Saturday, August 22, 2026
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.
Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed Now Look Beyond the Promises
Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed
Now Look Beyond the Promises
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Mr. X: The Nominations Are Closed - Now Look Beyond the Promises
The nominations are closed.
The names are on the ballot, the campaigns are underway, and now the most important part of the municipal election begins: the voters have to do their homework.
Over the coming weeks, residents are going to hear a lot of promises. Some will sound exciting. Some will make great headlines. Some will fit nicely on a campaign sign or into a 30-second social-media video. But I would encourage every voter to ask one additional question whenever a candidate makes a promise:
How are you actually going to do it? Ideas matter. But the plan behind the idea matters even more. If somebody running for municipal office tells you they are going to "eliminate homelessness," for example, ask them how. Homelessness is an extraordinarily complicated issue involving housing supply and affordability, mental health, addiction, income, health care, supportive housing, policing, social services and responsibilities divided among municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments. No municipal politician can simply wave a wand and eliminate it.
A serious candidate should understand the jurisdiction they are seeking to govern, what powers that municipality actually possesses, what resources are available and what partnerships would be required to produce measurable improvement. That doesn't mean we accept homelessness. Quite the opposite. It means we need candidates with realistic strategies instead of unrealistic slogans. Now consider another candidate who says municipal taxes are too high and proposes a comprehensive review of municipal services to determine what taxpayers are funding, which services are mandated, which are discretionary, where duplication exists and whether programs are producing measurable value.
Whether you ultimately agree with that candidate or not, at least there is a mechanism attached to the promise.
That's what voters should be looking for: the mechanism.
Don't just ask candidates what they want to accomplish.
Ask them how they intend to accomplish it, how much it will cost, where the money will come from and how they will measure whether it worked.
Municipal elections can sometimes become competitions over who can grab the "sexiest" issue.
Candidates see something dominating the television news or social media and suddenly everybody has a position on it.
But municipal government isn't supposed to be a collection of trending topics.
Municipal government is roads.
It's bridges, water, sewer, waste collection, parks, recreation, fire protection, policing, planning, transit, infrastructure and the countless other services residents depend upon every single day.
And there is another responsibility that receives far too little attention during election campaigns: constituent service.
I want councillors who will roll up their sleeves.
I want them returning telephone calls and answering emails. I want them meeting residents. I want them walking neighbourhoods. I want them understanding the problems facing local businesses, seniors, young families and people struggling to make ends meet.
I want them to know why a particular intersection isn't working, why residents are frustrated about a development application, why a park needs attention and why somebody has been trying unsuccessfully for three weeks to get an answer from municipal government.
You cannot properly represent a community that you don't know.
And you don't get to know a community by sitting behind a desk or spending four years arguing politics on social media.
You learn it by being there.
Municipal government is also different from the provincial and federal levels. Councillors aren't elected to be miniature premiers or prime ministers.
Their responsibility is much closer to home.
When they take their seat at that council rail, their job is to represent the people who put them there and exercise responsible stewardship over the public's money.
That's why I encourage residents during this election to look beyond political labels as well.
I've met excellent municipal candidates from the right, the left and the centre. I've also met poor candidates from every part of the political spectrum.
The question shouldn't simply be which political team somebody identifies with.
Ask instead:
Can this person make good decisions for my community?
Do they understand a municipal budget? Do they understand what services the municipality is legally required to provide? Do they understand infrastructure?
Do they understand development and growth?
Can they distinguish between something that sounds good and something taxpayers can actually afford? And perhaps most importantly, will they listen?
Because after all the signs come down and all the campaign literature goes into the recycling bin, somebody still has to govern.
The potholes will still need fixing. The roads will still need rebuilding. The fire trucks will still need replacing. The water will still have to flow. The garbage will still have to be collected.
And residents will still expect somebody at municipal hall to answer the telephone when they have a problem. So over the next several weeks, don't simply count the promises.
Examine the plans behind them.
Ask every candidate what they want to accomplish - and then ask them how they're going to accomplish it. Look for candidates who understand the limits of municipal government but aren't afraid to challenge the way it operates. Look for people prepared to review spending, establish priorities and make difficult decisions.
Look for candidates who understand that every dollar government spends first came from somebody who earned it. And look for people who are willing to roll up their sleeves, get to know their communities and become the strongest possible voice for the residents they represent. The nominations are closed.
Now it's time for the voters to conduct the job interviews.
It Is Official
It Is Official
By Joe Ingino
Well, it is official. The 2026 candidate registration deadline has come and gone.
The names registered are your 2026 candidates and choices.
Now let’s look at the very important word, “choice.” As perception leads us to all kinds of interesting interpretations.
Choice — Core Meanings of Choice (As a Noun)
The act of picking: Making a decision between different paths or items.
