Hard Lessons

Hard Lessons By Wayne and Tamara I know this is all my fault. I know I had the right to say no, but I didn’t because everyone deserves a chance. The thing that hurts most is he knew the complications he was bringing into my life. My parents believe in arranged marriage, and they disapproved of this man. But I felt terrible thinking he knew I was intentionally not returning his calls, when he called five or six times every night. Gradually I gave in. During one of our conversations he told me what I now doubt really happened. His story was he loved a girl since high school, but she cheated on him. It didn’t end there. He kept stressing the disappointments that came his way, his hard childhood, and the betrayal that always followed him. I treated him with care, and he stressed that I could trust him no matter what. As things progressed he started nagging me to sleep with him, and that was my biggest mistake. I became emotionally sealed to him, and whenever he made the suggestion to meet for sex, I no longer fought it. Everything was good until I asked him what he would do if his parents decided to arrange his marriage. I was shocked when he told me that he wouldn’t fight it. Prior to this he told me he goes by his own rule. He even asked me to continue being with him until his parents arranged his marriage. One day I saw his car at the hotel we went to. I peeked through the keyhole and saw him and a girl naked. I can’t get that image out of my mind. When I confronted him, he treated me worse than a dog. I called his mother. His mother’s reaction still has me baffled. She was totally cold, like she just didn’t give a damn what happened to me, or what he might do to another girl. I want him to pay, but I have resolved to leave him and his mother in the hands of God. Throughout high school I fought peer pressure only for this to happen. I have decided not to tell my parents, and I have reached out to a few friends. I am undecided as to whether I should fulfill the promise I made about helping out with his study materials. I talked to a religious friend, and his opinion is promises should be fulfilled. I always wanted to live life without regrets, but thanks to my stupidity, I can no longer do that. Eva Eva, this man used two stratagems against you. He portrayed himself as a victim to evoke pity, and he insinuated himself into your life. He is a predator who stalked you, knowing all along what he wanted. Don’t give him the study materials. That promise was elicited through lies, and despicable behavior should never be rewarded. Aristotle viewed anger as a legitimate reaction to injustice. He felt anger protects us from making excuses for wrongdoing. You have every reason to be angry with this man, but don’t turn that anger inward. You were tricked. That happens to people at different stages of life, and they must be able to forgive themselves and move on. We cannot go through life attributing the best of intentions to others, and we cannot go through life attributing the worst of intentions to others. We must respond to others in a way appropriate to who they are. When we encounter predators, the wisest course is eliminating all contact. The wise thing now is to continue with your plans as they were before you encountered this man. You are a young woman with your life in front of you. It is easy, when we are young, to think some event has ruined our life. But life has many ups and downs, and it is in mastering the ups and downs that we master life. Wayne & Tamara

LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT

Leading the Life You Want Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones There’s something quietly heartbreaking about waiting too long to start living the life you might have had all along. An 83-year-old reader wrote to me recently. For decades, this person lived with social exclusion, low self-esteem, and fear. Then, just last year, they did something about it. They signed up for modern line dancing at a local community centre. I don’t know if it was a decision taken after a lot of soul searching, or if it was a whim, something more frivolous. But the same result, either way. Everything changed. Some things were evident right away. Others came over time, and they were physical, mental, emotional, and social. Enough for the reader to report, with a sense of regret, “It makes me want to start life over again… and do things differently. Better. With more enjoyment.” That last line lingers. It invites the question. Why do people wait? Not everyone does. Hopefully not long-time Gifford-Jones readers. But my suspicion is that a lot of people do. They wait until retirement to travel. They wait until illness to value health. They wait until loneliness becomes noticeably painful before reaching out. They wait for permission to be a little bit different than everyone has come to expect. Well, guess what? That permission is not coming. Years ago, I heard a story about a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. He asked an older, wiser fellow for advice. The answer was stark. “Go to the beach. Sit there. Look at the ocean. And don’t come back until you know.” The suggestion to go away and think deeply about it sounds absurd in today’s lightening-paced, hyperconnected world. But it’s not that hard to do, in fact. Just put the phone down and shut away any other distractions. Schedule time for focused thinking in blocks of two or three hours. Set up a spot for thinking – someplace not too comfortable, but attractive. Then go there and do your thinking – for as many sessions as it takes. You’ll figure something out soon enough. And then you have to go for it. We don’t give ourselves the time or the discomfort needed to think clearly about what we want. We fill every quiet moment with noise and distraction. And so the years pass, not in crisis, but in drift. Research in psychology has long shown that novelty and social connection are powerful medicines. Trying something new. Even something as unassuming as line dancing can stimulate the brain, improve balance and cardiovascular health, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s not just about the activity. It’s about stepping outside the box quietly built around ourselves. At 83, you can still change your life. At 63, you can still change your life. At 23, you can still change your life. The difference is how much time you have left to enjoy it. But if you are at the older end of the spread, you know it’s not all about duration. Quality of experience, even if flirting, can last a lifetime, even retroactively. So here’s the drill. Take a step. A small one is enough. Sign up for something. Call someone. Go somewhere. And if you truly don’t know what you want? Find your own “beach.” Sit quietly. Think deeply. And don’t get up until you know. I did just this upon the passing of my father several months ago. And now I’m writing this column. It’s an intensely high-quality weekly experience that I hope will last for a long time.

Dead and Gone… When No One Talked About It

Dead and Gone… When No One Talked About It By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a moment that can feel unexpectedly still. It happens after the questions begin. Not the practical ones. The quieter one. “Do we know what they would have wanted?” And no one answers right away. If I were gone, this is the moment I would worry about most for my family. Not because something went wrong. But because nothing was ever clearly said. I understand how that happens. The conversation almost starts. Then stops. Or gets softened. Or pushed to another time that never quite comes. So when the time arrives, families are left with something difficult to name. Not confusion. Not disagreement. Just… uncertainty. I have seen how quiet that can feel. People look at each other, hoping someone else knows more. Sometimes there are fragments. “I think he once mentioned cremation.” “She didn’t like big gatherings.” “He always said not to make a fuss.” But no one is certain. And that uncertainty can feel heavier than any single decision. If I were gone, I would want my family to know something simple. They are not expected to figure me out perfectly. There is no hidden answer they missed. There is only what they know about me. And what they feel is right. That is enough. It may not feel like it in the moment. But it is. I have seen families hesitate because they are afraid of getting it wrong. Afraid that one choice might not fully reflect the person they lost. But no single choice ever does. Not the service. Not the setting. Not the details. Those things matter. But they are not what carry the meaning. The meaning is already there. In the life that was lived. In the relationships that remain. If I could leave one quiet reassurance, it would be this: You are allowed to choose something that feels honest. Not something that feels expected. Not something that feels like a standard. Just something that feels true. There is another part of this that families sometimes struggle with. Different opinions. One person leans toward something traditional. Another feels it should be simple. Someone else isn’t sure at all. That can feel uncomfortable. But it is not unusual. Those differences come from the same place. Care. If I were gone, I would not want my family trying to interpret me in a way that pulls them apart. I would want them to stay close to each other. To listen. To move gently through it. Because no decision is more important than that. Sometimes, after everything is done, families look back and realize something. Even without a conversation, they knew more than they thought. Not in details. But in feeling. In values. In the small things that made someone who they were. That becomes the guide. Not perfect. But real. If I were gone, that is what I would want my family to trust. Not certainty. Just understanding. Next week, I will write about something families often feel very quickly, even when they are not ready for it: how timelines begin to take shape after a death, and why it can feel like decisions need to happen faster than expected.

