have never seen him either at my residence or at my office. But I did see him at a hearing with the former mayors, manager, and their brown-nosers friends attempting to attack a local small business. It appears that this first-time councillor sold his soul to the “good old boys club” and thinks he has a chance at the big pay increase. Here is a guy who, in my opinion, does not need to be in politics. He is not a leader, but a good follower. Then again, we just finished two terms with a former drug addict and home less mayor. Look at our downtown. It is a reflection of the type of leaders we elect to office. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against either man. I think their efforts as elected officials were wasted. I had great expectations for Lee, but he sold out and became just another municipal shadow at City Hall. He accomplished nothing for his constituents in his ward. Taxes kept going up. Quality of life keeps going down. Where was Lee, at least making it look like he cared?Any town hall meetings? No. Any attempt at working with those in the community who have real hands-on experience with the real issues affecting his ward? No. Just another big fat “zero.” Then, for those mathematicians among us, we taxpayers have to choose from two zeros to make one leader. Is there anyone out there from outside council who can take the helm?Have we not learned that when we keep voting from the same public toilet, we get shitty leadership?Is our down town not a testament to this fail ure to vote someone in from out side the municipal toilet bowl? Then we complain when our taxes go up every year. We com plain when we cannot pay them. Don’t blame them. Blame yourself for voting in by-products from the same public toilet, then wonder ing why you keep eating shit. It is your fault. We keep paying for their bad decisions, yet we expect different outcomes. People, wake up. We have a very unique opportunity to make a dif ference this year. It is up to every single taxpayer to vote for candi dates who are not incumbents. They had their chance and have proven that they failed to improve our quality of life. Vote — and vote for real leader ship. Soon coming.

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East One of the more sensitive — and increasingly unavoidable — questions surrounding Alberta separatism is whether foreign actors could exploit, amplify, or influence the movement for their own geopolitical or economic interests. There is, at present, no public evidence of a coordinated foreign conspiracy directing Alberta separatism. Most grievances expressed by Albertans are real, domestic, and rooted in longstanding political and economic frustrations within Canada itself. To dismiss the movement as “foreign manipulation” would be both inaccurate and politically counterproductive. However, modern geopolitics teaches an important lesson: foreign powers do not need to create divisions to exploit them. They merely need to magnify existing fractures. Canada is not immune. Around the world, democratic societies have experienced attempts by external actors to influence public opinion, deepen polarization, weaken institutional trust, and encourage fragmentation movements. Examples range from a complexity of Western and Russian disinformation operations in Europe and the United States to foreign online interference surrounding Brexit, Catalonia, and various populist movements across the West. The strategic logic is straightforward. Large, resource-rich, politically stable democracies become weaker when internally divided. In Canada’s case, Alberta is not just another province. It is central to: · continental energy security, · agricultural production, · petrochemical supply chains, · pipeline infrastructure, · and North American trade networks. Any prolonged constitutional instability involving Alberta would inevitably attract international attention and potentially foreign opportunism. Several possible vectors of influence deserve serious consideration. First is information warfare. Social media ecosystems allow foreign actors to anonymously amplify anger, conspiracy theories, anti-federal narratives, or anti-democratic sentiment. Algorithms reward outrage. Polarization spreads rapidly. Small fringe narratives can suddenly appear mainstream through coordinated amplification campaigns. Canada has already witnessed foreign interference concerns related to elections, diaspora communities, and online influence operations. It would be naïve to assume that separatist tensions would be ignored by hostile or opportunistic external actors. Second is economic influence. Global energy competitors may quietly benefit from Canadian paralysis. If Canada remains internally divided and unable to build pipelines, export infrastructure, refineries, or coherent energy policy, competitors gain market share. The irony is profound: while Canada debates how to restrict or delay its own energy sector, geopolitical rivals aggressively expand theirs. Third is political fragmentation itself. Foreign governments often prefer dealing with weakened or internally divided democracies because fragmentation reduces strategic coherence. A Canada consumed by constitutional disputes becomes less influential internationally, less economically competitive, and less capable of projecting unified national policy. This does not mean every separatist argument is illegitimate or manipulated. That would be irresponsible and unfair to many Albertans who sincerely believe Confederation is failing them. However, it does mean Canada must approach the issue with maturity and vigilance. There is another danger as well: the temptation by political actors to weaponize accusations of foreign influence domestically. If every Western grievance is casually dismissed as foreign-backed extremism, Ottawa risks deepening alienation even further. Citizens who already feel unheard will become even more distrustful if their concerns are portrayed as disloyal or externally driven. Democracies weaken when governments stop listening to legitimate regional frustrations. At the same time, separatist movements themselves must exercise caution. Once movements become emotionally charged and digitally mobilized, they can attract extremist elements, conspiracy networks, and opportunistic outside actors who care little about Alberta but much about destabilization. This pattern has appeared repeatedly in international politics. The solution is therefore neither paranoia nor complacency. Canada requires stronger democratic resilience: · improved transparency regarding online influence campaigns, · better civic literacy, · stronger national institutions, · more balanced regional representation, · and a renewed sense of national purpose. Most importantly, Canada must reduce the conditions that make fragmentation narratives attractive in the first place. Countries confident in their institutions and fairness are harder to destabilize. The deeper issue remains domestic, not foreign. Albertans are not imagining their frustrations. Western alienation has existed for generations. Economic grievances, regulatory tensions, and regional political imbalances are genuine policy issues requiring serious national dialogue. Foreign actors can amplify a fire. However, they cannot ignite one where no combustible material exists. Ultimately, the Alberta debate is less a story about foreign influence than about Canadian cohesion. External interference becomes dangerous only when internal confidence has already weakened. Canada’s greatest protection against foreign manipulation is not censorship, fear, or political labeling. It is national unity built on fairness, mutual respect, and economic realism. It is creating a federation where every region believes it has a meaningful stake in the country’s future. Let’s hope that the Canadian political establishment finds a way to safeguard the unity of Canada in a very dangerous geopolitical environment.