An option: A specific thing available to be picked.
Freedom: The right or power to decide for yourself.
Interesting definitions...
Now let’s look at the roster of candidates across the region. Do we really have a choice? Or is our choice dictated by the limited information candidates put out in such a short time?
Or are we to believe that our choice, as per the definition — the right or power to decide for yourself — will be determined by the number of signs we see on roadways in the upcoming month? How are we going to choose?
If history has taught us anything, it is that most citizens, when they go to the polls, tend to vote based on name recognition. This, in part, is why we have such a low number of new candidates winning elections. Part of the problem is the electoral process itself. There are too many names to choose from, and it becomes overwhelming. When people become confused, they often turn to names they recognize — names that at times may not be worthy of representing you.
Names that, in many cases, have not worked in your best interest. For example: taxation.
Why do taxes continue to increase with no real accountability other than excuses as to why they need to go up? Looking at Oshawa, for example, we have three elected council members running for the open mayor’s position.
Are Tito-Dante, Derek Giberson, and Jim Lee worthy of the position? The answer is obvious... NO. I say this with such certainty because they all allowed property taxes to increase every year they sat in office. Has the quality of life improved for the citizens of the City? NO. Have they done anything to fix the problems associated with the poor condition of the city core?
NO. Then, if there are so many NO’s, should your consideration be based on the same record of their efforts? NO, NO, NO to any one of the above, as they have failed us on the most important core values we cherish. Then, if they are not the choice... who is?
Well, let’s look at what is left. We have six candidates to choose from. Two of them are too young to run for the mayor’s office. Two should not be running because they don’t even return phone calls. And two of them have potential but need a lot of work. Running for mayor is not just another job. It is not like running a business. The mayor’s position is much like a giant Rubik’s cube that is constantly changing. The pieces never match, and the pressure from staff, fellow council members, and the general public requires a special set of skills. Look at the current mayor.He does not return calls, he has given up on working with the community, and he pretty much leaves the city to survive on the crumbs we receive from the feds and the Province. That is not leadership. I have always questioned how our current mayor and the three councillors who now sit as mayoral candidates can sleep at night knowing people are living on the streets and some are passing away.
No moral integrity, in my opinion. Now they want a pay raise to do more of nothing. Not on my watch. Remember to ask the questions.
New candidates should, at the very least, know the basics. Do not fall for empty promises or words like resilience, working together, cooperation, and the likes. When you talk to a candidate, ask the HOW’s.
How are you going to freeze my taxes, if not lowering them? If they start with, “Well, we can’t lower them,” say NO to them. If they go on a speech about re-evaluating budgets and cutting expenditures, say NO to them. Now you have the choice to say NO.
Don’t vote for an incumbent, then wait to have your taxes go up. The candidate you select should give you solid plans for action. They should be telling you that under their administration, a tax freeze will be the first thing to pass. That all department heads will have to adjust to zero budget increases. That all expenses will be frozen until fully audited. That all outstanding legal matters, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, will be settled and all outstanding contracts reviewed.
A candidate should not promise — but deliver — a course of action that benefits you.
The candidate you should consider should bring to the table real solutions to problems that have been lingering for decades. Now is the time to vote for real leaders. Keep reading your community newspaper, as soon we will be releasing a list of our endorsed candidates. Now is the time to make your voice heard.
The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers
Casino Revenue Is an Advantage Not a Guarantee
Casino Revenue Is an Advantage
Not a Guarantee
By John Meloche
Pickering has something many municipalities would love to have: a significant source of revenue that does not come directly from property taxes.
During the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s 2025–2026 fiscal year, Pickering received more than $16.3 million in gaming revenue from hosting Pickering Casino Resort. Since the casino opened in July 2021, nearly $76 million had flowed to the City by May 2026. That is an extraordinary financial advantage.
The question is what we do with it. Casino revenue has already helped fund recreation facilities, parks, municipal infrastructure, library improvements, fire services and other capital projects. These are legitimate investments, and Pickering should absolutely benefit from having the casino in our community.
But there is an important difference between benefiting from extraordinary revenue and becoming dependent on it.
Pickering’s long-term capital forecast anticipates drawing significantly on casino reserves in the years ahead. Approximately $96.7 million in casino-reserve-supported capital financing is currently forecast between 2027 and 2035.
That deserves our attention. The reason is simple: we control how casino revenue is spent, but we do not control how much casino revenue arrives
We are seeing a timely example right now. Workers at Pickering Casino Resort and Casino Ajax began strike action on July 31. The Pickering casino remains open, but some services and operations have been disrupted.
Why should taxpayers care?
Because Pickering does not receive a guaranteed annual cheque. OLG host-municipality payments are calculated using a formula based on gaming revenue generated at the casino.