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice By Dale Jodoin Columnist I am a columnist . I deal in facts, not noise. And here is a hard one to sit with. Most Canadians are not part of the fight you see every day. They are trying to survive. That is not a slogan. That is the reality showing up at kitchen tables across this country. Bills stacked. Phones buzzing with payment reminders. People doing the math in their heads before they even get out of bed. Something has shifted. You can feel it. This is not just about politics anymore. It is about pressure. The kind that builds slowly, then all at once. The kind that makes people pull back from everything except what keeps them afloat. Rent is high. Food costs more than it should. Gas prices jump without warning. One week it feels manageable. The next, it does not. A simple drive to work turns into a quiet stress you carry all day. People are not arguing about big ideas. They are asking simple questions. Can I afford groceries this week.Can I fill the tank. Can I keep the lights on. That is where the country is sitting right now. And while that is happening, something else is going on at the same time. There are voices with time, energy, and support pushing hard for attention, for change, for recognition. Some of that is fair. Some of it is needed. But it is loud. Constant. Hard to ignore. And then there is everyone else. The majority. They are not pushing anything. They are not organizing. They are not showing up to every debate. They are working. Raising families. Looking after aging parents. Trying to hold their lives together. They are not silent because they do not care. They are silent because they are overwhelmed. That difference matters. When you are stretched thin, you do not take on extra weight. You drop what you can. And for many Canadians, what gets dropped is the larger conversation. Not out of anger. Out of survival. But silence has consequences. When the majority steps back, the conversation does not stop. It shifts. The loudest voices fill the space. Policies get shaped. Narratives get built. Decisions move forward. And the people who stepped back look up one day and think, when did this happen That is where the unease starts. It is not loud anger. It is something quieter. A feeling that things are moving without you. That your daily struggle does not count the same way. That your problems are too ordinary to matter. Because being able to pay your bills is not seen as an urgent policy. But it is urgent to the people living it. Look at the systems people rely on. Education is under strain. Parents worry about what their kids are learning, but also about what is missing. Classrooms are stretched. Teachers are doing what they can, but it feels like something is slipping. Then there is health care. This is where the fear turns real. People are afraid to go to the hospital. Not because they doubt the people working there, but because they know what they might face. Long waits. No doctors available. Hours that turn into a full day sitting in a chair, watching the clock. And it is worse when it is not you. It is your father struggling to breathe. Your wife is in pain. Your child with a fever that will not break. You sit there, waiting, hoping nothing gets worse before someone can help. That stays with people. It changes how they think. It changes what they fear. So when another debate starts, when another issue demands attention, people look at their own lives and think, I cannot carry that too. That is how the quiet majority is formed. Not by choice. By pressure. At the same time, there is a growing push to tell people how they should think, what they should say, what they should support. Even when the intention is to help, the delivery can feel forced. That creates a quiet resistance. People do not argue. They do not protest. They step back further. They nod, stay polite, and return to their lives. But here is where it gets dangerous. When the majority steps away, even for good reason, it leaves the direction of the country in fewer hands. Not necessarily bad hands, but fewer. That is how imbalance grows. A small group, driven and active, can shape the path. A large group, tired and silent, can lose its influence without even noticing. And over time, that gap widens. The country starts to feel unfamiliar, not because it changed overnight, but because most people were not part of the change as it happened. That is the quiet shift happening right now. It is not loud. It is not dramatic. It is slow. And that is what makes it harder to see. Most Canadians are not extreme. They are not hateful. They are not looking for conflict. They want stability. They want fairness. They want a chance to live without constant pressure closing in on them. They wake up tired. They go to work. They come home and try to make things work again the next day. If you listen, really listen, you hear the same line everywhere. I do not have a problem with anyone. I just want to live my life. That should mean something. But right now, it is getting lost. Because systems do not respond to quiet. They respond to pressure. So the people who are struggling the most, the ones holding everything together, are also the ones least heard. That is not just unfair. It is risky. A country cannot stay balanced if its majority is too tired to take part. It cannot stay steady if the people carrying the weight feel like they are not part of the direction. Eventually, something gives. Not all at once. Not with a bang. But slowly. People disconnect. Trust fades. The sense of shared ground weakens. And when that happens, it becomes harder to bring things back together. This is not about picking sides. It is about recognizing what is happening before it goes too far. The quiet majority is not the problem. But if it stays quiet for too long, it may not recognize the country it helped build.And by then, speaking up will feel a lot harder than it does today.

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox A comprehensive Ontario municipal finance white paper on Development Charge rates, housing supply, and long-term fiscal sustainability 1. Introduction Ontario municipalities rely on Development Charges (DCs) to fund growth-related infrastructure. While intended to ensure that growth pays for growth, Development Charges can unintentionally suppress development activity when set beyond optimal levels. This paper explains the Development Charge Paradox using an adapted Laffer Curve framework. 2. Ontario Development Charge Framework Development Charges are governed by Ontario’s Development Charges Act and implemented through municipal background studies. Recent reforms, including Bill 23, reduced recoverability, introduced mandatory discounts, and constrained indexing. These changes increase development sensitivity to DC rate decisions. 3. The Development Charge Paradox At a Development Charge Rate of zero, Development Charge Revenue is also zero. As rates increase, revenue initially rises. Beyond an optimal point, higher DC rates suppress housing development faster than per-unit charges increase, resulting in declining Development Charge Revenue. 4. Equal Revenue, Unequal Outcomes The curve demonstrates that the same Development Charge Revenue can be achieved at two different Development Charge Rates. A low-rate, high-growth environment produces strong housing delivery and assessment growth. A high-rate, low-growth environment produces stagnation, even if short-term revenues appear similar. 5. Benefits of Lower Development Charge Rates Lower Development Charge Rates improve project feasibility, accelerate housing starts, support missing-middle and rental housing, and broaden the long-term municipal tax base. 6. Risks of Development Charge Rates Set Too Low If Development Charge Rates are set too low, municipalities may face infrastructure funding timing gaps. These risks can be managed through capital phasing, debt financing, and improved growth planning rather than suppressing development. 7. The Optimal Development Charge Rate The peak of the curve represents the optimal Development Charge Rate. At this point, Development Charge Revenue and housing delivery are maximized simultaneously, aligning municipal revenue objectives with housing supply goals. 8. Laissez-Faire Economics and Necessary Government Intervention Development Charge policy should generally follow laissez-faire economic principles, allowing market forces to determine pricing, supply, and investment decisions. However, where Development Charges are reduced to stimulate housing delivery, a degree of targeted government intervention is necessary to ensure that these reductions are reflected in housing prices rather than being absorbed entirely into developer margins. 9. Consequences of Excessively High Development Charge Rates Excessively high Development Charge Rates delay or cancel projects, encourage land banking, shift growth to other municipalities, and ultimately reduce Development Charge Revenue. 10. Long-Term Municipal Fiscal Impacts Development Charges are a one-time revenue source, while property taxes are recurring. Municipalities that prioritize long-term assessment growth over short-term DC maximization achieve greater fiscal sustainability. 11. Conclusion The Development Charge Paradox demonstrates that higher Development Charge Rates do not guarantee higher revenue. Optimal outcomes occur when Development Charges balance infrastructure funding with housing supply, economic vitality, and long-term municipal prosperity.