SAME FEES CLEARER STATEMENTS

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Folks starting December 31, 2026, all your Segregated fund Investment statements will include a breakdown of what fees you’re paying to invest in your segregated fund contract. This process was introduced in the mutual fund platform a few year back and now has come into effect with segregated funds. In a part of a new industry-wide change to help make fees and charges easier to better understand and more transparent your updated statement will give you a clearer view of your investments fees. These changes are meant to support better conversations with your advisor about costs, value, and your financial goals. Your advisor is your partner in long-term success, offering personalized guidance, helping you stay on track, and supporting you through market ups and downs. Please review this information with your advisor to ensure you understand your plans and you goals are on track. If you have questions or want to talk through what’s changing, reach out to your advisor. The fees themselves aren’t changing, but how they’re shown on your statements is. You’ll see, Total annual cost of investing shown in dollars, Clear explanations about investment fees, Enhanced performance reporting. Safe travels, until next time good planning!!

The Awkward Reality of Inheritance

Dead and Gone… The Awkward Reality of Inheritance By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the strangest tensions that shows up after somebody dies has almost nothing to do with the death itself. It comes later. The funeral is over, the casseroles have stopped arriving, the relatives from out of town have flown home. Things are quiet again. And then somebody mentions the will. Or the house. Or a ring nobody is sure what to do with. The room changes. Most families do not go looking for a fight. If anything, the opposite. People get careful, almost too careful. You hear things like, "I don't really care about any of it," or, "whatever everybody else thinks is fair is fine by me." A lot of the time they mean it, or at least part of it. But you can still feel the air tighten the second money enters the conversation. Money and grief just do not sit well together. Talking about finances too soon feels disrespectful, even though the paperwork does not wait. And inheritance has never really been only about money anyway. The minute things start getting decided, the old family stuff comes back. Quietly. Sometimes nobody notices it is happening. One sibling did most of the care-giving for years while another lived three provinces away. One kid got helped out financially in their twenties and everyone remembers, even if nobody says so. People keep score without meaning to. It is not always greed. Usually it is something underneath - fairness, feeling overlooked, an old hurt that was there long before anybody died. I have talked to families who couldn't believe how emotional things got over stuff that wasn't even valuable. A watch, a ring, or an old chair nobody had sat in for years. One family nearly fell apart over a recipe box. Somebody says, "no, you take it, really," and somebody else says, "no, it should stay with you," and then everybody starts choosing their words a little too carefully because nobody wants to look like the one who actually wants it. That awkwardness - more people know it than admit it. Wanting something does not make you greedy. Objects hold stories, and one person looks at an old dining room table and sees an old dining room table. Somebody else looks at it and sees thirty years of Christmas dinners. The house is its own thing. A lot of parents quietly assume one of the kids will want to keep it. Sometimes none of them do. Not because the house didn't matter, life just looks different now. Adult kids live in smaller places, different cities, different financial situations than their parents had at the same age. A three-bedroom in a town nobody lives in anymore is not always a gift. Selling the family home can feel like the right call and a small heartbreak at the same time. Both can be true. The hard part, I think, is that the paperwork moves on its own schedule and the feelings move on theirs, and the two are almost never lined up. People do not always handle that gracefully. It would be a little strange if they did. The families who come out of this okay are not always the ones who avoided every disagreement. They are the ones who figured out, somewhere along the way, that the relationships mattered more than any single decision. That sounds obvious written down. It is much harder in the room, with forty years of history sitting in there with you. I would not want my family judged on how they acted during a few of the worst weeks of their lives. People behave in ways that aren't really them during a stretch like that. Most families find their footing again eventually. The conversations just stay awkward longer than anybody expects.