That means circumstances outside City Hall can affect what we receive.
Today it may be a labour dispute. Tomorrow it could be an economic downturn, growing competition, changing consumer habits, further expansion of online gambling and sports betting, regulatory changes, or business decisions made by the casino operator.
None of those things are under municipal control.
That is why I believe extraordinary revenues should be used primarily to make a municipality financially stronger.
If a business suddenly received a substantial new revenue stream that could not be guaranteed indefinitely, the prudent response would not be to immediately build permanent spending around it.
You would strengthen the balance sheet.
Municipal government should think similarly.
Use windfall revenue to repair aging infrastructure before it becomes an emergency. Reduce expensive debt. Strengthen reserves. Make one-time capital investments that provide lasting public value. Fund projects that reduce future operating costs. Wherever possible, use those dollars to prevent future costs from landing on the property-tax bill.
What we should be cautious about is creating permanent obligations that eventually have to be transferred to taxpayers if the extraordinary revenue declines.
Because once spending becomes permanent, the bill does not disappear when the revenue does. Someone still has to pay it.
This does not mean Pickering should stop investing. Quite the opposite.
Casino revenue represents an opportunity to leave the city substantially stronger than it would otherwise have been.
Ten or fifteen years from now, residents should be able to look around Pickering and clearly see what this extraordinary period of revenue accomplished: infrastructure renewed, debt reduced, reserves strengthened, facilities properly maintained and future tax increases avoided. We should also continue pursuing other responsible non-property-tax revenues — grants, sponsorships, naming rights, film revenues, tourism opportunities and better use of municipal assets. The goal should always be the same.
Alternative revenue should reduce taxpayer vulnerability, not simply give government permission to spend more. Pickering Casino Resort has given our city a tremendous financial advantage. Let’s make sure we use that advantage to build resilience for the future.
Casino revenue is an opportunity.
We should never allow it to become an entitlement.
Dignity Must Be Built In: Why Micro Homes Need Running Water and Washrooms
Dignity Must Be Built In:
Why Micro Homes Need Running Water
and Washrooms
By Margaret Eskins
Executive Director DARS
Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support
At Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support (DARS), we strongly support innovative housing solutions that help people move out of homelessness and into safe, stable accommodation. Micro homes can be part of that solution but only when they provide more than a place to sleep.
Recently, some communities have endorsed a sleep-cabin model in which each unit has electricity, heating and air conditioning, while residents must leave their cabins and walk to a separate communal washroom. Although this model may be less expensive to construct, DARS believes that permanent or transitional micro homes should include running water and a private washroom whenever reasonably possible.
Housing should restore dignity, privacy and independence. It should not simply move people from sleeping outside into a structure that still requires them to leave their living space to meet their most basic needs.
A Washroom Is a Basic Necessity
Most people would not consider a house complete without a toilet, sink and access to running water. People transitioning out of homelessness should not be expected to accept a lower standard simply because they have fewer housing options. Imagine having to put on a coat and boots in the middle of a winter night to use the washroom. Imagine making that walk while sick, elderly, pregnant, living with a disability or managing medication that causes frequent urination. In Ontario, rain, snow, ice and extreme cold would the trip uncomfortable, undignified and possibly dangerous.
A private washroom also allows residents to attend to personal hygiene, menstruation, medical needs and continence issues without having to explain themselves or enter a shared space.
Privacy Supports Stability
People experiencing homelessness often spend months or years without meaningful privacy. Shelters, encampments and public spaces rarely allow individuals to control who enters their environment or who witnesses their most personal moments. When people are finally housed, privacy becomes an important part of rebuilding safety and stability. Having a private washroom provides more than convenience. It gives residents control over their daily routines and creates a sense that their home truly belongs to them.
A person should not have to carry toiletries across a property, wait in line or encounter other residents every time they need to use the washroom. These arrangements may also be particularly difficult for survivors of violence or trauma, people experiencing anxiety and those who feel unsafe in shared facilities.
Accessibility Must Be Considered From the Beginning
A central washroom may appear practical on a site plan, but it can create significant barriers for people with mobility challenges. Snow, ice, uneven ground, poor lighting and distance can make the route unsafe or inaccessible.
Even residents who arrive without mobility limitations may experience illness, injury or changes in their health. Housing should be designed to support people through those changes and not become unusable when circumstances change.
Accessible design is most effective when it is built into a project from the beginning. Retrofitting plumbing and washrooms later is often more difficult and expensive.
Public Health and Cleanliness Matter
Running water allows residents to wash their hands, clean their living space, prepare food safely and maintain personal hygiene. These everyday activities help prevent illness and support healthier living environments.
Communal washrooms can be maintained safely, but they require frequent cleaning, monitoring, repairs and a reliable supply of hygiene products. When several people depend on one facility, a plumbing failure, frozen pipe or maintenance issue can affect the entire community.
