Do you understand the CDIC protection:

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

The House in the Picture

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

Take the Stairs!

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

Less Than

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

The Art of Finding Work

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

All Victims Deserve Protection

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

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

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

As Christmas Approaches, Metalex Showcases Rockglass to Combat Retail Crime

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

BUDGETS FOR SERVICES or SERVICES ON A BUDGET!!!

By Joe Ingino You can tell the type of success a company has by the way they configure their services vs budgets to accommodate the same. No matter the product or service. If your budgeted costs are not reflective of your product and service. Normally you either run a deficit or profit. In the case of municipal government. Budgets have become a run away train. A train that driver speeds up on the last quarter in order to justify asking for more in order to maintain the same level of services. This is wrong. Good leadership would look at each department within the administration and access the profit and loss or in laymans term. Cost vs waste. Most elected do not have the intellectual capabilities to perform such tasks. Therefore they depend highly on staff. Staff that are part of the problem with the assignment of policy. Some municipalities have gone as far as suggesting the hiring of an internal auditor. More taxpayers money wasted to do what the municipal manager should be doing. Unfortunately the municipal manager in many cases has become institutionalize and due to the salary they collect. These managers do not rock the boat in any way in fear of department heads turning on them and potentially affect their employment. It has become customary for all municipalities to claim that tax increases are need in order to maintain same quality of service. This not taking into consideration the fact of an influx of new properties increasing the tax coffers for the City. Instead they claim that due to cost of living departments need more revenue. This not taking into consideration departmental waste in perks and special projects that never materialize. Personally we have spent to long having department demand increase in budgets for services. The reality is that services are not getting better but instead in some cases worst. Then the reality should be that administrators be auditing each department. Look for cuts in waste. Assign budget after carefully analysis the services. Cut duplication. Cut unnecessary pockets of reserves. Assure that each employee is productive and accountable. Managers should be able to set budget for each department to assure adequate services. Tax increases have become fashionable for municipalitys Unbearable for the average taxpayer. Sadly, many running do not have the corporate experience to even begin looking. Others, have no administrative experience and follow the status quo in order not to expose their ignorance of management. At the end of the day what do we get? More taxes to the point some people are loosing their homes. Others can’t afford to buy as the deposit is out of touch for many and the taxes and utilities just put home ownership out of reach for many. Personally I strongly believe that we must rid of municipal government. It has become to expensive to operate. By cutting waste. We can re-invest back in the community. But so then who will drive the bus? With the development of Artificial Intelligence. I strongly believe that someone will come up with a GTP style system where you enter all the info that is already on line. let the A.I. analyze and break down the administrative protocol and let it. Give us suggestions on outcomes. The legal community already has a system that plays out different defenses and scenarios for lawyers to consider. Why not for municipal administrations? Financial realms also operate off A.I. platforms. The future is bright. The future is full of uncertainty. One thing for sure. We can’t keep going the way we are. Humanity has been stretched to the max. Over population and the level of misinformation and confusion is at a critical level. We need to re-evaluate civilization as we can’t keep going the way we are. Over population if it has taught us anything is that it leading us to our demise. Scholars have speculated that humanity is it’s worst enemy... that famine, disease or war will eventually finish us off. Ancient civilization that have appeared to dissolve into the wind... are writing on the wall that we should all take serious. We are today faced with a municipal election. A time we get to pick someone from the population to represent our best interest. Unfortunately many running are not capable of leading and in many cases either looking for a better jor or a job. These individuals is not what society needs. We need either administrators to run and administration or we need A.I type of systems to logically think with the background intel to make up scenarios that best suits our or civilizations interests. The future is bright. No matter who we vote. The suffering will continue. Democracy has failed us.