There’s No One Medical Truth

There’s No One Medical Truth Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting? Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray. This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here. All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic. Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision. Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance. Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence. Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by. But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness? That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters. A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another. There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood. Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions. And that’s the point. When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways. Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas. The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science. When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.

Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities Employers Want to See the Potential ROI of Hiring You

Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities Employers Want to See the Potential ROI of Hiring You By Nick Kossovan Every second you spend on LinkedIn “raising awareness” about how the hiring system is supposedly broken or ranting about unicorn-hunting recruiters is a second you’re choosing to stay unemployed. Employers don’t care about your grievances; they have a business to run within the constraints of economic realities. By publicly and privately resisting the transactional realities that keep businesses and economies alive, you’re not being a martyr; rather, you’re showing employers you’d be difficult to manage. The employer-employee relationship is more asymmetrical and transactional than ever, and completely indifferent to your personal needs. Getting hired requires refraining from playing the oldest unproductive game of all—making excuses for why you’re a victim—and instead showing employers how you can contribute to their profitability. Increasingly, I see job seekers who treat their job search like a shopping list for their lifestyle and expect employers to be their parents. Before they've proven—shown their track record of accomplishments and results—how they'll add value to the employer's bottom line or solve their problem(s), they demand remote work, six-figure salaries, and unlimited vacation. Employers aren’t responsible for your chosen lifestyle. Employers aren’t charities; it’s not their concern that your rent went up, your car insurance doubled, or that you “believe” you work better from a beach in Mexico. An employer is a profit-seeking entity that has a fiduciary responsibility to its current employees and shareholders. Therefore, if you’re not showing employers quantifiable numbers for how you’ve generated revenue, reduced costs, or removed risks for your past employers, you’re just noise, similar to the noise chacma baboons make when arguing, which describes most job seekers. Even if you spend five percent of your day fighting the following variables, you’re leading equity. Accept them—don’t deny them—pivot and keep moving forward. The Economy- The economy is indifferent to your bills. Inflation and interest rates are macroeconomic constants; complaining about the “cost of living” during a job search, or the reason you deserve a raise, is a rookie mistake that signals entitlement rather than value. Employers pay for the ROI of a role, not the cost of your lifestyle. You’re responsible for your financial management; the economy will not adjust to fund your personal overhead. AI and Automation Disruption - CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to replace expensive, inefficient human processes with streamlined technology. This isn’t an inhumane act; it’s just business. In the emerging economy, you’re either the employee leveraging AI to deliver 5x the value, or you’re the overhead to be phased out. As a job seeker, instead of mourning the “old ways,” show employers how you can leverage the “new ways.” “Unfair” Hiring Processes - Nepotism and favouritism have always existed and will always exist, as every human is biased in some way or another. You can’t change the “who you know” culture of a company you don’t own, hence referrals always get priority. Your best move is to create a resume, envision a “Master Value Document,” and a LinkedIn profile so compelling that being “well-connected” is no longer your competitors’ only advantage. If you can’t be the nephew, become the person who’s too valuable to overlook. Aging - The ‘ageism’ shield is for those who refuse to adapt. Employers don’t fear your age; they fear your overhead and your inability to learn. Pivot from ‘seniority’ to ‘certainty.’ Offer employers, indisputably, the proven reliability that a 27-year-old can’t fake. If you market yourself as a relic, don’t be surprised when you’re treated like one. Change is Inevitable -In his 1973 book, Reflections on the Human Condition, Eric Hoffer wrote, “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” Nostalgia doesn’t pay the bills, and ‘experience’ is a trap if not accompanied by constant evolution. If you can’t explain to your interviewer what you’ve done to rebuild your skillset over the last 12 months, you’re a dinosaur waiting for the asteroid. Rather than just ‘handling’ change, employers want to see that you thrive on it and are willing to master the tools that are terrifying many of their employees. The Golden Rule - If there's one business reality that's pointless to oppose, it's the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If you want to dictate your employment terms, start your own business. Until then, you're playing the employer's game on their turf by their rules. It's not necessary to like the employer's rules, but you must abide by them, especially during their hiring process, to be hired. Arguing with business realities has the consequence of you always losing. Essentially, you are telling yourself comforting lies, or buying into comforting lies being told, to make yourself feel better about not getting what you want. Public outbursts on LinkedIn aren’t the answer. The only thing such behaviour does is signal to employers that you are unable to manage your emotions, making you a high-risk hire. Resisting business realities is why many job seekers are experiencing prolonged unemployment; your best job search strategy is to refrain from complaining and focus on proving to employers that you can contribute to their profitability.