Individual washrooms reduce crowding and limit the number of people relying on a single facility. They also give residents greater responsibility for and control over the cleanliness of their own space.
Communal Facilities Can Create Avoidable Conflict
Shared washrooms may lead to lineups, disagreements about cleanliness, concerns about personal belongings and conflict over how long someone uses the facility. Staff may then be required to manage issues that could have been prevented through better design.
Residents should be supported in developing independence and not placed in an environment where they must rely on staff to unlock, monitor or maintain access to basic sanitation.
If a communal washroom closes temporarily, residents still need somewhere to go. A housing community should not be left without essential facilities because one shared building is unavailable.
Lower Construction Costs Can Create Higher Operating Costs
It is understandable that communities want to create housing quickly and stretch limited funding as far as possible. However, removing plumbing from individual units does not eliminate the cost of sanitation. It shifts that cost into a shared building and may add expenses related to cleaning, staffing, security, maintenance, snow removal and accessibility.
Decisions should be based on the full cost of operating the community not just the initial price of constructing each cabin. Building units properly at the beginning may cost more, but it can produce safer, more durable housing and reduce the need for expensive renovations later.
Emergency Shelter Should Not Become the Permanent Standard
DARS recognizes that heated and air-conditioned sleep cabins can provide immediate protection from extreme weather. In a genuine emergency, a basic cabin may be safer than a tent or an encampment. However, an emergency response should not quietly become a permanent housing standard.
If sleep cabins are introduced as a temporary measure, there should be a clear plan, timeline and funding pathway to upgrade them or help residents move into complete housing. Temporary solutions must remain temporary.
People Deserve Homes, Not Just Beds
Micro homes can be small without sacrificing dignity. Thoughtful design can include a compact washroom, a sink, running water, proper ventilation and safe wastewater connections while still keeping the overall footprint modest. The goal should not be to construct the smallest or least expensive structure a person can survive in. The goal should be to create a home that supports health, dignity, independence and a successful transition out of homelessness.
At DARS, we believe people experiencing homelessness deserve the same basic considerations that the rest of us expect in our own homes. Electricity, heating and air conditioning are important but so are running water, sanitation and privacy.
A door that locks provides safety. A bed provides rest. But a private washroom and running water help turn a cabin into a home.
If we are serious about ending homelessness, dignity cannot be treated as an optional upgrade. It must be built in from the beginning. 
Saturday, August 15, 2026
Turn your home equity into flexibility in retirement
The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before
The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca
If you grew up anywhere around Oshawa, the conversation about machines taking people's jobs has a familiar sound to it. Long before anybody was asking ChatGPT to write an email, people here were working beside machines that could weld, paint, move parts and do jobs once done by hand.
By the mid-1980s, GM's Oshawa operations were becoming increasingly automated, and people worried about what that meant for the workers. They had good reason to. A machine could make the same weld over and over without getting tired. It could handle repetitive jobs and work around heat, fumes and conditions people were happy to avoid. But if the machine was doing the work, there was still the obvious question about the person who had been doing it before. That argument never really went away. What's changed is where the machines are showing up. Factory automation was easy to picture. You could see the robot on the plant floor moving steel or welding part of a car together.
AI doesn't look like that. It may be sitting inside the same computer you've used for years. Someone in sales can use it to prepare for a meeting. A manager can hand it a spreadsheet and start asking questions that might once have taken an afternoon to answer. Nobody hears machinery running in the background. The work just gets done faster. That makes this round of automation different, especially for people who spent years believing machines were mainly a threat to factory jobs. Statistics Canada has estimated that roughly 60 per cent of Canadian employees could be highly exposed to AI-related changes in their work. That doesn't mean 60 per cent of jobs disappear. In many cases the technology may change the job rather than eliminate it. Oshawa has seen that before. Robots didn't bring an end to auto workers. They changed a lot of what those workers did. Somebody still had to operate the equipment, maintain it, solve problems and make decisions the machine couldn't make.
When GM prepared the Oshawa plant for its 2021 restart, more than 1,200 new robots were installed. People and machines are still working in the same building. The office version of that relationship is only beginning. I've already seen it in my own work. A large part of compliance involves finding the right rule, checking the right document and making sure something hasn't been missed. There are days when the job feels less like solving a difficult problem and more like finding one sentence buried on page 47.
AI can be very good at getting me to page 47. That doesn't mean I hand it a regulation and accept whatever comes back. I've spent enough time working in compliance to know that the difference between what sounds right and what's actually been checked is more or less the whole job. If something matters, I want to know where the answer came from.
But if AI can get me to the right section in thirty seconds instead of twenty minutes, I'm going to use it. I suspect a lot of people will make the same calculation. The debate is often framed as humans versus machines, but workplaces are usually messier than that.