Ontario’s EV Gamble: Show Taxpayers Where Their Money Went

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Ontario taxpayers deserve an answer to a simple question: how much of their money has already been handed over to corporations whose automotive plans have been delayed, altered or abandoned? Premier Doug Ford’s government promoted its electric vehicle strategy as a historic achievement. Billions in investment announcements provided the backdrop for speeches, photographs and declarations of economic leadership. Now taxpayers need an accounting of actual payments, enforceable obligations and results. Political optimism cannot substitute for financial accountability. That responsibility extends directly to Ontario’s Minister of Finance, Peter Bethlenfalvy. His portfolio includes fiscal policy, the provincial budget, borrowing and debt management, and financial reporting alongside Treasury Board Secretariat. He must answer for the affordability and fiscal consequences of these commitments. The discussion must begin with money already spent. Ontario’s 2025–26 spending records, reported by The Trillium, show payments of $317.5 million to NextStar Energy, $19.7 million to Honda, $8.5 million to General Motors and $2.2 million to Toyota—almost $350 million altogether. These are payments, not announcements. However, recipient totals do not establish that every dollar financed a troubled EV project. Queen’s Park should explain which projects received those payments, what milestones justified them and which employment obligations remain outstanding. This is taxpayers’ money. The Finance Minister should insist on an understandable accounting, rather than expect citizens to reconstruct government policy from scattered expenditure records. The federal record provides another substantial figure. An official briefing confirms that $222,358,464 had been disbursed under the Stellantis agreement covering Brampton and Windsor through March 31, 2025. Approximately $18.6 million was paid in 2022–23, $85.9 million in 2023–24 and $117.8 million in 2024–25. The agreement covers both facilities; the full amount cannot be assigned to Brampton alone. Nevertheless, this is public money already transferred to a company whose Brampton commitments became the subject of a government dispute. That briefing confirms that further payments under the agreement were paused after Stellantis announced Jeep Compass production would move to Illinois. Ontario separately committed up to $513 million to the Brampton–Windsor project. That commitment is not a verified payment, but the province should disclose its disbursements equally explicitly. Consider the scale: Ontario’s $317.5 million payment to NextStar, its $19.7 million payment to Honda and the documented federal Stellantis disbursements total approximately $559.6 million. This partial accounting spans separate recipients, agreements and reporting periods. It is neither a comprehensive Ontario EV spending total nor a finding that the money has been lost. However, more than half a billion dollars in identifiable payments demands rigorous scrutiny. The Minister of Finance should explain how Ontario assesses its outstanding exposure. What further payments are anticipated? What happens to the fiscal plan if projects are delayed? What repayment assumptions are being used? What risks arise if corporate commitments become disputed? These questions belong squarely in fiscal oversight. Responsibility for administering particular industrial agreements may rest elsewhere, but their consequences for Ontario’s finances cannot be shrugged off. NextStar must be assessed fairly. Its Windsor facility is operating. Ontario reported in March 2026 that it had produced over one million battery cells and hired more than 1,300 workers. Those are tangible results. They provide a starting point for evaluating value. What employment must be sustained? How much additional assistance will follow? What happens if production changes? Taxpayers should be able to assess the agreement throughout its duration, rather than receive milestones selected for political promotion. Honda raises different questions. Its proposed Ontario EV supply-chain expansion was postponed in May 2025 because of slower market growth. That does not establish that Ontario’s subsequent payment was wasted or attributable to the postponed expansion. It makes an explanation of the particular project essential. Citizens should not have to guess whether money supported existing operations, completed work or a delayed development. The explanation should accompany the expenditure. Volkswagen’s PowerCo project in St. Thomas reinforces the distinction between commitments and payments. Production has been postponed from 2027 to 2029. That delay matters, but the production-subsidy envelope should not be portrayed as money already paid and lost. Ontario should separately disclose related infrastructure expenditure and its enduring public value if the timetable changes again. The political failure is the gulf between the certainty of the sales pitch and the clarity of the accounting. Queen’s Park celebrated a transformation before many essential components were delivering. Taxpayers now face uncertainty where ministers previously projected confidence. The Finance Minister must help close that gap. Publishing financial statements is necessary; explaining the exposure behind controversial spending decisions is also a political obligation. An accounting entry cannot demonstrate that an industrial subsidy represents good value. Foreign corporations have contributed greatly to Ontario’s economy. Their importance does not excuse weak bargaining. Corporate headquarters can revise production locations and investment priorities. Ontario taxpayers cannot revise their tax obligations when promised benefits become inconvenient. American tariffs and changing demand explain some corporate decisions. They also demonstrate why governments must examine adverse scenarios before committing public resources. Every dollar transferred has an opportunity cost. Electricity infrastructure, transportation, technical education and Canadian engineering businesses deserve comparison with corporate assistance. The Finance Minister should demand that comparison before supporting further commitments. Queen’s Park should publish a ledger for each major agreement: authorized support, payments, milestones, sustained jobs, repayment rights and recoveries. Independent review should test whether the original justification remains credible. Where obligations have been breached, recovery should follow. Where plans change, further assistance should require reassessment. Ontario’s workers deserve dependable employment. Its taxpayers deserve measurable returns. Doug Ford’s government sold these deals. Peter Bethlenfalvy shares responsibility for explaining their fiscal consequences. Both must account for money spent, defend the value received and protect the public purse. Another photograph beside a corporate logo will not do.