I didn’t do it for fame or power

I didn’t do it for fame or power Last year I served on Pickering City Council and worked every day for the people who elected me. I didn’t do it for fame or power — I did it because I believe in truth, transparency, and accountability in local government. My compensation for that service was about $15,000 plus benefits for the year — far less than many residents make in a month and certainly not life‑changing. Contrast that with ongoing conversations about compensation paid to Pickering’s mayor and councillors — a conversation that shouldn’t be dismissed because it touches on something real and deeply felt in our community. A recent post and social media discussions have cited figures suggesting that the total compensation for Pickering’s mayor — including salary, benefits, pension, committee fees, and allowances — was about $318,000 in 2025. The mayor himself publicly acknowledged that some of those totals were overstated by roughly $58,000 compared to his base salary and official disclosures, but even so, figures well over $250,000 for a municipality that can’t officially claim the higher mayoral powers assigned to municipalities of 100,000 or more are raising eyebrows for residents watching every dollar they spend. Pickering’s population is often cited as “close to 100,000,” but that number only recently crossed that threshold — a threshold that grants expanded powers and authority under the Municipal Act. For years we governed below that number. That’s important because the Municipal Act specifically attaches additional powers to municipalities once they reach a population of 100,000. And yet here we are, discussing compensation packages that rival much larger cities. Let’s put it in perspective: Pickering’s population is allegedly 100,000, yet we still function with the same core municipal responsibilities as all smaller cities across Ontario. Toronto’s population is over 3 million people — more than 30 times larger than Pickering — yet the Mayor of Toronto’s base compensation sits significantly below the totals being discussed for our mayor when all remuneration is included. At the same time, all members of Pickering City Council — both at the city and regional level — draw compensation and, in many cases, allowances and reimbursements for meetings, travel, and committee work. Members of Durham Regional Council also collect regional remuneration and expense payouts on top of their municipal compensation. These are public servants, yes — but they are paid roles funded by taxpayers. Here’s what troubles many residents: it often seems that people who follow the status quo at council are rewarded, while those who speak up about what they see as wasteful spending, lack of transparency, or misleading information are punished. In my experience — and in the experience of many citizens across municipalities now — there is a troubling trend where elected officials who raise difficult questions or challenge the majority face not reasoned debate but code of conduct complaints and political pressure. This isn’t just about numbers. It’s about how power is exercised. Right now, municipal leaders in Ontario are considering changes to the Municipal Act that would expand the authority of integrity commissioners and councillors to remove an elected member of council — effectively taking away the democratic rights of the people who voted for that person. If you don’t follow the status quo, your own council colleagues could file complaints with an integrity commissioner, and the same council could vote to have you removed from office. That isn’t democratic — that’s a warning sign for anyone who cares about real representation. This is not unique to Pickering. Across Ontario and beyond, we’re seeing local officials who speak openly about what they see — wasteful spending, lack of accountability, decisions that don’t reflect taxpayers’ priorities — being targeted with conduct complaints, legal threats, and political pushback. It sends a chilling message to anyone thinking about public service: Speak up, and you may pay a price. Stay quiet, and the status quo stays in place. That’s not how democracy is supposed to work. Local government should be a place where serious issues are discussed openly and where accountability isn’t just a buzzword but a lived practice. Residents deserve clarity on how compensation is calculated, what’s included in “total compensation,” and — most importantly — whether these compensation levels reflect the priorities of the very people who pay the bills. So here’s the question taxpayers in Pickering and all of Durham Region should be asking: Should a mayor in a city of just over 100,000 people — with councillors at both the city and regional level drawing additional allowances — see total compensation approaching or exceeding what leaders in cities with millions of residents earn? And should the Municipal Act be changed so that elected officials can be removed by council and an integrity commissioner rather than by the voters who elected them? This isn’t just about a number on a pay stub. This is about fairness, democracy, and trust. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve answers. And they deserve leaders who aren’t afraid to ask difficult questions without being silenced.

PARBUCKLING THE HMS METROLAND

PARBUCKLING THE HMS METROLAND From The Bottom Of The Corporate Sea By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I have been stating this for months: internet posting is dead. First, too many people are posting and calling themselves media. Second, there is no sustainable revenue in online advertising. The internet operates on statistics designed deceive the average business, and this is evident in the lack of advertising revenue among many online outlets.. Without revenue, maintaining a viable online presence becomes nearly impossible—despite the fact that many simply copy and paste news releases. I have known for months that Metroland’s online operations were struggling. I have spoken with members of the small staff maintaining their online presence, and they indicated that conditions were deteriorating. In what appears to be corporate greed or desperation, Metroland eliminated a significant portion—if not all—of its print publications. This decision left workers, communities, and advertisers in a state of uncertainty. It sent a troubling message across the industry. The move was, in many respects, morally questionable and executed without adequate consideration for the communities affected. Now, there appears to be an attempt to “parbuckle” the sunken HMS Metroland—from the depths of the bankruptcy protection sea in an effort to revive the brand for what may be one final attempt at advertising revenue in two of their most lucrative former markets. Parbuckling: A specialized technique used to roll a capsized or sunken ship upright. Namely bring back the METROLAND brand for one final dig in the pockets of nostalgia? Can a sunken ship be raised? Yes, a sunken ship can be raised, but it depends on the vessel's depth, structural integrity, and the cost of the salvage operation. Here is where the HMS METROLAND may find itself in dangerous waters. Do they believe former advertisers will return after previously disengaging due to poor performance metrics? Is the structural integrity of the brand still buoyant? One hopes advertisers are not so naive. Metroland has lost its distribution networks and now proposes a monthly publication schedule. This risks becoming another Corporate “Titanic”—an avoidable failure. Recently, a letter circulated stating: As a 25-year veteran of community news, I have been witness to and at the forefront of changes large and small. In 2023, one of those changes was to stop printing and delivering WhitbyThis Week and Oshawa This Week, focusing solely on digital news and information at durhamregion.com. A complete failure in some industry critics eyes. This move put them under bankruptcy protection and destroyed their distribution networks... leaving them with NO READERSHIP. THIS TRANSLATED TO THEIR ONLINE... AS PEOPLE LOST CONFIDENCE. What didn’t change was our priority to provide you the local information you’ve told us you need and the community journalism you can’t find anywhere else. But, in the past two-plus years, we’ve heard from many of our readers that you missed the ritual of reading a physical newspaper. We missed that connection too. This move to online only had a huge cut back on people they employed. Affecting the livelihood of many. They did not care. And so, I am thrilled to share with you the return of Whitby This Week and Oshawa This Week as monthly publications. This exciting change is rooted in our commitment to Whitby and Oshawa and the knowledge that local journalism is essential to a democracy and a healthy community. or could it be that it is an election year and think they can negotiate advertising revenue through campaign advertising. This failing to recognize that both of those municipalities have opted to go electronic and that they have alloted no money in their budgets for newsprint advertising. Maybe they are counting on the many department heads with their hands out to re-kindle old kick backs schemes for advertising? It is also about the future. We are investing in the next generation by hiring 20 new editorial interns in newsrooms across Ontario. These fresh voices will work alongside our veteran reporters to cover the stories that matter most to you. It is not about the future as they claim. It is about their bottom line. A line that is at the bottom of reality sea. 20 interns... Why don’t they hire all the one’s they let go. Instead they still disrespect the community by hiring cheaper interns.. What an insult to the community. We are also proud to relaunch "Metroland Gives Back." Every issue will provide free advertising space to a local charity. It is our way of supporting the organizations that make our neighborhoods a better place to live. We hope you enjoy this return to print, and that it gives you a stronger connection to us and our community. Sincerely, Lee Ann Waterman Group Publisher and Vice-President, Editorial. Advertisers... be aware of the past. Learn from our history and don’t waste your dollars on a Parbuckled vessel that has left port and previous left you behind. No distribution = No readership. Free publications by their own admission have no readership. Are you prepare to waste good advertising dollars on nostalgia of proven to fail? Think about it.