Canada’s Bill C 22: How Much Freedom Will Canadians Give Away?

Canada’s Bill C 22: How Much Freedom Will Canadians Give Away? By Dale Jodoin Columnist George Orwell warned people years ago about governments watching their own citizens. Movies like V for Vendetta showed ordinary people slowly giving away freedom because they were frightened and wanted protection. Back then, most people treated stories like that as fiction. Something dramatic. Something that could never really happen here. Ten years ago, most Canadians probably would have laughed this conversation off. Today, more people are starting to wonder if those stories were less about fantasy and more about warning signs.Most people imagine freedom disappearing all at once. Soldiers in the streets. Chaos. Loud moments nobody could miss. Real life usually does not work that way. Rights disappear quietly. One new law. One new power. One more piece of information collected. Small things at first. Small enough that people barely notice until years later when the country suddenly feels different.That is why Bill C 22 is making many Canadians uneasy.The federal government calls Bill C 22 the “Lawful Access Act.” Ottawa says the bill is needed to help police deal with terrorism, organized crime, child exploitation, and growing online threats. The government argues criminals now hide behind encrypted apps, private messaging systems, and digital services that investigators struggle to access.The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons on April 20, 2026, and has now moved to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for more study. Committee hearings began on May 7.Ottawa says the bill is simply about bringing policing into the digital age.A growing number of Canadians hear something elsePeople are being told they need to hand over a little more privacy to feel safe. Meanwhile many Canadians already feel less safe than they did years ago. Violent crime keeps making headlines. Random attacks happen in broad daylight. Drug overdoses continue climbing. Car thefts spread through communities across the country. Families already feel worn down. Bills keep rising. Trust keeps dropping.People are tired, and tired people sometimes give away freedoms they would have fought for years earlier.That may be the most dangerous part of all.Many Canadians are now asking a question government leaders do not seem eager to answer. If governments already hold major powers today, why does the country still feel like it is slipping in so many places?That question sits at the center of the debate around Bill C 22.One section of the bill raising concern involves metadata collection and retention. Under the proposed law, telecom and digital service providers could be required to keep certain user information for up to one year. That may include location data, communication times, connection records, and device information.Most people never think about metadata until somebody explains what it can actually reveal. It sounds like a boring technical term, but privacy experts warn metadata can tell a detailed story about a person’s life without reading one private message. It can show where someone travels, who they contact, when they are active, and patterns in their daily routine.Supporters of the bill say this information could help police solve crimes faster and identify dangerous suspects before more people get hurt. Most Canadians want criminals caught. Most people want children protected. Most people understand police need tools to deal with modern crime. But many Canadians worry about what happens after these powers are created.History shows governments change.Laws stay.That concern is not only coming from Conservatives. Some Liberal and NDP voters are also questioning how much access any government should have to private digital information. This debate is becoming bigger than party politics. It is about trust. It is about limits. It is about whether Canadians still believe privacy matters in a country that keeps asking them to trade pieces of it away.There is also concern about what Bill C 22 could mean for Canada’s technology future. Companies like Apple and Meta have already raised concerns about laws that may pressure companies to weaken encrypted systems or create ways into private communications. Encryption protects banking information, passwords, health records, personal files, and private conversations. Once trust in those systems weakens, people begin wondering who else may eventually gain access.That should concern Canadians.If companies begin seeing Canada as a difficult place to invest or operate, they may pull back services, delay investment, or avoid expanding here altogether. That could leave Canadians with fewer choices, weaker services, and higher costs. Most people may not think about encryption every day, but they will notice if services disappear or become more expensive.Civil liberties groups are also warning there may not be enough oversight built into the legislation. Canadians are being asked to trust institutions with larger amounts of personal information at a time when public trust already feels badly shaken in many parts of the country. This is why many critics believe all political parties should slow down and seriously examine Bill C 22 before pushing it further ahead. Privacy affects everyone regardless of political views. Once governments gain more access to people’s private lives, every Canadian lives under that new reality.At its heart, this debate is not really about apps or phones. It is about how much freedom Canadians are willing to trade for promises of safety from institutions that openly admit they still cannot fully keep the public safe.That question may help decide what kind of country Canada becomes over the next few years