Someone gets a new tool, figures out what it does well, and pretty quickly stops wanting to do the old job the old way. Some jobs will change dramatically and some will disappear.
Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone. But that isn't the same as saying everyone whose work can be touched by AI is about to be replaced by it. People in Oshawa have heard versions of that prediction before. They heard it as more robots arrived on the assembly line, and they watched the work change around them. This time the machine may not be behind a safety fence on a factory floor. It may be sitting beside us at the desk
Up In The Air
Stay Grounded with a Blueberry Bush
Stay Grounded with a
Blueberry Bush
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
When the weight of the world feels too heavy, I find solace in going back to the basics. I look for something wholesome and dwell on it, or better, nurture it. In this instance, it was a roadside stand and a basket of blueberries that caught my attention. How wonderful to uncover the stories and possibilities of this little fruit, each one borne of an ovary of a single flower. Wholesome indeed.
Most people still know, one hopes, that blueberries were only wild food not so long ago. Indigenous peoples across North America gathered and preserved them. One traditional name, “star berry,” refers to the tiny five-pointed star at the blossom end of the fruit.
Just over a century ago, a New Jersey woman set blueberries on the course of a commodity food. Elizabeth Coleman White was the daughter of a cranberry farmer at Whitesbog in New Jersey's Pine Barrens. In 1910, she read a paper by Frederick Coville, a botanist investigating blueberry cultivation. Coville had discovered that blueberries required acidic soil, explaining why they flourished naturally in the Pine Barrens.
White hired local woodsmen to search the surrounding countryside for bushes producing high volumes of large and sweet berries. The finders were paid for promising plants, and some varieties eventually carried the names of the people who discovered them. The Rubel variety was named for Rube Leek, who found the original wild bush.
By 1916, a collaboration between White and Coville resulted in the first commercial crop of cultivated highbush blueberries.
Today, there are sophisticated blueberry-breeding programs around the world. Researchers are developing varieties that can tolerate heat, resist disease, survive shipping and, perhaps most importantly, withstand mechanical harvesting. Blueberries have traditionally required hand-picking because ripe fruit is easily damaged. Now breeders are trying to produce berries firm enough to be harvested by machines, while remaining attractive and delicious to the consumer.
Scientists are now using DNA markers to identify desirable traits. The best blueberries that Elizabeth White's workers selected by walking through the woods are now being selected with genetic information.
Blueberries provide fibre, vitamin C, vitamin K and manganese, along with anthocyanins – the plant compounds responsible for their deep blue-purple colour. These nutrients are what make the blueberry stand out as a good choice to support cardiovascular and metabolic health.
If you have a sunny patch of garden, it’s possible to grow your own bush. And breeders are making it easier to select the variety that suits your local conditions. Blueberries need acidic soil, along with good drainage and plenty of sunlight. An inexpensive soil-pH test from a garden centre can tell you whether your soil is suitable. If it isn't, a raised bed with properly prepared soil may be the easier route. With the right conditions, a blueberry bush can produce for decades.
Not everyone has a garden, of course. Frozen blueberries are an excellent alternative, with most of the nutritional value staying intact.
And there’s an additional benefit of having blueberries at hand. It’s a simple test for how well you are looking after your teeth. Eat some blueberries, then brush and floss your teeth. After swishing water in your mouth, if you spit out little bits of blueberry, it means there’s more work needed to clean between your teeth and around gums after meals. If you take the blueberry test regularly, you’ll keep your own teeth for a lifetime. Plus, you’ll get the benefit of general good health that comes when oral health is maintained.
This is the time of year for pre-ordering plants from nurseries for pick-up or shipping next Spring. I have put in my order.
14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your Next Interviewer That Show You Mean
14 Bare-Knuckle Questions to Ask Your
Next Interviewer That Show You Mean
Business
By Nick Kossovan
When asking your interviewer questions, the first rule is: don't ask pointless "what's in it for me” questions; focus on role-defining questions that show your primary goal is to contribute to the employer's success and to assess whether you align with the company and your prospective boss. While compensation, benefits, and perks matter, your priority should be establishing a mutual fit, not chasing money or paid time off. Most job seekers act like they're a suspect in an interrogation room defending their resume. This passive behaviour stems from misunderstanding the core nature of an interview. An interview isn't a test; it's a business meeting between two parties evaluating whether reaching a deal makes sense.