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada’s housing crisis is no longer a market fluctuation. It is a structural failure, one that now tests the country’s economic credibility, social cohesion, and political leadership. For too long, housing was treated as a local issue, shaped by municipal zoning and market forces. That approach has collapsed under the weight of reality. Population growth has surged, supply has lagged, and affordability has deteriorated to the point where even middle-class Canadians are under strain. What we face today is not simply high prices. It is a system that no longer delivers fairness. Recent signals from policymakers suggest that governments are beginning to understand the scale of the challenge. The economic framing associated with Mark Carney and the more assertive supply-side actions of Doug Ford point in the right direction. However, direction alone is not enough.Execution is what will matter. Canada’s housing shortage is the result of years of underbuilding relative to population growth. Immigration—vital to our economic future—has increased demand, but without a matching expansion in supply. The consequences are visible across the country. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for younger Canadians. Rent consumes a growing share of income. Skilled workers are priced out of the very cities that depend on them.This is no longer just an affordability issue. It is a question of whether Canada still offers a viable path to stability and upward mobility. Mark Carney’s recent interventions have helped reframe the debate. Housing is not merely a private asset; it is core economic infrastructure. Canada has been highly effective at attracting capital. But too much of that capital has flowed into existing real estate, inflating prices, rather than into new housing supply. The policy implication is straightforward: we must redirect incentives. Governments should prioritize purpose-built rental construction, support long-term institutional investment, and reduce the distortions that reward speculation over building. If we treat housing as infrastructure—like transportation or energy—we begin to understand the scale and urgency of what is required. At the provincial level, Doug Ford’s approach has targeted a long-standing obstacle: municipal gatekeeping. Zoning restrictions, slow approvals, and local opposition have limited density in precisely the areas where it is most needed. Ontario’s efforts to mandate housing targets and streamline approvals reflect an uncomfortable truth. Left to their own devices, many municipalities will not approve enough housing.These measures are not without controversy. But the alternative is continued paralysis. Canada cannot solve a national housing crisis if local constraints consistently override national priorities. The central weakness in Canada’s response remains a lack of coordination.The federal government sets immigration levels and provides funding. Provinces control planning frameworks. Municipalities regulate land use. Each operates within its mandate, but the system as a whole lacks alignment. This fragmentation produces predictable outcomes: delays, inefficiencies, and missed targets. A credible strategy would link these elements. Immigration levels should be aligned with housing capacity. Federal funding should be conditional on municipal performance. Provinces must enforce timelines and accountability. Without coordination, even the right policies will fail. Housing is not just an economic issue. It is the foundation of social stability. When working Canadians cannot afford to live where they work, the consequences are far-reaching. Healthcare systems struggle to recruit. Businesses cannot find employees. Commutes lengthen, productivity declines, and inequality deepens. More fundamentally, public confidence erodes. A country where effort no longer leads to security risks losing the trust that underpins its institutions. Canada has faced national challenges before. Each required leadership willing to move beyond incrementalism. We need to build at scale, not at the margins. We need to rebalance incentives toward supply, not speculation. More importantly, we need governments prepared to confront local resistance when it conflicts with national interest. The early signals from leaders like Mark Carney and Premier Doug Ford suggest that the diagnosis is improving. However, diagnosis is not delivery. The real test is whether Canada can translate intent into action which is coordinated, sustained, and ambitious. Because in the end, this is not just about housing. It is about whether Canada remains a country where opportunity is attainable—or becomes one where it is quietly out of reach. What do you think?

Together We Can Fly..

. By Wayne Ellis Treasurer of COPA FLIGHT 70 This past week, I presented four Cadet Squadrons with a very special surprise. Normally, each Cadet Squadron receives one hour of flight time. I felt that was not enough, so I took the initiative to do something about it. I approached various companies and solicited their help. At first, I was a little reluctant, as it felt unfamiliar. Soon enough, I found out that many people are willing to step up and help. With my efforts, along with the generosity of those I approached, I was able to secure 20 hours of flight time for cadets. This is great news, as the more cadets we can get into an airplane, the better it is. These are young minds who sign up to better their lives through the science of flight. I felt it was the only honorable thing to do—and it worked. This past week, we held our presentation ceremony. It was there that I met the Editor and Publisher of The Central. As soon as I told him what I had accomplished, he wanted to get involved. He wanted to take part in this great effort that is taking off like wildfire. Mr. Ingino was so impressed by the initiative that he invited me to write a column to share my experiences and my role as Treasurer of COPA Flight 70. He was so supportive that he extended a partnership with a proposed fundraising target of $12,000. This would allow us to provide 40 more hours of flight time. This is tremendous news. This new initiative in the paper allows local businesses to take out a 3x5 ad. Normally, one week would cost $400. Mr. Ingino is offering two weeks for $400 plus tax, and in turn, he will donate $200 to COPA toward the $12,000 target. I believe Mr. Ingino has shown great leadership through this partnership with COPA. We need more local business owners to take the initiative and get involved. I am a retired educator, and I know first hand the developmental stages of a young mind—their insecurities, their dreams, and their aspirations. As a former school principal, I saw that every student had the potential for greatness. Many, with the right coaching and motivation, can achieve it. Others, however, fall to the side due to many factors—economics, family circumstances, and unforeseen challenges that can impede academic growth and development. As a member of COPA, I see these cadets enter the program with great aspirations—open minds and the spark of hope to one day take to the sky.As it stands, due to the cost of flight time, access has been limited to only a few. The goal is to leave no young mind behind—to give them the opportunity to experience flight first hand. I can tell you from personal experience as a pilot: there is no greater feeling than taking flight. To feel the freedom and the ability to control an aircraft in the air is something truly special. I remember when I purchased my first aircraft and had to fly it a long distance home. I was scared, tired, and concerned—but I could not have been happier. To be in my own aircraft for hours, flying home, is a feeling no one can ever take away from me. This is, in part, why I started this initiative. I am grateful to all who have been generous enough to donate and contribute so far, and I am thankful for this new partnership with The Central Newspaper. Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can truly take off and fly wherever our imagination leads us. There is no limit to the possibilities. There is no limit to our ability to dream. If you can help, we would greatly appreciate it. The cadets will be forever grateful. Thank you.

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist In highschool, it can feel almost impossible to be your authentic, full self. Students are constantly influenced by peer pressure, social standards, and comparison to others. It is evident when you walk into a classroom and see every girl in the same leggings and uggs, every guy with the same haircut and sweater. The similarities are clear, however the source of the standard is untraceable. The ending is unclear, as these similarities are not limited to just high school, following us throughout our entire lives. From a young age, we are often taught who we are supposed to be. Friends, family, teachers, and peers all have their own perspective on how you should act, and who you should be. As a kid, your friends may influence you to be louder, funnier, and more social, while a teacher may praise you for being quiet and introverted. None of these influences are directly wrong or negative, they are all trying to form a well-rounded individual. However, it can be confusing and make it difficult to distinguish what you really want from the loudest influences. When everyone around you has a different idea of who you should be, it becomes difficult to hear your own voice and your own wants. You start to wonder if your choices are really yours, or just reflections of others. As you get older, these contrasting expectations don’t disappear, they evolve. You become more aware of the “social norm,” a combination of expectations that seems impossible to avoid. In elementary school, the norm might be as simple as liking certain games or fitting into friend groups. In high school, it becomes more intense, and rigid; what you wear, how you act, who you hang out with, and what you post can feel like they define your entire life. If you make one mistake, reject what is defined as “normal” one time, your entire social life feels endangered. This norm even follows into adulthood, where its focus shifts to success, relationships, career paths, and lifestyle. There is always an unspoken standard which defines behavior, even if we cannot directly see it. The ironic part is, nobody perfectly fits the social norm. It’s an illusion, a constantly moving target which changes based on who you’re around. Since the rule is always changing, we’re all exceptions to a rule that doesn’t truly exist. This just increases the confusion which began at a young age, the question if you are your own person or a combination of the expectations which surround you. It creates a lifestyle of uncertainty and confusion instead of confidence and certainty. The norm isn’t something anyone naturally is, it’s a performance. Both online and in person, there is a constant trend of people being called performative or fake due to their fashion, interests, or behavior. However, it’s all hypocritical, as we are all performing to some capacity. Trying to change ourselves, even if it seems in the smallest way, is the show we cannot escape. Whether it be online or with a social group, it is practically impossible to not let ourselves be changed, especially when it is hard to understand your authentic self in the first place. Social media only intensifies the pressure and performance. Instead of trying to keep up with the standards of the people directly around us, we are now trying to keep up with the standards of thousands of people. We see the carefully curated versions of other people’s lives through a screen, and try to match it to seem trendy or likeable. The result is a constant feeling of falling short, unable to keep up with an online highlight reel. It is clear we are all a little performative, influenced by the norms we cannot control or escape. We adjust how we act depending on where we are and who we’re with. That doesn’t make us fake or ingenuine, it makes us human. The goal isn’t to completely reject the idea of social norms, which is an expectation even harder than keeping up with the norms themselves. Instead, the challenge is to recognize standards without completely losing yourself to them. The first step to moving past the norm is to figure out which parts of yourself feel real when no one is watching. It’s about choosing which standards to keep and what to let go of. Through this, it’s easier to learn about yourself and the interests, new and old, that feel the most “you.” Finding your authentic self isn’t about escaping influence entirely, an impossible goal. Social pressure is something which exists from the second we are born, starting with our parents and evolving into the opinions of everyone we surround ourselves with. These influences are not always negative, and that's important to remember. So, instead of avoiding the influence and standard, the goal is to learn how to exist within the expectations, without letting them define you altogether.