Election Sign Vandalism Is an Attack on Democracy — Let the Voters Decide

By John Meloche As the 2026 municipal election approaches, a troubling issue deserves the attention of every resident, regardless of political affiliation: the removal, relocation, damage, and destruction of election campaign signs. Signs are being pulled from the ground, moved from their original locations, knocked over, damaged, and in some cases disappearing entirely. Whether these acts are motivated by political disagreement, personal dislike, or simple mischief, deliberate interference with legally placed election signs is unacceptable. An election sign is more than a piece of plastic attached to a metal stake. It represents a candidate who has made the decision to participate in our democratic process. Behind that sign are volunteers, financial contributions, countless hours of work, and residents who have chosen to publicly express their support. When someone deliberately destroys or removes that sign, they are not simply damaging property. They are attempting to silence a political message. And that should concern everyone. Democracy does not mean only allowing the candidates we agree with to be heard. In fact, one of the most important tests of a healthy democracy is our willingness to defend the rights of people whose opinions, policies, or personalities we strongly oppose. You do not have to like a candidate. You do not have to support their platform. You can criticize their decisions, challenge their statements, debate their policies, and encourage others to vote against them. But you do not have the right to interfere with their lawful campaign activities simply because you dislike them. The law is clear. Section 6.08 of the City of Pickering’s Election Sign By-law 7591/17 prohibits the removal, defacement, or wilful damage of lawfully displayed election signs. Ontario Provincial Police have also warned that stealing, vandalizing, or interfering with campaign signs can result in criminal or provincial charges. There is an important distinction between legitimate municipal bylaw enforcement and individuals taking matters into their own hands. Signs that violate placement regulations can be removed by the appropriate authorities. Residents who discover unwanted signs on their own property should contact the responsible campaign or the City. Disagreement is not a licence to vandalize. There is also a financial consequence that is too often overlooked. Municipal candidates operate under strict spending limits. Campaign signs cost money to purchase, distribute, install, maintain, and replace. Every deliberately destroyed sign creates another expense. Every missing sign forces volunteers to spend time replacing it instead of knocking on doors, meeting residents, and discussing the issues that actually matter. More importantly, removing signs deprives residents of the opportunity to see who is running and make their own informed decisions. This is particularly disappointing in municipal elections, where candidates are often neighbours, local business owners, parents, community volunteers, and ordinary residents hoping to contribute to their city. We should be encouraging participation in local democracy, not creating an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility. Those responsible should understand that these actions do not strengthen their political arguments. They undermine them. Residents who witness deliberate sign tampering should document what they safely can and report suspected offences to the appropriate authorities rather than confronting individuals themselves. Every candidate deserves a fair opportunity to participate, regardless of their political beliefs, popularity, or chances of winning. On October 26, Pickering residents will have the opportunity to decide who should represent them. That decision belongs to voters, not vandals. If you dislike a candidate, challenge their ideas. Ask difficult questions. Campaign for someone else. Encourage your neighbours to participate. And when the time comes, make your voice heard where it actually counts At the ballot box. Let every candidate campaign. Let every resident decide. And let democracy do its job.

Circular Economy Month

The Circular Innovation Council (CIC), a non-profit charity, celebrates the annual Circular Economy Month campaign in October by educating the public on circular economy solutions that ‘design out’ waste. Through local events, social media campaigns, online pledges, and educational resources, the campaign engages millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Circular Economy Month is a reminder that everyone has a role to play in protecting the earth's finite resources. Caitlin Perry, CIC’s Senior Manager of Education & Communications who leads this month’s campaign stated, “Canadians can sustain the campaign’s momentum by taking daily steps to rethink your consumption. Purchase smartly designed products meant to last longer, be reused, refurbished, and dismantled. Support companies that offer take back programs for products and packaging. Use your purchasing power to influence greater performance; and deliver environmental and social value.” By the end of the month, many enjoy the excitement of planning and dressing up for halloween. By thinking ‘circular’, it’s a great idea to check out costumes and halloween trinkets at your local thrift store. Even your jack o’lantern has great value. As Ruth Johnston stated in her “The Creative Cook’s Recycling Book,” - “That scary face needn’t hit the dust on November 1st. Beneath the stare, he houses a wealth of golden goodness.” An easy way to cook a pumpkin is to cut it in half and bake face down. This method allows the thick skin to just peel away. Pumpkin cookies, pies, muffins, and squares make great desserts. Creamy pumpkin soups and loafs offer a sturdy lunch. Cooked, pumpkins can be substituted in equal parts in winter squash recipes, and can be used as a pizza topping. To prepare a snack of pumpkin seeds, rinse them with water while holding them in a sieve. Blot dry. Spread on a cookie sheet, sprinkle with salt, and bake at 360 F for about 15 minutes, tossing frequently. For a pudding, add 1 cup cooked pumpkin and a 1 cup cold milk to a 3-ounce package of vanilla instant pudding. Include a pinch of cinnamon, allspice and nutmeg. Beat until pudding thickens. Pour into small bowls and chill for 15 minutes. The gooey pulp can be added to smoothies, or composted. If you have a worm bin with red wigglers, they will love this slushy pulp treat. Ruth Johnson’s cookbook on Pumpkin Soup. 4 cups of pumpkin mashed & cooked 4 cups of chicken stock 1 tbsp of ground ginger 2 tsp butter 1 cup of cream Salt & pepper to taste. Combine all ingredients, except cream, and simmer gently for 10 minutes. For variety, substitute 1/2 tbsp of dill weed and a tsp of curry in place of ginger. For my pumpkin soups, I’ve also included cooked apples and potatoes. Cooked pumpkin can be mashed, placed in small bags and frozen.