When your interviewer asks if you have questions, they're shifting the power dynamic to you. 95% of candidates squander this opportunity by following advice from self-proclaimed career coaches and HR-approved platitudes. They ask what a typical day looks like, why the interviewer enjoys working there, or about promotion timelines. Safe questions signal you're looking for a comfortable place to park yourself, offering no evidence that you're serious about driving business results. As a job seeker, aim to stand out. Eliciting candid, unscripted responses is an effective way to do so. Sharp hiring managers—I count myself among them—want pragmatists who understand that business runs on results, not feelings. Asking questions that demonstrate your grasp of operational realities sets you apart from candidates who lack the backbone to ask tough questions.
Here are 14 bare-knuckle questions to ask your next interviewer to show you're committed to contributing to the company.
Interrogating the Operational Reality
1. "Every department has a fire. What's the burning issue in this role that the job description glossed over?" Job descriptions often serve as sanitized PR handouts. Identifying what's truly broken before committing to a fix saves everyone time.
2. “Let’s skip the honeymoon phase; if I’m hired, what’s the single biggest headache I’ll face?”
Asking this signals you're not expecting a cakewalk and want a clear view of the operational realities.
3. "What did the last person in this role do or fail to do that reshaped your expectations for this position?"
This question cuts through ambiguous job descriptions and pinpoints the specific mistakes you're expected to avoid.
4. "Let's assume we're sitting here a year from now and I've knocked it out of the park. What tangible business problem did I solve?" Pressing your interviewer to define measurable success helps you assess whether it's achievable given your skills and experience.
5. "What's the biggest political roadblock in this department that frequently delays projects?"
Denying that every office has politics is amateurish. Asking this question shows you can and, more importantly, are willing to navigate organizational landmines.
Evaluating the Internal Culture
6. "Every company touts its great culture, yet no culture is perfect. What's the most frustrating cultural norm a new hire must adapt to?" Sidestepping standard recruiting rhetoric reveals the unwritten rules and internal friction you'll encounter.
7. "If I asked your main competitor [better yet, name the employer's main competitor] about your company's biggest operational weakness, what would they say?"
Asking this signals that you care about market share and competitive threats, setting you apart from candidates who focus solely on daily task management.
8. "When projects fail here, as they do everywhere, how does leadership manage the fallout?"
Observing your interviewer's reaction to this question reveals whether the executive team prioritizes accountability or self-preservation.
9. "When people leave this department, what's the most common reason they leave?"
Probing turnover patterns brings underlying retention problems to light, so you don't unknowingly walk into a toxic department.
10. "When was the last time this company took a hit to the bottom line to uphold its stated values?" Anyone can print a mission statement. This question prompts your interviewer to demonstrate that the company stands by its principles under financial pressure.
Reading Your Interviewer's Mind & Closing
11. "You've been here for a while. What was the biggest disillusionment you encountered during your first six months, and why did you stay?" Lowering your interviewer's guard encourages them to share an honest, personal assessment of the firm.
12. "What do I need to do in this role to make your job easier?"
Asking this shows you understand that your primary role as a hire is to relieve your manager of pressure.
13. "How long do you realistically expect it to take for a new hire in this position to generate more value than they cost?" Asking tough business questions like this positions you not as an expense but as a revenue generator or protector.
14. "If I accept this role, what's the one mistake I could make in my first 90 days that would be hardest to recover from?"
Showing you anticipate make-or-break pitfalls proves you possess foresight and respect probation for the trial by fire that it is. These 14 questions are high-risk, high-reward. An insecure would-be boss will find them intimidating; thus, you dodge a bad-boss bullet, which is a good thing. However, a true leader, someone worth working for, will sit back, smile, and recognize (read: respect) that the person in front of them is operating from a position of strength
Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?
Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin
Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
We Built the Housing. Where Do We Put the Cars?
More housing is needed. But when we put more people into smaller spaces, the cars, school traffic, and charging problems do not simply disappear.
Come home tonight and look down your street.
Not at the houses. Look at the cars.
Maybe there are two in a driveway, another at the curb, and one squeezed in front of a neighbour's house. Perhaps visitor parking is full.
Now think about that street five or ten years ago.
Something has changed.
Cities across Canada and the United States need housing. Apartments are going higher. Townhouses are being built closer together. More people are living on the same amount of land.
We need those homes.
But families have changed too.
Housing costs mean adult children may stay home longer. Several generations can live together. Working adults may share a rental because living alone costs too much.
Four adults can easily mean three or four cars.
Give that household one parking space, and the other cars do not vanish.
They go somewhere.
Usually, that means the street.
Now picture 3:15 outside a school.
Parents arrive for pickup. Cars line the curb. Someone stops near a roundabout. Another driver tries to turn around on a dead end street. A homeowner is trying to reach the driveway.
Then add a delivery truck, garbage truck, snowplow, or emergency vehicle.
Suddenly a street that worked perfectly well for years feels completely different.
People get frustrated. Neighbours blame neighbours. Bylaw gets called.
But maybe we are blaming the wrong people.