If You Were the Devil, How Would You Destroy A Society?”

If You Were the Devil, How Would You Destroy A Society?” I asked artificial intelligence a simple question: If you were the devil, how would you destroy a society? The answer I received wasn’t dramatic or theatrical. It didn’t involve chaos in the way most people imagine. It was far more subtle—and far more unsettling. The answer was this: you wouldn’t destroy a society outright, you would confuse it. You would blur the line between truth and lies until people could no longer tell the difference. You wouldn’t need to erase truth; you would simply surround it with so many competing narratives that it becomes indistinguishable from opinion. Facts would become “perspectives,” and certainty would be treated as extremism. Over time, people wouldn’t just disagree—they would lose the ability to agree on reality itself. And once that happens, a society becomes easy to destabilize. You wouldn’t silence people through force, either. That’s outdated. Instead, you would create an environment where speaking carries a cost. You would make examples of a few—label them, discredit them, isolate them—and everyone else would get the message. The result is not imposed silence, but chosen silence. People begin to censor themselves, not because they’ve changed their beliefs, but because they’ve calculated the risk of expressing them. You would also ensure the population remains in a constant state of emotional reaction. One controversy after another, one crisis layered on top of the next—just enough to keep people engaged, but never enough to bring resolution. People become consumed by outrage, but it is directionless. They argue, they react, they exhaust themselves—but they don’t organize, they don’t unify, and they don’t hold anyone meaningfully accountable. They are simply too distracted. At the same time, you would divide them. Not just politically, but socially and culturally. You would turn disagreements into personal conflicts, and differences of opinion into moral battles. People would begin to see each other not as neighbours, but as adversaries. And while they are busy fighting one another, they stop paying attention to who is actually making decisions and shaping outcomes. You wouldn’t destroy institutions outright either. You would allow trust in them to erode slowly—enough contradictions, enough double standards, enough visible failures that people begin to question everything, but without offering anything better in its place. The result is a population that trusts nothing, and a population that trusts nothing is far easier to influence than one that is grounded in shared truth. And if you wanted lasting impact, you wouldn’t focus on adults at all. You would focus on children. You would shape how they understand truth, identity, and reality from the beginning. You would normalize ideas early so they are never questioned later. Because whoever shapes the next generation doesn’t just influence the future—they control it. The uncomfortable part is not the theory—it’s the recognition. Because when you step back and look at the world today, these patterns are not difficult to see. Whether by design, ideology, or institutional drift, the outcome is the same: a society that is increasingly confused, deeply divided, emotionally reactive, and under growing pressure to stay silent rather than speak the truth. This is no longer about political sides. It is about whether truth itself can still be spoken clearly and without fear. Because once a society loses that, everything else becomes negotiable—reality, rights, and even accountability. If there is a way forward, it is not found in escalating the noise. It is found in rejecting it. In choosing clarity over confusion, truth over convenience, and courage over comfort. In remaining grounded while everything else pulls toward chaos. Because in a time where everything feels uncertain, the most powerful thing a person can be is not louder, but clearer. And clarity, right now, is the one thing that cannot be compromised. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

Does Your Doctor Care?

Does Your Doctor Care? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones If doctors depended like actors do on an ability to connect with their audience, the medical profession would get better reviews. But most patients will tell you the same thing about their doctor: they don’t make that connection at a human level. They are elusive – virtually impossible to reach for a discussion. When they appear at appointments, they pay more attention to the computer screen in the examining room than they do you, the patient, the person needing their care. Patients have been complaining about it for decades. In 1989, a major survey reported patients often felt “dehumanized,” and that doctors cared more about tests and procedures than about the person in front of them. Even earlier, in the 1960s, social researchers noted that patients described physicians as “curt” and “abrupt,” mechanical and impersonal. Studies ever since have confirmed that dissatisfaction with doctors is due to their lack of communication skills. Medical schools have tried to address this. Teaching interpersonal skills is now part of the curriculum. Students rehearse interviews, practice explaining diagnoses, and even role-play with actors posing as patients. Research shows that effective communication improves diagnostic accuracy, increases adherence to treatment plans, and enhances patient satisfaction. Yet many patients would be forgiven for wondering where those lessons went. Heavy workloads, computer screens between doctor and patient, and complex medical teams continue to create barriers. Medicine may be teaching communication better than ever, but the system often makes it hard for the patient to see the doctor doing it. Many patients assume they have no choice. “I’m lucky just to have a doctor,” they tell themselves. “There’s no way I could find another one.” This is a false narrative. Doctor shortages and the complexity of healthcare have people believing they must accept poor communication. You would not tolerate being ignored or dismissed in other parts of your life. Why accept it in medicine? Patients do have power. Does your doctor ask about your life, listen without interrupting, and explain clearly? If the answer is consistently “no,” action is warranted. Even if you stay with the same doctor, your preparation can transform a visit. Write down your list of concerns and what you think the doctor needs to know as background. Prioritize your questions and have them written down too. Ask for clarification. Ask if you have options. Be sure you understand instructions relating to medication. Communication matters immensely in consultations, where diagnoses are discussed, treatment plans explained, and long-term decisions made. But surgery is different. In the operating room, technical skills are what matter. A brusque surgeon may still be an exceptional technician. Reputation among colleagues, experience, and complication rates are more revealing than personality. Multiple opinions, careful questions about outcomes, and input from nurses or other professionals are the smartest safeguards. Walking out on a doctor may be right for some patients. But a practical alternative is a health advocate: a trusted companion who attends appointments with you. They can ensure questions are asked, take notes, track instructions, clarify confusing explanations, and follow up on tests or referrals. They act as an extra set of eyes and ears, guiding patients through complex care. There’s also the possibility that new artificial-intelligence tools capable of notetaking, translating medical jargon into plain language, and helping patients with treatment routines will take up the role of chief communicator. If managed wisely, these tools could make a big difference. But the relationship we all want still rests with two human beings: a doctor who cares and a patient who feels well cared for.

How Do You Even Start That Conversation?