The Same Price for Everybody

I have a PC Optimum card, and most of the time I scan it without giving it much thought. Groceries. Card. Points. Done. Every once in a while the app gives me an offer worth using, and I’m pleased with myself as though I somehow negotiated it. I did not negotiate anything. The computer offered it to me. There has been a lot of discussion lately about surveillance pricing, the idea that a company could use information it has about you to decide what price *you* should pay. Not what everyone should pay. You. If a box of cereal is $5.99 for me and $4.99 for the guy standing beside me because an algorithm thinks I’ll tolerate the extra dollar, most of us know exactly how we feel about that. Loblaw says it doesn’t happen in grocery. This summer, the company said surveillance pricing “does not exist in grocery” and that it will never use that kind of pricing. Fair enough. But this week I went looking through the PC Optimum privacy material, and that is where the question gets more complicated. Loblaw’s general privacy policy had just been updated, effective Sept. 30, while its separate loyalty notice spells out something much more familiar. PC Optimum is built to provide a “personalized experience.” It uses past purchases and other information to tailor rewards to the things you buy most. In other words, the price on the shelf may be the same for both of us. The deal in our pockets may not be. You might get points on coffee because you buy coffee. I might get an offer on something completely different. Somebody else may get nothing at all. That is not surveillance pricing in the way people usually mean it. Nobody has secretly added a dollar to my cereal. But if a personalized offer changes what I effectively pay, then the old idea that everybody walking through the same grocery store is having exactly the same transaction starts getting harder to defend. The shelf can still show one price while what you actually pay depends, at least partly, on who is holding the phone. Ottawa has noticed the issue too. Bill C-36, tabled in June, is the federal government’s latest attempt to rewrite private-sector privacy law, and its background material identifies “inappropriate surveillance pricing” as an unfair use of personal information the legislation is intended to address. At a media briefing, officials said the bill does not simply ban surveillance pricing. They pointed to possible benefits, including targeted discounts, and said the regulator would ultimately have to determine what counts as an appropriate use. Use what you know about me to make something more expensive and I’ll probably be furious. Use what you know about me to make it cheaper and I may thank you for the points. Same data. Very different reaction. The data itself has already caused trouble. In March, the federal Privacy Commissioner ruled on complaints from six PC Optimum members who had tried to delete their accounts. Loblaw removed names, email addresses and other direct identifiers, but retained information that included historical transaction data. During the investigation, Loblaw took the position that the remaining information had been effectively anonymized. The Privacy Commissioner found the company had not demonstrated that adequately, and Loblaw accepted the recommendations, including an independent review of its anonymization practices. That part matters more than the points. The receipt used to come out of the machine and go into my pocket. Now the store can keep a memory of the transaction too: what I bought, when I bought it, what offers I used and what I tend to buy again. That history can then help decide what offer appears on my phone next Tuesday. There is nothing automatically sinister about any of this. The old grocery flyer was trying to influence what I bought too. Coupons did the same thing. So did 10 per cent Tuesdays, seniors’ discounts, club cards and the paper coupon somebody clipped from the newspaper and carried around in a wallet for three weeks. Which brings me to the obituary. Maybe “the same price for everybody” isn’t dead. Maybe it never really existed. We have always found ways to charge one customer a little less than another. What has changed is who does the clipping. It used to be me, at the kitchen table, with a pair of scissors and the grocery flyer. Now the coupon clips itself. And it knows what I bought last week.

Who Wants Room Temperature Water?

Have North Americans become accustomed to excessively sweetened beverages? That’s my theory after hosting guests from both Europe and Asia recently. Almost without exception, upon taking a sip of bottled iced tea, they remark on how sugary it is. One child declared it tasted “like syrup.” It’s no small concern that North Americans have come to prefer sweeter foods and beverages. We also tend to go for colder drinks, not those at room temperature, and that’s not helping. It’s a lesser-known fact that cold temperatures reduce the perception of sweetness. The colder the drink, the less sweet it seems. At corner stores where people shop for refreshment, it’s no small challenge to find selections not full of sugar. I have been in enough convenience stores around the world to be frustrated at what they offer in this part of the world. Zero nutrition. Garbage drinks, candy, chips, and fatty fast food. In a typical North American convenience store, stretches of refrigerated space are given over to soft drinks, sweetened iced teas, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit drinks and flavoured beverages. Fifty per cent of the store may seem like an exaggeration, but it’s not far off, and the other half contains chips, candy and other highly processed food. By contrast, a convenience store in Japan offers a very different experience. You will find some sweetened drinks, but you will also find an astounding assortment of unsweetened green tea, barley tea, oolong tea, black coffee, sparkling water and plain water. Unsweetened tea is not a niche health product. It is a regular beverage. It’s a public health disaster that the North American beverage environment has become saturated with sweetness. And we should do some finger pointing, because taste is trainable. If someone gets sickly sweet drinks often enough, that level of sweetness becomes familiar. Reduce the sweetness and, for a while, the drink may seem tasteless. But the palate adapts. What is astonishingly sweet to a child visiting from afar can become unremarkable to a local who has been drinking it for years. We have become accustomed to beverages that are essentially liquid candy. The consequences involve high caloric intake and increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, dental cavities and everything that follows from these gateway diseases. Consumers need to get angry. Why should we have to navigate aisles filled with brightly packaged sugar water before finding plain water or unsweetened tea? Why should we have to decipher labels only to discover that the beverage is loaded with sugar? And why, when governments are spending enormous sums dealing with obesity, diabetes and dental disease, are we so reluctant to challenge an industry that profits from selling the products that contribute to those problems? I would like to see thousands of consumers join me in writing to the chief executives of the big beverage companies and convenience store chains. And to government regulators, too. For their absence of care, I have a strong message: shame on you! But we all should change our habits of our own initiative. Do not buy those awful drinks. The far better choice comes freely out of our faucets. Drink good old-fashioned water. Make your own unsweetened tea. Drink your coffee black. To the beverage executives, I’ll add more scorn. You know exactly how much sugar you are putting into these products. You know that taste preferences can be shaped by repeated exposure. You know your customers include children who have not yet learned to question what they are drinking.