Planners face a real problem. Governments want more housing, land is expensive, and parking takes space and money.
Ontario has removed minimum parking requirements near major transit stations as part of its effort to lower housing costs. The province has said an underground parking space in a new development can cost as much as $100,000.
That deserves to be part of this conversation.
Some rental developments also encourage transit use, including programs that can make taking the bus or train more attractive.
Good idea, when it works.
But not everybody works nine to five. Some people work nights, carry tools, or travel between communities.
A transit option only replaces a car if it can take someone where they need to go, when they need to get there. Then comes another question. Electric vehicles.
Natural Resources Canada recognizes that people living in apartments and other multi unit buildings can face problems getting access to home charging. The federal government has supported work aimed at improving charging for buildings without individual driveways or garages. So why are we not planning for that before construction?
Without proper charging, residents are left searching for practical places to plug in. That can lead to cords, questions about electricity, and arguments over who can charge where.
Some high density developments work very well. Put housing near good transit, stores, schools, and jobs, and fewer cars may be needed.
The problem is not density.
The problem is pretending every neighbourhood works the same way.
A downtown apartment beside frequent transit is different from a townhouse development where most residents drive to work.
Some places need more parking. Others need better transit, visitor spaces, or EV chargers.
There is no magic number.
But there had better be a plan.
A parking ticket cannot fix a planning decision made five years earlier. Neither can two neighbours arguing beside a blocked driveway.
So tonight, look down your street.
Count the cars. Look at the school corner. Look at the roundabout. Look at the driveways.
If you're already thinking, “I know exactly what he's talking about,” then this problem has already reached your neighbourhood. Build the apartments. Build the townhouses. Build the homes people need. Just remember something basic.
When we build housing for more people, we also have to build a community that can handle them.
Housing does not end at the front door.
Neither does good planning.
How do you rob a thief?
How do you rob a thief?
By Tom Reimer
Metalex Security
Question: How do you rob a thief? wouldn’t that be nice if we could turn the tables, give those greedy, good for nothing, self entitled, thieving buggers a taste of the pain that is being inflicted on thousands of victims every year. I bet they would be furious, “how dare someone take my precious possessions that I have gained through all of my thieving ways” yah I’m talking to you, Sly and all your despicable brothers in arms.
It all comes down to time, 5 seconds is all it takes to kick in a door, break or, crawl through a window that is unlatched or even worse left wide open, “the window of opportunity” in our last episode we provided some simple and extremely effective means to “FORTIFY” the most popular point of entry, the front entrance, I’m confident that we have eliminated the threat and Sly has used up at least a couple of minutes, he knows that he created some noise and attention! But still determined, So, what’s next?
Well, let’s at least get out of the field of vision, the side of the house has in most cases another door, this is where the builder has provided a laundry room and quite often tucked in behind the garage. If this is not fortified it may fall victim to a heavy kick or two so let’s get out that toolbox and use the same defence mode for this door, a couple of “Guardian Flip Latches” extra long screws for the hinges and an extra long strike plate and screws on the lock side!
Now, that window beside the door, great for providing natural light in a dark corner of the house and also easy to crawl through, after making more noise on the second door with no success, Sly is still motivated and pumped up on adrenaline, two more minutes consumed but still determined to get what he wants, he grabs the chair or garbage can that’s conveniently left at his disposal and he’s in, well at least we have taken 4 of the average 8 to 10 minutes that a burglary takes according to “Stats Can” Its interesting to me when I think of home security I think of engineering standards, you need to test any product by breaking it first, putting it through extensive pressure, bending it until it breaks simply to find out the “breaking point” building it up to the point of resistance, then, providing a strength multiplier and that is your “fail safe” limit. Exactly the same principle applies to home security!
If you could continue to provide sufficient resistance to all points of entry you will come to a point that Sly will buzz off! in this case we took away 4 minutes of the precious 8 needed and you still suffered a loss, 4 minutes of hell! you have been violated!
Now in some cases it may not be your front door that is the first point of entry, if you back on to a school yard or a wooded area then, Patio doors, family room windows and the basement may be the preferred point of entry. On my next episode to the world of resisting Sly and his cohorts, we will go back to that laundry room window, look at “Target Hardening” that point of entry and then move on the forest and school yard dwellers. The answer to the question, how do you rob a thief? Simple, you take away their time!
Not on my watch, Sly. stay tuned!
Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right - They're About Getting It Right
Municipal Elections Aren't About Left or Right -
They're About Getting It Right
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
As we move deeper into a municipal election, I think we need to remind ourselves of something that is becoming increasingly lost in today's political environment:
Municipal government should be about the good of the community - not party politics.
I have met candidates in this election who would probably describe themselves as being on the right. I have met candidates from the left. I have met centrists. And I have met others who simply don't fit comfortably into any political box.