Dead and Gone… How Do You Even Start That Conversation? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a conversation many families think about having. And then don’t. Not because it isn’t important. But because it feels uncomfortable to begin. If I were gone, I would not want my family to carry the weight of guessing what I would have wanted. And yet, I understand why these conversations get delayed. They rarely start easily. No one sits down at the dinner table and casually says, “Let’s talk about what happens when I die.” It feels heavy. It can feel out of place. Sometimes it feels like saying it out loud might somehow make it happen sooner. So people wait. And often, they wait until it is no longer possible to ask. I have spoken with many families who told me the same thing afterward. “We meant to talk about it.” “We just never found the right time.” If I could leave my family one small piece of guidance, it would be this: There is no perfect moment to start this conversation. There is only a gentle way to begin it. It doesn’t have to be formal. It doesn’t have to be detailed. And it doesn’t have to be finished in one sitting. Sometimes it starts with something small. A comment after attending a service. “I liked how simple that was.” Or, “That felt a bit overwhelming.” Those moments open the door without forcing it. They allow people to speak in a way that feels natural, not planned. If I were sitting with my family, I would not want it to feel like a checklist. I would want it to feel like a conversation. Not “Here is everything I expect.” But “Here are a few things that matter to me.” Because most people are not looking to control every detail. They are trying to remove uncertainty. There is a difference. I would want my family to know a few simple things. Whether I would prefer burial or cremation. Whether I would want something quiet or something that brings people together. Whether there is anything that would feel important to include - or just as important, to leave out. That’s enough to guide them. The rest, I would trust them with. There is another part of this that people do not always expect. These conversations are not only about logistics. They are about reassurance. I have seen families feel a sense of calm simply knowing they had talked about it. Not because every detail was decided. But because nothing felt completely unknown. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel that steadiness. Not perfection. Just a little more clarity than silence would have left behind. I would also want them to know this. It is okay if the conversation feels a bit awkward. It is okay if someone changes the subject the first time. It is okay if it takes a few attempts before it feels natural. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. It just means it’s human. Sometimes the hardest part is not the conversation itself. It’s starting it. If I could offer one way to begin, it would be this: Make it about helping each other. Not about death. Something as simple as, “I’ve been thinking about this lately - I don’t want you to have to guess if something ever happened to me.” That changes the tone. It becomes an act of care, not discomfort. And that’s what it really is. Because at its core, this conversation is not about endings. It’s about making things a little easier for the people we leave behind. If I were gone, that is what I would want most. Not a perfect plan. Not every decision made. Just enough understanding that my family would not feel alone in figuring it out. Next week, I will write about something that often follows these conversations, or sometimes replaces them entirely: what happens when nothing has been discussed at all, and families are left to make decisions without any guidance.

Protecting your investments from the CRA? Consider using segregated funds?

Protecting your investments from the CRA? Consider using segregated funds? By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Investing your money is an effective way to put your money to work and build your wealth. By investing smart, it helps give you more flexibility to earn more on your money, build more security for your retirement, and ultimately give you the chance at achieving your financial goals and dreams. However, investing comes with risks. Segregated funds can help prevent these risks! Segregated Funds: Investing with peace of mind Segregated Funds allow you to invest your money and help grow your wealth but also gives you peace of mind knowing that you have protection against uncertainty. Unlike other investment options, segregated funds give you features that aren’t found in the typical investments (ex. Mutual funds, stocks, and GICS): Guarantees on your principal – money you invest is guaranteed up to 75% or 100% upon maturity and death Reset Options – lets you lock-in market gains that can increase the amount payable upon maturity or death Bypass probate – death benefits paid directly to named beneficiary instead of your estate ensures privacy and helps avoid the lengthy and costly process of going through probate Potential creditor protection – by designating a qualified beneficiary, investments may be exempt from creditors in the event of bankruptcy or litigation Who are Segregated Funds for? Pre-retirees looking for wealth accumulation but want to avoid potential losses with maturity and death guarantees Individuals looking to preserve their legacy and transfer their estate in a timely, private, and cost-effective manner Business owners looking for creditor protection planning Anyone who wants the ability to achieve the same type of investment returns as mutual funds but with the security and protection in knowing that their money is protected against any uncertainty Investing helps you be more secure and confident about your financial situation. It is not a one-day initiative but rather a continuous long-term activity. The earlier you start investing, the more well-equipped you’ll be in the future. Working with your financial advisor can help put the roadmap in place that will help guide you towards your financial goals. However, remember transferring your wealth is also a considering that should be reviewed in your planning process Get started today so your family will have a easier transfer at time of your change of life.

Why Zagreb’s Transit Embarrasses the GTA (And What That Says About Us)

Why Zagreb’s Transit Embarrasses the GTA (And What That Says About Us) I didn’t go to Zagreb looking for a transit lesson. But I got one. And it wasn’t subtle. The Moment It Hits You.You step onto a tram and something feels… off. Not broken. Not chaotic. Just… easy. No schedule checking. No stress about missing the next one. No wondering if it’s actually coming. It just shows up. Every few minutes. Like it’s supposed to. The Difference Is Psychological In the GTA, transit is something you plan around. In Zagreb, transit is something you trust. That’s the entire game. And once you feel that difference, you can’t unsee it. Let’s Talk About Home Back here in the GTA—and especially across Durham—we’ve built a system that quietly tells people: “You should probably just drive.” We: - Stretch bus routes across massive distances - Run them infrequently outside peak hours - Design roads for cars, then try to “fit transit in” afterward And then we act surprised when ridership lags. The Lie We Tell Ourselves We say: “We don’t have the density for that kind of system.” Zagreb kills that argument. It’s not Manhattan. It’s not Tokyo. It’s a mid-sized city that made a decision: Transit is core infrastructure—not a social service. What They Got Right (And We Didn’t) Zagreb built: - A tram network that actually covers the city - Frequency that eliminates planning - Priority lanes that beat traffic - A unified and simple system We built: - Patchwork transit - Political compromise routes - Systems that compete with traffic instead of beating it. And Here’s the Part That Should Sting We pour billions into: - Roads - Interchanges - Expansions Then debate transit funding like it’s optional. Meanwhile, cities like Zagreb treat trams the same way we treat asphalt: Non-negotiable. The Real Issue (Mr. X Translation) This isn’t about trams. It’s about priorities. You can’t: - Charge high development charges - Talk about intensification - Promise climate goals …and then fail to deliver reliable, frequent transit. That’s not planning. That’s contradiction. The Fix (And It’s Not Complicated) If you want people out of cars: 1. Frequency first — every 5–10 minutes minimum 2. Dedicated lanes — transit must beat traffic 3. Network coverage — not just corridors 4. Stop over-planning, start building. Final Word Zagreb didn’t outspend us. It out-decided us. They chose a system people could rely on. We chose a system people tolerate. And until that changes, all the talk about: - housing - affordability - climate…is just that. Talk. Mr. X - Because sometimes you have to leave the country to see what’s broken at home.