The Wrong Foot

I have been married to my husband for 19 years. We met in high school and had a child right at graduation. After high school and some college we decided to marry. I really didn’t want to marry him nor did I want to continue the relationship with premarital sex. I wanted my freedom to date people and then see if he was right for me. He didn’t want to break up and he didn’t want me to see other people, so I decided to stay, thinking he must really love me. I couldn’t see my way out. I told him, let’s get married or it’s over. I didn’t think he would marry me because he said he wasn’t ready, but weeks after I broke it off he came back and agreed. So we were married. I felt apprehensive about getting married, but I thought it was just cold feet. At the time I thought marriage would work out the kinks in our relationship, and the love we had for each other would overrule anything. Well, 19 years and two more children later I am utterly miserable. He is now someone I do not like, and I don’t think he likes me that much either, but he doesn’t want to get a divorce. I do but I am afraid. Our oldest daughter moved out and we have two teenagers at home. Raising children together has been the best thing we’ve done. It’s about the only thing we can agree on because everything else is a tug of war. I want out. But with the shaky economy and thoughts of being a single parent, I don’t know if this would be the best time. Plus, if he doesn’t agree to the divorce, it will be expensive and I will have to prove irreconcilable differences. At times I feel like I am pushing a man away from loving me. I am so confused. Jill Jill, in the HBO series “The Sopranos,” Carmela Soprano enjoys the lifestyle provided by her gangster husband, Tony. At the same time, she is dissatisfied with his crude ways. Contemplating divorce, Carmela goes to a therapist to find a simple answer to her dilemma, but she is taken aback by his bluntness. The therapist makes clear her husband is a mobster, and whether she stays or goes, Carmela intends to continue living off blood money. You would like a simple solution, too, but in your own mind you are sidestepping the truth. Immediately after telling us you never loved your husband, you speak of the love you both had. Which is it? It appears you gave him an ultimatum. Marry me, or I will date others. That isn’t the wedding proposal most girls dream of, and if that is what happened, it wasn’t the right way to begin a marriage. Most people don’t like to say no, and that is why they often give in to high-pressure sales people. Is that what your husband did? Look at what happened, examine it, and own it. There is no shame in admitting a mistake, when a mistake is made. Put your cards on the table with your husband, but before that, put your cards on the table with yourself. You are not the only person who ever mistook like, familiarity, and convenience for love. Your yearning is telling you that you never had love and are still looking. Many women in your situation--trapped by economics and the prospect of single parenthood--go looking for another man and leave the marriage only when they have found one. But that is the low road, and you don’t need to take the low road again. We don’t get more from less, and we don’t get something from easy. First, be honest with yourself. Next, be honest with your husband. Then the two of you can decide where you honestly are. Wayne & Tamara

Public Input Should Come Before the Decision

Imagine someone asking for your opinion about a major purchase after they have already signed the agreement. You might reasonably ask: What, exactly, can my opinion change now? Residents should ask the same question when governments make decisions involving public money, public land and public assets. Public input belongs at the beginning of the process, while options remain open and residents can still influence the outcome. When consultation comes after important commitments, people are left responding to a decision instead of helping shape it. There is a significant difference between informing the public and consulting the public. A presentation announcing what will happen provides information. Meaningful consultation gives residents a chance to question whether it should happen, what it should cost and what alternatives deserve consideration. That distinction matters because the consequences can last for decades. A major purchase can create borrowing costs, maintenance expenses and operating obligations. The sale of a public asset can permanently change what a community owns and controls. A development decision can affect roads, services, farmland and neighbourhoods long after the council that approved it has left office. Before those commitments are made, residents deserve clear answers. What is the full cost? What independent information supports the price? What conditions must be satisfied? What happens if anticipated funding does not arrive? Who pays for ongoing operations? What other options were considered? These questions should guide the decision from the outset. A conditional agreement also deserves careful explanation. Calling an agreement “conditional” does not tell residents how much flexibility remains. People deserve to understand the significant conditions, the deadlines and what obligations may already exist. My standard is straightforward: establish and understand the conditions upfront, obtain the information needed to assess the price, and seek meaningful public input before making major commitments. There are circumstances where confidentiality serves a legitimate purpose. Residents do not need every negotiating detail published while negotiations are underway. But confidentiality should have a clear purpose and a limit. The public deserves as much information as can responsibly be released, along with an explanation of what remains confidential and why. What residents hear publicly may not capture everything discussed behind closed doors. That makes accurate public explanations especially important. People need enough information to assess the decision, its costs and its consequences. Funding announcements deserve the same scrutiny. We often hear that another level of government will help pay for a project. That can be valuable, but the money still comes from taxpayers. The same taxpayer pays at every level. Funding can also carry conditions. Before accepting it, a municipality should explain the obligations attached to it and whether local taxpayers will inherit expenses after the initial contribution has been spent. Council should also be cautious about approving projects before outside funding is secured and its conditions are understood. Otherwise, taxpayers can end up paying for consultants and preliminary work, only to face a choice between abandoning the project or covering the funding shortfall themselves. Money already spent can become an argument for spending even more. That is why the funding plan and its conditions should be examined before costly commitments begin. Residents deserve the complete financial picture. Public participation also improves decisions. A resident may identify a practical problem that was overlooked. A business owner may explain an impact that does not appear in a staff report. Someone who uses a service every day may offer a solution that deserves consideration. Listening does not require council to agree with every opinion. It requires council to take those opinions seriously, consider them before deciding, and explain its eventual choice. That is how trust is earned. As an elected representative, I believe our responsibility includes making decisions that residents can understand and examine. When we ask people to pay for something, we owe them a clear explanation of its value, its risks and its long-term cost. The people of Pickering deserve a meaningful voice in decisions about the community they live in and help fund. Their questions deserve answers while those answers can still affect what happens next. Public input should never be reduced to an invitation to comment on a finished plan. If we want residents to trust City Hall, we must give them a place in the process before commitments are made. Ask first. Explain the costs. Understand the conditions. Consider the alternatives. Then make the decision.