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. There is something happening across Ontario that taxpayers need to start paying very close attention to. Policing in Ontario is no longer just about policing. It has increasingly become about massive capital infrastructure empires. Across the province, police headquarters and policing campuses are becoming larger, more architecturally elaborate, more consultant-driven, and dramatically more expensive than what many other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States are building. Meanwhile, provinces like Alberta appear to have taken a far more pragmatic and operationally focused approach. And taxpayers should be asking why. The Ontario “Police Campus” Model In Ontario, modern policing infrastructure increasingly resembles institutional corporate campuses. Large headquarters. Massive administrative wings. Architectural showcases. Integrated civic complexes. Multi-phase expansions. Endless consultant studies. New buildings replacing perfectly functional older buildings. The result? Hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that ultimately land on the backs of property taxpayers.In some municipalities and regions, police infrastructure has evolved far beyond what is operationally necessary and has entered the realm of prestige infrastructure. Taxpayers are told: - the buildings must be state-of-the-art, - the facilities must be consolidated, - the campuses must be future-ready, - and every department must be centralized under one roof. But few people ever ask the obvious question: Does this actually improve policing outcomes enough to justify the cost? Because operational policing and expensive real estate are not necessarily the same thing. Alberta’s More Practical Approach By contrast, Alberta has historically appeared to maintain a more practical model. Not flashy. Not over-designed. Not campus-oriented. Just functional policing infrastructure. More emphasis appears to be placed on: - operational efficiency, - practical deployment, - adaptive reuse, - phased modernization, - and maintaining functional buildings longer. In many Alberta communities, policing facilities still resemble what policing facilities were traditionally intended to be: working operational buildings. Not monuments.And importantly, Alberta’s approach often appears far closer to the American municipal model. Across much of the United States, police departments commonly continue operating from: - upgraded legacy facilities, - industrial-style buildings, - phased retrofits, - decentralized operations, - and lower-cost modernization programs. The emphasis is often: “Does the building function properly?” —not— “Does the building impress people?” That difference matters. The Cost Explosion Problem Ontario taxpayers are now living through an era where virtually every public-sector institution appears to believe it requires: - a new headquarters, - a major expansion, - a flagship campus, - or a transformational capital project. Police. Municipal administration. Libraries. Transit facilities. Public works yards. Health facilities. Everything becomes bigger. Everything becomes more expensive. Everything becomes consultant-driven. And taxpayers are expected to quietly absorb the consequences through:- higher property taxes, - increased debt, - development charges, - and long-term operating costs. The problem is not policing itself. The problem is whether Ontario has lost sight of the difference between operational necessity and capital ambition. Bigger Buildings Do Not Automatically Mean Better Policing This is the uncomfortable conversation many politicians avoid. A larger headquarters does not necessarily reduce crime. A newer building does not automatically improve response times. An architecturally impressive campus does not inherently make communities safer. Good policing is ultimately about: - leadership, - deployment, - accountability, - staffing, - training, - community trust, - and operational effectiveness. Not marble floors and oversized atriums. Taxpayers Need To Start Asking Hard Questions Before approving another massive police capital project, Ontario taxpayers should be asking: - Can existing facilities be modernized instead? - Can phased retrofits achieve the same result? - Is consolidation actually necessary? - Are administrative expansions excessive? - Is the architectural scope reasonable? - How does this compare to Alberta or U.S. jurisdictions? - Are we building for operational need—or institutional prestige?These are not anti-police questions. They are pro-taxpayer questions. And in an era of affordability crises, exploding property taxes, and infrastructure deficits, they are questions that desperately need to be asked. Because somewhere along the way, Ontario appears to have drifted from practical policing infrastructure toward institutional empire-building. And taxpayers are paying the bill.

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream?