In my view, some of the strongest candidates are the ones who don't start the conversation by asking whether an idea is conservative, liberal, left-wing or right-wing.
They ask a much simpler question: Is it good for our community? That is the kind of thinking municipal government desperately needs. Fiscal Responsibility Is Not a Political Ideology
There are people across the political spectrum who possess an excellent sense of fiscal responsibility. You don't need a Conservative membership card to understand a balance sheet.
You don't need a Liberal membership card to understand infrastructure. And you don't need an NDP membership card to care about social programs. In fact, perhaps municipal government works best when councillors leave their party cards at the door. Every person elected to council has a responsibility to treat taxpayers' money prudently. That isn't right-wing. It isn't left-wing. It's responsible government. But fiscal responsibility also doesn't mean cutting everything in sight. Quite the opposite. The purpose of controlling spending is to ensure that we have the financial capacity to properly fund the things municipal government is actually responsible for delivering.
Fiscal Responsibility and Social Responsibility Can Coexist
This is where I think our political conversation has gone badly off course. Some people have been conditioned to believe that fiscal responsibility and social responsibility are competing philosophies. They aren't. A municipality can be fiscally disciplined while also caring deeply about its residents. We need good roads. We need bridges and sidewalks. We need safe drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. We need fire protection and emergency services. We need parks, recreation and community infrastructure. And municipalities have important responsibilities connected to housing, transit and social services, particularly at the regional level. These things cost money. A lot of money. And if municipal governments continually expand into discretionary programs and activities while their core infrastructure deteriorates, eventually something has to give. Usually, it is the taxpayer. Review What Government Is Actually Doing That is why I continue to advocate for a comprehensive services and mandate review. Put everything municipal government does on the table. Ask what is legislatively required. Ask what is essential to the operation and safety of the community. Ask what delivers measurable value to residents. And then have the courage to ask another question:
What are we spending money on that municipal government does not need to be doing?
That doesn't automatically mean eliminating every discretionary service. Some discretionary programs provide tremendous community value. But every dollar should have to compete for priority. If a program is consuming taxpayer dollars while roads, bridges, fire services, housing responsibilities or other essential infrastructure are underfunded, council should be prepared to reconsider that spending. And here is the part people sometimes miss:
Saving money in one area can allow us to spend more where people genuinely need it.
A services review isn't necessarily about spending less. It is about spending better.
If we eliminate programs that no longer make sense and redirect those dollars into infrastructure, housing, emergency services, recreation or social programs where municipalities have genuine responsibilities, we can simultaneously become more fiscally responsible and more socially responsible.
The Best Candidates Challenge Their Own Side Media and social media have increasingly conditioned people to line up on one side or the other. Left versus right. Conservative versus progressive. Us versus them. Municipal government cannot afford that mentality.
The candidates who have impressed me most during this election are those prepared to challenge the conventional thinking of whichever political camp they may personally come from.
A fiscally conservative candidate should still be able to say: "This social program is necessary, it is working, and we should properly fund it."
A socially progressive candidate should be equally capable of saying: "This program isn't working, it isn't a municipal priority, and taxpayers shouldn't continue paying for it."
That isn't abandoning your principles. That is leadership. Fix the Roads and Strengthen the Social Fabric There should be nothing contradictory about wanting excellent infrastructure and strong social infrastructure. There should be nothing contradictory about demanding value for taxpayers while protecting vulnerable residents. And there should be nothing contradictory about reducing unnecessary spending while increasing investment in services that actually matter. That is what mature municipal government looks like. The next generation of municipal leaders should not be elected because they perfectly represent the political left or political right. They should be elected because they understand budgets, infrastructure, community needs and the responsibility that comes with spending someone else's money.
They should understand that every dollar wasted on yesterday's political pet project is a dollar that cannot repair tomorrow's bridge, support a housing initiative, improve a park, replace aging infrastructure or strengthen an essential service. Leave the Party Cards at the Door
Municipal councils don't need ideological warriors. They need problem solvers. They need people willing to examine every program, every service and every expenditure without first asking which political tribe will applaud the decision. Fiscal responsibility without social responsibility can lose sight of the people government exists to serve. Social responsibility without fiscal responsibility eventually becomes financially unsustainable. Good municipal government requires both. So as voters evaluate candidates in this election, perhaps the question shouldn't be: Is this candidate left-wing or right-wing? Perhaps the better questions are: Can they manage our money? Do they understand what municipal government is responsible for?
Will they protect our infrastructure? Will they care for the people who genuinely need municipal services? And will they have the courage to stop spending money on things that no longer make sense? Those are not left-wing principles. They are not right-wing principles. They are community principles. And municipal elections should ultimately be about one thing:
Not left. Not right. Moving our community forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)