Since You Can’t Read Your Interviewer's Mind, Is a Beverage Really Worth Risking Your First Impression? Less Canada, More Foreign Capital: The Hypocrisy of Carney's Quest for Foreign Investment

By Nick Kossovan Given economic realities—from inflation and trade tariffs to AI-driven restructurings that are erasing white-collar entry-level roles—you'd think job seekers would have bigger concerns than turning the internet into a battleground over a Gen Z applicant walking into an interview with an iced coffee. Arguing that personal comfort should trump workplace professionalism conveniently ignores the first rule of employment: the employer issuing the paycheque decides what's acceptable. Once you strip away the social media virtue-signalling, what's left to debate? An interviewer either cares about that beverage or doesn't; it's that simple. Deciding what counts as a dealbreaker or which of two equally qualified candidates is a better fit is entirely the hiring manager's prerogative. Since you can't read minds, err on the side of caution and leave the drink outside. Unless, of course, you aren't particularly serious about landing the job, in which case feel free to walk into the interview with a Venti Caramel Macchiato. The issue isn't the drink; it's the human tendency, shared by all of us, to interpret observable behaviours as evidence of professionalism. Your dress, mannerisms, and whether you're carrying a drink will be noticed and, therefore, subject to bias. Think carefully about the optics you present to your interviewer and what they may assume based on what you show. An interview is an exercise in managing assumptions; that responsibility is entirely yours. Holding a drink unnecessarily exposes you to assumptions about your character that may not work in your favour. · Casual indifference: You treat high-stakes meetings like a casual errand between the hardware store and the dry cleaner. · Poor time management: You couldn't manage your morning schedule well enough to finish your beverage before the interview. · Subtle entitlement: You expect employers to accommodate your personal relaxation habits within their workplace. · Weak self-awareness: You disregard how physical props and handheld distractions undermine your professionalism. No two hiring managers evaluate candidates the same way. Each applies their biases, standards, and elimination filters to hiring decisions. Personally, I gravitate toward candidates with a touch of swagger, those who signal confidence. Another manager, however, might see that same swagger as arrogance and view the candidate as unmanageable. This unpredictability makes relying on luck extremely risky. You have no idea what your interviewer prefers. As Will Rogers famously noted, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." Consider this the golden rule of interviewing. Job seekers often ask me why recruiters and hiring managers obsess over microscopic details rather than technical competency, experience, and aptitude. The answer: your resume gets you in the door, but your behaviour strongly influences whether they want you to join their company. With nothing else to go on, interviewers rely on your demeanour to gauge maturity, assess cultural fit, and determine your manageability. Years of observation taught me that corporate workplaces are, for the most part, stages; much of the activity is theatrical. My actions speak before I do, and that image is everything, instantly opening or closing doors. Treat an interview like a casual coffee catch-up, and don't be surprised when you get a "We've decided to pursue other candidates" email. Beyond perception, carrying a drink introduces physical risks. You have to find a surface to set it down. You may leave a condensation ring on the boardroom table, spill it onto documents, or offer a cold, clammy handshake. Why introduce these risks to a critical conversation? I recommend extending this caution: Don't drink anything one hour before an interview, and don't eat three hours prior. "Nature calling" often happens at the worst possible time; discomfort interferes with posture, poise, and focus. Managing your narrative intentionally is key to controlling your interviews or any room you find yourself in. First impressions form within seven seconds of contact. The key to winning those seven seconds is to follow three rules: · Rule 1: Arrive unencumbered. Leave all physical baggage outside the interview room. Keep your hands completely free and ready to shake your interviewer's hand. · Rule 2: Project intentional composure. Stand tall, maintain steady eye contact, and offer a firm handshake. True confidence is quiet, deliberate, and free of handheld props or nervous fidgeting. · Rule 3: Respect the domain. Signal to your interviewer that you are fully attentive to their time and evaluation of you. You can't control your interviewer's biases or predict whether they favour humility or swagger. However, you own every variable you bring into the room. I've never rejected a candidate simply for bringing a drink, a pet (happened twice), or a stress toy (happened once) to the interview. For me, none of those are automatic dealbreakers. Real dealbreakers include not knowing the company, ignoring the job scope, dodging questions, failing skills assessment, or showing zero curiosity. While I don't personally understand "iced coffee"—coffee is meant to be hot—a cold caffeinated drink won't, for me, single-handedly eliminate an otherwise qualified candidate. However, I speak only for myself. Still, why give your interviewer a reason to eliminate you? Dress the part, leave the distractions outside the interview room, and focus solely on proving your value.