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream? by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East By any historical measure, Prime Minister Mark Carney is attempting something rare in modern Canadian politics: the reintroduction of national ambition. For decades, Canadian governments have largely managed decline, mitigated crises, and distributed incremental benefits while avoiding large-scale structural reform. Politics became administrative rather than transformational. The great nation-building projects of earlier generations — the railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, the energy megaprojects of the postwar era — gave way to cautious managerialism. Carney appears determined to reverse that trajectory. His emerging vision for Canada is sweeping: a “One Canadian Economy,” a revitalized defence-industrial base, Arctic sovereignty, national infrastructure corridors, energy expansion, critical minerals, AI leadership, and a strategic reduction of dependence on the United States. It is, in effect, an attempt to reposition Canada for a harsher, more fragmented world. The real question is not whether the ambition is admirable. It is whether the Canadian state still possesses the institutional muscle, political cohesion, and economic discipline to execute such a vision. That is far from certain. Canada today suffers from a dangerous contradiction. It remains one of the world’s most resource-rich and educated nations, yet its productivity growth has stagnated for years. Major infrastructure projects take decades. Interprovincial trade barriers remain embarrassingly entrenched. Defence procurement is notoriously dysfunctional. Housing costs have become corrosive to social stability. Energy debates have become ideological trench warfare rather than strategic planning. Meanwhile, the geopolitical environment has changed dramatically. The comfortable post-Cold War era is over. The United States is becoming more protectionist and transactional. China is increasingly assertive. Europe is rearming. Supply chains are fragmenting. Arctic competition is accelerating. Economic security and national security are becoming inseparable. Carney understands this reality perhaps better than any Canadian prime minister in recent memory. His background as a central banker and global financial figure gives him an unusually international perspective on the forces reshaping the world economy. Unlike many traditional politicians, he appears to grasp that Canada can no longer rely indefinitely on geography, American protection, and commodity luck. That recognition alone is strategically important. His emphasis on defence industrialization and Arctic sovereignty is particularly overdue. Canada has spoken about the North for decades while underinvesting in the actual capabilities required to defend it. As climate change opens Arctic routes and great-power competition intensifies, sovereignty can no longer exist primarily through rhetoric. Similarly, the effort to break down internal trade barriers and create a more integrated national economy addresses one of Canada’s least discussed structural weaknesses. It is absurd that goods, credentials, and labour often move more easily across the Canada-U.S. border than between Canadian provinces. Carney is also correct to emphasize energy abundance rather than energy austerity. Canada’s future competitiveness will depend on access to reliable, affordable, large-scale energy. AI infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, mining, electrification, and defence production are all extraordinarily energy intensive. A serious industrial strategy requires a serious energy strategy. In that sense, Carney’s shift toward a more pragmatic approach — including openness to pipelines, nuclear expansion, hydroelectricity, and critical mineral development — reflects political realism rather than ideological purity. Yet enormous risks remain. The first is implementation. Canada’s political culture has become deeply proceduralized. Large projects are slowed by overlapping jurisdictions, regulatory duplication, litigation, consultation fatigue, and political fragmentation. Announcements are easy; execution is difficult. Governments increasingly measure success by funding commitments and press conferences rather than physical completion. A nation-building strategy without state capacity becomes theatre. The second risk is fiscal overreach. Carney’s instincts favour activist government and strategic public investment. Properly targeted industrial policy can indeed work, particularly in sectors tied to national security and technological leadership. But governments also have a long history of subsidizing politically attractive failures. Canada cannot borrow indefinitely to compensate for weak productivity growth. If public spending expands faster than economic output, the country risks higher debt burdens, inflationary pressures, and declining competitiveness. The third challenge is political cohesion. Canada is increasingly regionally polarized. Energy policy divides provinces. Housing pressures differ dramatically across cities. Western alienation remains real. Quebec protects its autonomy aggressively. Building a coherent national economic strategy in such an environment is extraordinarily difficult. The irony is that Carney’s vision may require exactly the kind of national unity that contemporary Canada struggles to sustain. And yet, despite these risks, there is something refreshing — even necessary — about a Canadian government once again speaking the language of long-term strategy rather than short-term political management. Countries do not drift into prosperity or sovereignty. They build them deliberately. Canada has often behaved as though its success were inevitable: protected by geography, blessed by resources, and anchored beside the United States. However, the emerging global order is less forgiving. Nations that fail to modernize their infrastructure, industrial capacity, energy systems, and defence capabilities may discover that comfort can evaporate surprisingly quickly. Carney’s wager is that Canada still has the capacity for renewal. He may be right. However, if this agenda is to succeed, Canada will need more than vision statements and industrial strategies. It will require faster decision-making, institutional reform, fiscal discipline, regulatory modernization, and political courage sustained over many years. In other words, it will require Canada to rediscover not merely ambition — but execution. That is the true test of the Carney era. Are you ready to step up and help make it happen?