The Killing Of A Profession Scoundrels - Pretender & Wanabe’s

The Killing Of A Profession Scoundrels - Pretender & Wanabe’s By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States This past week, we witnessed Whitby councillor Victoria Bozinovski asking the town to report back on how to get around the law and not hire legal immigrants. This is illegal, racist, xenophobic, and unacceptable. In turn, it could cost the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend. My stance on immigration is not the issue here. If you want your opinions on immigration reform heard, take them to your local MP. Understanding the law and jurisdiction is an essential life skill. This situation sparked interest from a right-wing, online-only, self-proclaimed news group. Here is where the problem arises. Today, anyone and everyone can claim to be a journalist—and that is far from the truth. It is also an insult to a profession that has played a very important role in society. In this case, Rebel News took it upon itself to go after an elected official. No justification can rationalize unprofessional behaviour. This particular reporter acted more like an activist than a bona fide journalist. Journalism, by definition, involves researching, gathering, verifying, and presenting news and information to the public through print or broadcast. Journalists act as community watchdogs, maintaining accountability while operating under ethical guidelines to provide accurate, fair, and contextual information. What took place was not reporting. It was not journalism. It was an attack driven by an agenda regarding a particular decision by the councillor. She is not innocent either. I think it is wrong for any elected official to politicize their opinions and then hide behind their sexual orientation. Her blunt, label-driven approach toward a very sensitive issue like immigration was inappropriate. It appears that, when faced with limited argument, it has become fashionable to point fingers and label others—as she did in her statement: “not hire legal immigrants is illegal, racist, xenophobic, and garbage.” First and foremost, she should tone down her aggressive position. She is supposed to be a representative of all people. That means everyone. Her statement isolates some and empowers others—and, worse, it shows a lack of national pride and understanding of the issues facing society. For her, it was easier to point and label. Wrong.I believe she should apologize and retract her statement. As for the alt-right activist group masquerading as journalists—their actions are understandable, but not justified. Their aggressiveness may make sense, but it is still unacceptable. So how do we get a right from two wrongs? We don’t. This is a sign of the times. Society is fractured. On one hand, we have elected officials in roles for which they may lack the necessary understanding of society as a whole. Instead, they make personal attempts to deal with issues that are beyond their capabilities. Victoria is not alone—this kind of confusion is evident across Canada. So what does that tell us, as taxpayers and as people who see the bigger picture? Perhaps it is time to reconsider municipal governments, as they are clearly not representing everyone’s best interests. As for activists masquerading as journalists—the same criticism applies. We cannot go around pretending to be something we are not. Activists in the media are a dime a dozen. At best, they are columnists—not journalists. In this case, the activist uses a video camera to justify whatever angle they choose to push. This is wrong because it confuses the public and feeds the highway of misinformation. The fact that they do not print or broadcast in the traditional sense, as per the definition above, speaks to their credibility. To add insult to injury, this reporter has had multiple run-ins with the law for similar occurrences. A good journalist asks the right questions and leaves the subject wanting to have their side heard. What took place in Whitby was unprofessional—from both the activist and the councillor. Two wrongs never make a right, just as two rights will never solve everything or anything —because perfection is an elusive concept that requires a good journalist to help interpret.

The Middle East Crisis and the Fragility of the Global Economy

The Middle East Crisis and the Fragility of the Global Economy by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world is once again being reminded—brutally and unequivocally—that geopolitics still drives economics. The unfolding crisis in the Middle East is not a distant regional conflict. It is a direct test of the resilience, or lack thereof, of the global economic system. For years, policymakers in Western capitals have spoken confidently about diversification, energy transition, and supply chain resilience. Yet today, a single region—already burdened by decades of instability—retains the capacity to send shockwaves through every major economy on the planet. That is not merely a policy failure. It is a strategic oversight. At the heart of the current crisis lies energy. The Middle East remains the central artery of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows. A significant portion of the world’s energy supply still passes through narrow maritime corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz. When instability threatens that flow, markets react instantly—and often violently. We are already seeing the consequences. Oil prices have surged, driven not only by actual supply disruptions but also by the anticipation of further escalation. Energy markets are uniquely sensitive to risk, and even the perception of constrained supply can trigger rapid price increases. The result is a cascading effect across the global economy. Energy is not just another commodity. It is the foundation upon which all economic activity rests. When energy costs rise, transportation becomes more expensive. Manufacturing costs increase. Agricultural production becomes more costly. Airlines, logistics firms, and heavy industry all feel the pressure simultaneously. Ultimately, those costs are passed on to consumers. This is how a regional conflict becomes global inflation. Central banks now face a familiar and uncomfortable dilemma. Over the past few years, they have fought to bring inflation under control through higher interest rates. Just as inflation appeared to be stabilizing, this new shock threatens to reverse that progress. If energy prices remain elevated, central banks may be forced to keep rates higher for longer—even as economic growth slows. This is the classic recipe for stagflation: weak growth combined with persistent inflation. It is a scenario that most policymakers had hoped was confined to the 1970s. Yet history has a way of repeating itself when its lessons are ignored. The impact will not be evenly distributed. Energy-importing economies—particularly in Asia and parts of Europe—are especially vulnerable. Higher import costs will strain public finances, widen trade deficits, and put pressure on currencies. Developing economies, already dealing with debt burdens and limited fiscal space, may face even harsher consequences. Meanwhile, global supply chains are once again under stress. Shipping routes are being rerouted. Insurance costs are rising. Delivery times are becoming less predictable. Businesses that spent years recovering from pandemic-era disruptions now face a new layer of uncertainty. What we are witnessing is not simply a temporary disruption. It is a reminder of the structural vulnerabilities embedded within the global economy. From a strategic perspective, this crisis underscores a fundamental truth: economic security is national security. Nations that rely heavily on external sources for critical inputs—whether energy, food, or industrial materials—are inherently exposed to geopolitical risk. Diversification is not a slogan. It is a necessity. For Canada, the implications are both cautionary and instructive. As an energy-producing nation with vast natural resources, Canada has the potential to play a stabilizing role in global markets. Yet for years, infrastructure constraints and regulatory uncertainty have limited our ability to fully realize that potential. This is not merely an economic issue. It is a question of strategic positioning. In a world where energy security is once again at the forefront, countries that can provide reliable, stable supply will hold significant geopolitical influence. Canada should be among them. That requires a clear and coherent national strategy—one that balances environmental responsibility with economic realism. It means investing in infrastructure, streamlining regulatory processes, and strengthening partnerships with allies. It also means recognizing that the energy transition, while essential, will not eliminate global dependence on hydrocarbons in the near term. The current crisis also highlights the importance of maritime security. Protecting key shipping lanes is not just a military objective; it is an economic imperative. Disruptions in these corridors affect everything from fuel prices to food supply chains. International cooperation in safeguarding these routes must remain a priority. Ultimately, the lesson of this moment is straightforward. The global economy is more interconnected than ever, but it is not necessarily more resilient. Efficiency has often been prioritized over security. Just-in-time supply chains have replaced strategic reserves. Cost optimization has taken precedence over risk mitigation. Those choices are now being tested. The Middle East crisis will eventually subside, as all crises do. However, the vulnerabilities it has exposed will remain. The question is whether policymakers will act on those lessons or return to complacency once markets stabilize. We cannot afford the latter. If there is one enduring takeaway, it is this: resilience must become the organizing principle of economic policy. That means building redundancy into supply chains, diversifying energy sources, and aligning economic strategy with geopolitical realities. The cost of inaction is no longer theoretical. It is being measured, in real time, at the pump, in grocery stores, and across global markets. Are these costs the world can afford to ignore? What do you think?

Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered?

Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a question many families ask, often quietly - sometimes sitting together after everything has already happened. “Would it have been easier if this had already been arranged?” They are usually talking about prepaid funeral plans. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand what those plans actually do - and what they don’t. From the outside, prepaid arrangements sound simple. You make decisions ahead of time. You pay in advance. When the time comes, everything is taken care of. In some ways, that is true. But like many things connected to funerals, the details matter more than people expect. A prepaid plan is not always a single thing. Some plans lock in specific services and prices. Others simply set aside funds that will be used later. Some are guaranteed. Others depend on how costs change over time. Those differences are not always obvious at the beginning. I have spoken with families who believed everything had been taken care of, only to discover later that certain items were not included. Not because anyone did something wrong. But because the plan did not cover everything they assumed it would. I’ve seen the look when they realize it wasn’t as clear as they thought. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady enough to ask one simple question: “What exactly is included?” Not just generally. Line by line. Does the plan include transportation? Paperwork? Staff services? Facilities? Is it tied to a specific funeral home? Are third-party costs included, or will those be separate later? Those questions matter more than the label “prepaid.” There is another part that can be confusing. Portability. Many prepaid plans are connected to a specific provider. If someone moves, or if the family prefers to use a different funeral home, transferring the plan is not always straightforward. Sometimes it can be done. Sometimes there are limitations. If I were gone, I would want my family to know where the plan applies - and what happens if circumstances change. I would also want them to understand something that is not always talked about directly. A prepaid plan can reduce decision-making. It does not remove it completely. Even when arrangements are set in advance, the family still makes choices when the time comes. Dates. Timing. Small details that were not part of the original plan. I have seen families feel relief knowing certain decisions were already made. I have also seen families feel unsure about whether to follow the plan exactly, or adjust it. If I could leave one quiet message, it would be this: Do not feel bound by a plan in a way that adds pressure. A prepaid arrangement is meant to guide, not to create stress. There is also the financial side. Many people choose prepaid plans to protect their family from rising costs. In some cases, guaranteed plans do lock in pricing. In others, the funds set aside may not keep pace with future costs. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand whether the plan is guaranteed, or simply a contribution toward future expenses. I would also want them to know where the funds are held. In Ontario, prepaid money is typically placed in trust or backed by insurance. That structure exists to protect families. Still, it is reasonable to ask how the plan is funded and how it will be accessed when needed. If I could leave one practical suggestion, it would be this: If a prepaid plan exists, review it. Not just once, and not just when it is purchased. Look at it again over time. Make sure it still reflects what is wanted. And make sure someone else knows it exists. Because a plan only helps if the people who need it can find it and understand it. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel supported by whatever had been arranged - not surprised by it. Preplanning can be a gift. But its value depends on how clearly it is understood. Next week, I will write about something many families hesitate to start: how to have a conversation about funeral wishes without it feeling uncomfortable or overwhelming.

Could Air Travel Be Any Worse?

Could Air Travel Be Any Worse? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Air travel isn’t what it used to be. “Getting there” is no longer half the fun. It’s an exercise in survival. We’ve achieved incredible feats in aviation. Yet somehow, we’ve lost our way when it comes to intercontinental travel. Flying back to Toronto from Tokyo, I looked with envy at the business class seats as I shuffled with many other annoyed passengers to the back of the craft. Then, with everyone seated, an allergic reaction to something caused serious trouble for a flight crew member, delaying departure for two hours. We sat there at the gate, squished in, wishing, praying, we were somewhere else. It’s a conundrum. Because travelling is important. I’m convinced the world would be a better place if we all had more experience making friends in faraway places. For one thing, it’s a lot harder to bomb, starve, or otherwise destroy the lives of people if you have shared time together and truly understand each other. Is there anything we can do to reverse the dehumanizing trajectory of air travel? Airlines might be more motivated, frankly, if more people were dying as a result of their service. But deaths on flights are rare – around 1 per 5 million passengers. Remarkably, I’ve been on an international flight where this happened. We made an emergency landing in Rome, resulting in an all-night international dispute about which country would be responsible for the deceased. Trust me, you don’t want someone to die on your flight. Maybe more of us almost dying would be the ticket. But I’m not sure, because we have already become our most indecent selves as it is. And the airlines don’t seem to care. They jam us into impossibly cramped spaces. They serve horrendous food. I’ve seen flight attendants ignore people calling out for water, or mercy, in the rare moment they pass by. Aviation technology has made it easier to fly across the planet. But never have we all been more miserable doing it. Physically, what happens to your body when you fly? Fluid builds up in the lower legs due to lack of movement, water retention from salty food, and lower cabin pressure. Dry cabin air causes dehydration. Jet lag disrupts sleep, digestion, and mood. Infections spread readily. Pressure in the ear and sinus cavities can be intense at take-off and landing. It’s all bad, but not bad enough to counter the economic forces driving efficiency considerations. Corporations crush social well-being, even as they pretend to care about it. Passengers leave decent behaviours at the airport check-in curb. We cope by ignoring each other. We glue our eyes to screens. We get anxious and annoyed with every inconvenience. We don’t acknowledge the person sitting right beside us as we recline our seat into the face of the person behind us. My flight home was made worse by turbulence that prevented the crew from providing service. We eventually got a meal, but no drinks, precisely when a little alcohol might have eased the frustration. On the bright side, research shows it is possible to offset unhealthy circumstances with healthy behaviours. For example, following up with exercise, healthy meals and hydration, and social time with friends can blunt the negative effects of long flights, drinking excessively, or missing sleep. I have little hope flying is going to get any better. But if travel can increase empathy and broaden perspective, then perhaps that’s why, despite cramped seats, lost luggage, and endless lines, millions of people keep boarding airplanes every day. Somewhere on the other side of the discomfort is the reward of discovering the world.

Bans Versus Boundaries Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage

Bans Versus Boundaries Finding a Solution to Teenage Social Media Usage By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Social media is something engraved into the lives of billions of people around the globe, practically unavoidable in daily life. These platforms have many benefits, as they are an accessible tool for connection, communication, entertainment, and self-expression. Despite these benefits, it also presents many challenges and consequences, especially for young users. Adolescents continue to engage with social media, despite the obvious consequences, and they will continue using it unless meaningful and strong actions are done to prevent it. For teens, social media is more than just an app, it’s part of a shared routine. It offers instant connection with friends and a sense of belonging; when an individual cuts off social media, it can feel isolating, as they are also cutting off the connection. At an age where these simple relationships feel critical, easy connection seems almost essential, and social media provides that. Additionally, it acts as an easy booster for self-esteem, as likes, comments, and shares can feel incredibly rewarding. Social media also provides easy, endless entertainment through short-form content, which can feel difficult to step away from. It is a quick source of dopamine, influencing individuals to rely on it as an instant mood-booster. These benefits often blind teens from the consequences of social media, which are otherwise hard to ignore. Heavy social media use is often connected to increased anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and an overall increase in stress among teens. The online world is one of highlights and perfection, which creates an unrealistic standard which teens struggle to meet. They doubt their appearance, experiences, or talents simply because they don’t mirror the content behind the screen. This pressure and comparison negatively affects mental health for individuals of all ages. Additionally, the algorithms which control these platforms are designed not just for entertainment, but entrapment, as they hope to keep users scrolling for as long as possible. Without noticing, teens easily lose hours of their days online, ruining their mood, mental health, relationships, and overall well-being. These consequences are not new, and not unknown. For years, psychologists have been worried about the impact of social media, especially on adolescents. The new research isn’t about the issue, it’s about the solution. Recently, governments around the world have begun to respond, each with different ideas of how to save teens from the addictive media. Countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom are introducing social media bans for youth, only allowing individuals above a certain age to create accounts. While this is a step forward, it does not seem to be a total solution. Enforcing total bans or age limits is practically impossible, and many teens will find ways to bypass restrictions. Some countries, such as Brazil and France, are focusing on tighter regulations instead of a total ban. Governments and tech companies have implemented stricter rules regarding data privacy, parental controls, and company accountability. This recognizes the unavoidable role social media has on modern life, and understands that completely removing it is unrealistic. It hopes to decrease the unavoidable consequences while still allowing young people to benefit from online connection. However, even these regulations may be difficult to maintain, and will not solve the problem entirely. One of the biggest challenges with digital limitations, whether they be a total ban or a partial restriction, is that they are easy to get around. This is not the first time social media apps have tried to limit users or content, as they have previously included birthday verifications or screen time limits. They have existed for years, yet most teens find loopholes and continue scrolling. In fact, restricting something too heavily often makes it more appealing for a young audience. As the guidelines and controls get more intense, so will the attempts to overrule them. Ultimately, social media is not entirely good or entirely bad, even for adolescents. It can be used as a platform for connection and expression, or one of comparison and anxiety. While it has many real risks for young users, a complete ban altogether is unlikely to be a solution, as it sacrifices the many benefits, and may fail at reducing teen usage. A more effective approach may lie in balance. This includes implementing partial restrictions, holding companies accountable, and educating young users about online habits. As social media continues to evolve and further integrate itself into daily life, society must also adapt to ensure it remains a safe and positive space for the younger generations.