If We Want Seniors to Stay Home, Why Do We Make It So Hard?

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Oshawa is a union town. We know what a picket line looks like. For generations Those are fair questions. We saw how We hear it all the time. Seniors want to stay in their own homes. Governments want that too. It helps seniors keep their independence and stay connected to their community. But there is something missing from this conversation. Not every senior is in a wheelchair. Not every senior has dementia or needs someone looking after them every day. Many seniors are still fairly fit. They cook. They clean. They shop. They go for coffee. They take the bus. They visit family. They work around the house. But maybe they have a bad hip. Maybe it is a knee that needs replacing. Suddenly, something as simple as going downtown can become a challenge. I understand this more than I once did. When you have trouble with a hip or knee, you begin noticing things you never noticed before. You notice how far away the next bench is. You notice stairs. You notice narrow spaces. And if you use a walker, you really notice washrooms. Think about going into a restaurant. The accessible stall is being used, so you try the regular stall. How do you get yourself and a walker through that little door? Sometimes you cannot. The same thing happens with public transit. Durham Region Transit has accessible buses, ramps and spaces for mobility devices. That is important. But getting onto the bus is only part of the trip. Can you move through it safely? Can you get a seat? What happens when the bus is crowded and you are trying to turn a walker around? Then there is the waiting for surgery. Canada has a benchmark of 26 weeks for hip and knee replacement surgery. Yet many Canadians wait beyond that benchmark. During that time, life continues. You still need groceries. You still have appointments. You still want to see your grandchildren. Most importantly, you want to keep moving. That is where Oshawa and other cities can make a difference. We need more benches along walking routes. A bench might not seem important to a healthy 30 year old. To somebody with a painful hip, that bench might be what allows them to walk another block. We need bus stops where people can sit. We need sidewalks kept clear, especially during an Oshawa winter. We need public washrooms that people using walkers can actually use. Pedestrian crossings also deserve another look. Is there enough time for someone with a walker to safely cross a busy street? And what about our parks? We should have more exercise equipment designed for older adults. Many seniors want to exercise. They are not asking for somebody to do everything for them. They are trying to remain independent. Perhaps city councillors and planners should spend a few hours with seniors who use walkers. Take the bus with them. Walk several blocks. Try the washroom. Wait at a bus stop. Try it again in January when there is snow on the ground. You might learn more doing that than reading another hundred page report. There is also a financial side to this. Helping someone remain active and independent may help them stay in their home longer. Isolation and inactivity can take away confidence surprisingly quickly. Sometimes independence comes down to very small things. A bench. A cleared sidewalk. A safe washroom. A place on the bus. We keep telling seniors to stay active, stay healthy and stay in their own homes. Fine. Now we have to help make that possible. So here is the question I would put around the kitchen table. If Oshawa truly wants to be an age-friendly city, are we willing to walk beside our seniors and see the city through their eyes. Because if a person can live independently in their own home but cannot safely get around their own community, we still have work to do.

Is Ontario Closing the Door on Government Transparency?