It Was Never About the Couch

Dead and Gone… It Was Never About the Couch By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the stranger things families run into after someone dies is how quickly ordinary objects stop feeling ordinary. A chair nobody thought about much suddenly becomes “Dad’s chair.” An old jacket hanging by the back door feels difficult to move for reasons that don’t fully make sense even while you’re feeling them. Then there are the rooms nobody really wants to deal with yet. Basements. Garages. Closets that stayed untouched for years until suddenly somebody has to open them. I have spoken with people who were completely unprepared for how emotional it would feel to go through a parent’s belongings afterward. Usually it was not the expensive things that got to them. It was the small stuff. A grocery list in familiar handwriting. Reading glasses sitting beside the chair where someone always sat. A bathroom drawer full of half-used toothpaste, elastic bands, old batteries, pens that no longer worked. The kind of things nobody notices while a person is alive because they are just… there. Then one day they aren’t. And somehow the objects become heavier. I remember someone telling me they stood in their father’s garage for twenty minutes holding an old coffee tin filled with random screws and nails because they suddenly realized their dad had probably saved every one of them thinking they might come in handy someday. The screws themselves meant nothing. They knew that. Still, throwing them out felt awful in a way they hadn’t expected. Not devastating exactly. Just strangely final. That seems to happen a lot. People think sorting through belongings will mostly be a practical job, and part of it is. Boxes get labeled. Donation piles start forming. Somebody rents a dumpster eventually. But somewhere in the middle of all that, emotions sneak in sideways through objects nobody would have predicted beforehand. And families do not always react to those moments the same way. One person wants to keep almost everything because getting rid of it feels wrong. Another wants the house emptied quickly because being there has started hurting too much. Someone else quietly takes little things home without mentioning it because they are worried somebody else might throw them away first. Families can end up irritated with each other during this stage and not fully understand why. The arguments are rarely about the object itself anyway. At least I don’t think they are. I think people are often reacting to the uncomfortable feeling that a whole life is slowly being reduced to decisions about what stays, what goes, and what nobody has room for anymore. That can feel harsh when you actually stand inside a house full of somebody’s things. Especially if they lived there for thirty or forty years. You start opening drawers and realize how much of ordinary life people leave behind without ever thinking about it. Old receipts. Christmas decorations. Instructions for appliances nobody even owns anymore. Half-finished projects sitting on shelves waiting for time that never arrived. And eventually somebody has to decide what happens to all of it. If I were gone, I would not want my family feeling guilty for becoming emotional over small things that probably looked meaningless from the outside. But I also would not want them feeling guilty for letting most of it go either. Very few people can carry an entire lifetime of possessions forward with them, even if part of them wants to. I think that realization comes slowly. At first it can feel like throwing objects away means losing pieces of the person too. Then over time people begin understanding that the memories were never really sitting inside the objects themselves. The objects just happened to pull the memories forward for a while. Still… some things are harder to throw out than they probably should be. And honestly, I suspect most people do not fully understand that until they go through it themselves.

There’s No One Medical Truth

There’s No One Medical Truth Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting? Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray. This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here. All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic. Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision. Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance. Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence. Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by. But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness? That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters. A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another. There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood. Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions. And that’s the point. When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways. Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas. The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science. When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.

Middle Man

Middle Man By Wayne and Tamara I'm torn about how to handle this. My 23-year-old daughter got engaged last November. This weekend she and her fiancé visited us. Yesterday I sat down at my computer and her fiancé’s email was still open. In the sent mail I found pictures of his ex-girlfriend wearing nothing but a partially-open robe. This email is one he sent to himself in January. I’m no prude, but I think if nothing else this was stupid on his part. It would cause a major issue if she discovered it. Best case, they're pictures from years ago, and he simply wanted to keep them. Worst case, she is still sending him photos. I’m thinking of confronting him, and if he’s honest with me, then I’ll bury this. But if he lies, I will make him come clean with my daughter. I don't want to cause a problem where there isn't one, but I don't want to ignore something that may be a real issue. Leo Leo, one of the failings of honest people is they expect dishonest people to think as they do. The liar and the victim of the lie have a huge difference in perspective. If your daughter’s fiancé is actively involved with his old girlfriend, he has no reason to tell you the truth. If you talk to him, you should expect the same answer—denial—whether he is telling the truth or lying. The easy way out is to say nothing and pretend you never saw the photos. But the power to keep quiet is not something you have. It is better for your daughter to know now rather than knowing later. She is the one you have a relationship with. When you see someone breaking into your neighbor’s house and don’t tell your neighbor, who are you siding with? The thief. This young man brought consequences on himself. You will always have this in your head when you deal with him. You can’t stop your daughter from making mistakes, but you can give her the information you now possess. Talk to your daughter, alone and soon, in a calm and collected manner. Carefully tell her, “If something came of this, and I didn’t tell you, I would be kicking myself forever. I don’t have the knowledge to know what this means, but I saw something which hurt me because it may hurt you.” Then trust her to do the right thing. Wayne & Tamara Suspicions I work for a small company. Since I have been on board our very young owner has made accusations, but today was the worst. He was getting ready to leave and next to me was a check from one of our customers. It was similar in color to the ones I cut and he signs. He wasn't gone 10 minutes when I got a phone call, asking me why I signed one of our checks. I was dumbfounded then looked around and saw the customer’s check. I told him what he had seen and assured him I do not sign checks because I'm not authorized. There was great hesitation in his voice, and since then he has been rude and snappy with me. Meghan Meghan, your boss “saw” something he didn’t see. Rather than be disproven, he wants to defend himself and carry around the idea he wasn’t wrong. Perhaps he’s under stress, sensitive about his authority, or likes to bully others. Perhaps he is suspicious of others because he knows himself to be untrustworthy. Whatever the case, you have to protect yourself. Document the date and time of the phone call and details about the check involved. Explain to others what happened. In the meantime, act absolutely above board and professionally. If you think your job is in danger, act like your job is in danger and take steps to find a more welcoming workplace. Wayne & Tamara