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington For almost four decades, Ontario's freedom-of-information system has rested on a simple democratic principle: government information belongs, ultimately, to the public. There have always been legitimate exceptions. Personal information must be protected. Cabinet needs space for confidential deliberations. Commercially sensitive information cannot simply be thrown into the public domain. Police investigations, security information and other protected records require safeguards. But there is a fundamental difference between protecting legitimately confidential information and removing entire categories of government records from the public's legal right of access. In 2026, Ontario changed that balance. Through Bill 97, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026, the province made significant amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - FIPPA. And Ontarians should understand exactly what changed. From 30 days to 45 business days. Previously, a government institution generally had 30 calendar days to respond to a freedom-ofinformation request. For requests made on or after July 1, 2026, that became 45 business days. That distinction matters. Forty-five business days can translate into roughly nine weeks before weekends and statutory holidays are considered. The legislation also permits a second extension in specified circumstances. For journalists working on a developing story, community organizations investigating a public issue, businesses trying to understand a government decision, or ordinary citizens asking how their tax dollars were spent, information delayed can sometimes become information that has lost much of its usefulness. The legislation also introduced "staged access plans." Where requests are considered sufficiently broad or burdensome - including because of their time period, volume or collective impact on government operations - institutions can establish a process for providing the information in stages. There are procedures and appeal rights surrounding those plans. But the practical reality remains: obtaining large amounts of public information can now take considerably longer. The most consequential issue is not simply waiting longer for documents.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. It is whether certain documents can be obtained through FIPPA at all. The amendments exclude specified records held by the Premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices from the Act. That distinction is enormous. The independent Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario warned in March that excluding records held at the highest political levels would diminish Ontarians' right to information. The Commissioner also challenged one of the rationales for the change: that sensitive material needs greater protection. Ontario's existing freedom-of-information legislation already contained protections for cabinet confidences, personal information, confidential commercial information and other legitimately sensitive records. In other words, freedom of information never meant that everything inside government was automatically public.It meant citizens had a legal right to ask. Government could claim an exemption. And, importantly, an independent Information and Privacy Commissioner could review many of those decisions. That system of checks and balances is at the heart of access-to-information legislation. And then there is retroactivity. Perhaps the most extraordinary element of the amendments is their treatment of existing records and requests. Bill 97 expressly provides that the new exclusion applies even to records created before the legislation received Royal Assent. It also provides that a person who previously possessed a right of access to one of those records ceases to have that right - even where an access request had already been submitted. The Information and Privacy Commissioner subsequently stated that the legislation applies retroactively to 1988 and removes the affected records from the scope of FIPPA and from the Commissioner's statutory authority.nThink about what that principle means. A citizen can have a legal right to request a government record. The citizen can exercise that right. And legislation can subsequently remove the record from the access regime. Whatever one's political affiliation, that deserves serious public discussion.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. This isn't just about reporters. There is another misconception worth addressing. Freedom of information is sometimes portrayed as something primarily used by journalists trying to embarrass governments. The numbers tell a very different story. According to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, the province processed 27,344 provincial freedom-of-information requests in 2024. Only 1,092 - approximately four per cent - came from the media. More than 95 per cent came from individuals, businesses, researchers, community organizations and others. Freedom of information is therefore not merely a tool of the press. It is a tool of citizenship. The Ontario government presents the changes very differently. It says Ontario's access and privacy legislation had gone almost four decades without major modernization and needed to reflect modern technology, cybersecurity requirements and contemporary government operations. The province says changes involving cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices bring Ontario more closely into line with approaches elsewhere in Canada and will support more efficient government administration. Those are arguments Ontarians are entitled to consider. But they must also be weighed against the concerns raised by Ontario's independent Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has argued that existing FIPPA exemptions already protected cabinet confidences and other sensitive information and that excluding records altogether reduces transparency and independent oversight.That is the real debate. Democracy isn't simply the ability to vote every four years. It also depends upon citizens having enough information between elections to understand what their government is doing. Who participated in a decision? What advice was provided? How was public money spent? Who communicated with government? What records exist behind a controversial decision? Not every answer must necessarily be disclosed. There are legitimate reasons for confidentiality.Mr. X-Files | Ontario Freedom of Information. But there is an important democratic difference between government saying, "You may ask, but this particular information is legally exempt," and the law saying, in effect, "You no longer have the right to ask for this category of records under FIPPA." That distinction should concern Ontarians regardless of whether they support or oppose the current government. Because freedom-of-information legislation isn't supposed to belong to one political party. It belongs to the public. Governments change. The public's right to scrutinize them should endure.

DIY Home security on a budget

By Tom Reimer When Daniel bought the little house at the edge of town, he quickly discovered that owning a home came with an unexpected responsibility: making it feel safe. He didn’t have money for an expensive security system, reinforced steel doors, or a professional installer. What he had was a toolbox, a weekend, and a modest budget. So he started with the front door. The door looked strong, but Daniel noticed that the lock hardware was attached to a flimsy section of the frame. He replaced the worn hardware with sturdier hardware and used appropriately sized screws that anchored into the structural framing. He did the same for the door leading into the garage. Next came the windows. He checked every latch and discovered that several had become loose over the years. He repaired them and made sure every accessible window could be properly secured. For windows that faced secluded areas, he added inexpensive alarms that would make a loud sound if the window was opened unexpectedly. On Saturday evening, Daniel walked around the property with a flashlight. He discovered things he had never noticed before. A tall hedge blocked the view of the side entrance. A stack of garden equipment sat beside the garage. The porch was surprisingly dark. He trimmed the hedge, moved the equipment into the locked shed, and installed a simple motion-activated light near the entrance. The changes weren’t dramatic, but the house already felt different. On Sunday, Daniel installed a couple of inexpensive cameras facing the main approaches to the property. He positioned them so that they didn’t invade his neighbors’ privacy. He also placed a visible alarm notice near the entrance. Then he created something more important than any gadget: a family plan. If something suspicious happened at night, nobody would wander downstairs to investigate. Everyone would know where to go and whom to call. A small upstairs room with a solid door became their designated safe room. They kept their phones charged and made sure everyone knew the local emergency number. Daniel explained to his daughter that the goal wasn’t to fight anyone. “Security isn’t about being brave,” he told her. “It’s about giving ourselves time to get somewhere safe.” That evening, Daniel sat on the porch and looked at the house. It wasn’t a fortress. There were still plenty of things he couldn’t afford to change. But the doors were stronger, the windows were secured, the dark corners were illuminated, and the family had a plan. A week later, a violent storm knocked out the neighborhood’s electricity. Daniel’s daughter woke frightened by the darkness. Daniel reached for the flashlight he had placed beside the bed. The emergency lights came on, powered by batteries. Everyone knew what to do. They stayed together, checked that the doors and windows were secure, and waited for the power to return. Daniel smiled. He had originally thought home security was about keeping strangers out. Now he understood that the most important part was helping the people inside remain calm, prepared, and safe. His little house didn’t need to become a fortress. It simply needed to become a home that was ready.