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired By Nick Kossovan I've said it before, and I'll say it again: job seekers are often their own worst enemies; an obvious example is how they utilize AI lazily. By mass-applying and copying-pasting AI output to their prompts without editing, job seekers hoping for shortcuts and to lessen their job search efforts are flooding employers with what amounts to 100% Grade A AI-slop, creating an irony similar to drowning in a flood caused by leaving the taps running to see if the drains work. Job seekers flood employers with resumes and cover letters they didn't even write for jobs they aren't qualified for, adding to the deluge of applications and forcing employers to increasingly aggressively use ATS software to filter them, which job seekers complain about. Do job seekers not think that their misuse of AI wouldn't have consequences? When job postings receive 1,200 applications within six hours—95% of which are clearly AI-generated—recruiters and hiring managers don't look harder; instead, they rely more on the very technology job seekers are trying to outsmart because job seekers have made it nearly impossible to find a genuine person in the digital flood they're causing. What does "AI-slop" look like? It's word salad that tries to say everything and yet says nothing. I see it every day, resumes claiming the job seeker's a "visionary leader leveraging synergistic solutions," yet failing to list a single actual result you've delivered. Cover letters that recycle the company's 'About Us' page like reconstituted paper pulp. In an article titled How AI Slop Took Over Hiring and How to Sound Human Again, published by Artisan Talent, Katrina Kibben, CEO of Three Ears Media, states bluntly: "Faster doesn't mean better; it means faster. AI is replicating trends and problems into these new resumes because their training data is a sample of old information that wasn't good to begin with." Simply put, when you lazily use AI to "help" you with your job search, you become just like all the other job seekers who also lazily use AI. Two types of AI misuse are job search killers: 1. Mass Applying. Increasingly, job seekers are using AI tools to auto-tailor their resume and apply 24/7 to job postings the AI finds on job boards and company websites. While their resume(s) incorporate keywords effectively, they lack a clear career trajectory, relevance, and, most importantly, proof that they've positively impacted their previous employer's profitability. It's unlikely that a resume like this would pass an employer's ATS; however, if a human were to lay eyes on it, the lack of "value-add" would be glaring. 1. Ghostwriter. AI tools are widely used by job seekers to write what they think is the perfect cover letter and to answer screening and knock-out questions. As well, job seekers are employing 'whispering bots' during video interviews. Perhaps one day AI will be able to mimic your personality, problem-solving, and strategic thinking; however, as of right now, it can't. Mike Wolford, author of THE AI RECRUITER: Revolutionizing Hiring with Advanced GPT-Powered Prompts, noted: "We've gained infinite words but lost specificity—and that's why everything, from resumes to job posts, sounds the same." Employers hire candidates they believe will serve their self-interests; therefore, not using AI lazily and showing employers evidence of your value to your previous employers is the best job search strategy a job seeker can adopt. Here are three examples of comparing "AI-slop" against high-impact, human-written value: · AI-Slop: Managed a customer service team and ensured high levels of customer satisfaction through effective leadership. · Human Value-Add: Managed a 45-agent inbound call centre operation averaging over 50,000 calls per month. In my first 6 months, I reduced average handle time by 12% and increased first-call resolution from 78% to 89%. · AI-Slop: Improved internal workflow and organizational efficiency by collaborating with cross-functional departments. · Human Value-Add: Eliminated redundancies in procurement workflows to save $240,000 annually and accelerated by 15% project turnaround. · AI-Slop: Experienced in growing sales and market share through strategic outreach and maintaining strong relationships with stakeholders. · Human Value-Add: Generated $1.2M in new recurring revenue through targeted B2B acquisition, which expanded regional market share by 8% in 2025. In a job market flooded with AI-slop, a well-written, results-oriented resume is a revolutionary act. Refusing to use AI lazily gives you a competitive advantage. While the job seekers you're competing against are prompting AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Teal, trying to sound 'professional,' your job search strategy should be identifying an employer's specific pain points and proving, quantitatively based on past performance, how you have the skills and experience to address them. Next time you're angry at the job market, ask yourself how much AI-slop you're contributing to employers' inboxes. Recruiters and hiring managers aren't searching for someone who can "beat the machine." They're looking for the person who'd be a value-add to their profitability, who's serious about their career and is willing to put in the effort that a machine can't replicate. Every time you copy-paste an AI-generated response, you're basically saying, "I don't care enough about this role to write three original sentences." If you don't care, then don't expect employers to care about hiring you.