Saturday, February 28, 2026
Dead and Gone… Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
Dead and Gone…
Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
After someone dies, there is a moment that families rarely talk about. It doesn’t happen during the first phone call. It doesn’t happen when the paperwork begins. It usually happens quietly, around a kitchen table. Someone asks, “So… what would he have wanted?”
If I were gone, I would hope my family would not feel pressure in that moment. But I know how easily it can happen.
Funeral decisions sound practical from the outside. Burial or cremation. Service or no service. Where. When. How.
But underneath those choices is something more complicated. Who gets to decide?
Many people assume there is a clear answer. Sometimes there is. If someone left written instructions, or prepaid arrangements, that simplifies things. Often, though, there are only conversations half remembered. “I think he said he didn’t want a big fuss.” “Didn’t she once mention cremation?”
“I’m not sure. We never really talked about it.” Grief has a way of amplifying uncertainty. If I were gone, I would want my family to know this: there is rarely a perfect answer. In Ontario, the legal authority to make funeral arrangements usually follows a next-of-kin order. A spouse. An adult child. A parent. But legal authority and emotional authority are not always the same thing.
Sometimes the person with the legal right to decide feels overwhelmed. Sometimes siblings disagree. Sometimes one family member wants something traditional, while another wants something simple.
Those disagreements are rarely about money. They are about love. About memory. About what feels respectful. I have spoken with families who later told me the hardest part was not the paperwork or the cost. It was trying to interpret what someone would have wanted without being completely sure. If I could leave my family one instruction, it would not be about burial or cremation. It would be this: Talk to each other gently. No single decision defines a life.
A modest service does not mean less love. A simple cremation does not mean less honour. A traditional burial does not mean someone was pressured. What matters most is that the people left behind feel united, not divided.
Sometimes that means compromise. Sometimes it means one person stepping back and saying, “What feels right to you?” There is another quiet truth most families discover. Even when someone leaves detailed instructions, the living still carry the emotional weight.
You can follow a plan perfectly and still feel unsure. That is normal. If I were gone, what I would want most is not a particular type of arrangement.
I would want my family to feel steady with one another. I would want them to choose something that reflects our values - without feeling judged by anyone else’s expectations.
Funeral decisions are not about creating something impressive. They are about creating something honest.
Next week, I will write about something families rarely discuss ahead of time, but often struggle with afterward: how long grief lingers once the service is over - and why that part can be harder than the arrangements themselves.
Statins, Side Effects, and the Silence About Choice
Statins, Side Effects, and
the Silence About Choice
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
There’s a common organizational saying: structure drives behaviour. In institutional theory, it’s called path dependence. Once a structure or pattern is established, it becomes self-reinforcing. This is a problem in medicine. Researchers and specialists become deeply immersed in their own areas of expertise. They network within tight knowledge clusters. They protect their territory. And when they train recruits, they filter out possible solutions to problems before deliberation even begins.
This is the story – or an important part of a complex story – of the commitment by so many experts to statins in the treatment of heart disease.
A large meta-analysis recently published in The Lancet and reported in the British Medical Journal concludes that most of the side effects listed in statin leaflets – memory loss, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, erectile dysfunction – occur no more often in those taking the drug than in those taking a placebo. Regulators are now considering changes to product labels. Experts speak of “powerful reassurance.” We are told confusion has gone on long enough.
But here’s the question: reassurance for whom?
I am not lambasting the research. Randomized trials involving more than 120,000 participants deserve respect. If the data show that many feared side effects are less common than thought, then provide consumers with that information.
What I object to is the triumphal tone and the relentless march toward medicating ever larger swaths of the population without an equally forceful message about personal responsibility and informed choice – choice that includes information on treatment options that go beyond pharmaceutical drugs.
Seven to eight million adults in the UK already take statins. If guidelines are followed to the letter, that number could climb to 15 million.
And what is the public message?
Not: “Let’s first talk about your waistline, your diet, your blood pressure, your exercise habits, your smoking.”
Not: “Let’s see what happens if you walk briskly for 30 minutes a day.”
Not: “There are safe, effective, natural alternatives to the drugs.”
Instead, it is: “Don’t worry. The pills are safer than you think.”
That is not prevention. It’s pharmacological management.
Doctors complain that “negative publicity” has led patients to refuse statins or stop taking them. They suggest that switching between different statins reinforces “misinformation.” But perhaps patients are not irrational. Perhaps they are wary. And in today’s pharmaceutical marketplace, where billions are at stake, wariness is not a character flaw.
When a study funded by a major heart foundation reassures us that side effects are minimal and uptake should increase, skepticism is healthy. Not cynical. Healthy.
Yes, cardiovascular disease is a leading killer. Yes, lowering LDL cholesterol reduces risk. But medicine has drifted from treating disease to treating risk scores. The new threshold recommends considering statins for people with less than a 10% ten-year risk of cardiovascular disease. Think about that. We are medicating people who are, statistically speaking, unlikely to have an event in the first place.
And what do we tell them about the other levers they can pull?
Lifestyle changes can reduce cardiovascular risk by 30%, 40%, sometimes more. Weight loss lowers blood pressure and improves blood sugar. Exercise raises HDL cholesterol and reduces inflammation. A Mediterranean-style diet lowers cardiovascular events.
But lifestyle medicine takes time. It requires conversation, follow-up, and motivation. A prescription takes 30 seconds.
The pharmaceutical industry thrives on expanding definitions of risk and broadening treatment thresholds. That is the business model. But physicians are not supposed to be extensions of that model. They are supposed to be educators and advocates.
When the dominant message is “don’t worry, just take the pill,” they fail in that role.
Today’s approach to Debt?
By The Numbers
Election Season Approaches
When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear
When Employers See Your Value, Job
Market Disconnects Disappear
By Nick Kossovan
When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer.
I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to.
1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job.
2. Intellectualizing their experience.
Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value.
When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility.
An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable.
Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by:
· Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes.
· Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder).
Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?”
· "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel."
· "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative."
· "Results-driven leader with a proven track record."
Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill.
Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)?
· In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community.
· Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%.
· Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease.
· Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo.
· Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations.
Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes.
The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address.
For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume.
Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.” 
Freedom On Trial
Freedom On Trial
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
There is a new kind of tension in Canada right now. Not the loud kind that blows up in a comment section. The quiet kind that sits in your gut when you read the next federal bill and think, wait, can they really do that?
People are worn down. Prices are up. Trust is thin. When trust is thin, government power feels heavier. You hear it in plain talk from people who never cared about politics. They are saying, I keep my head down now. I do not post that stuff anymore. I do not want to be the one they make an example of.
That last line is the warning. Behaviour is changing.
The bill lighting up phones and church meetings is Bill C 9, the Combating Hate Act, introduced in September 2025. Ottawa says it targets hate, intimidation, and harassment, and protects access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and community centres. Most Canadians agree nobody should be threatened while walking into a house of worship.
The fight is about what else gets pulled in, and what becomes criminal when definitions get stretched.
Bill C 9 proposes changes to hate propaganda and hate crime rules in the Criminal Code. The part that has faith communities on edge is tied to removing a long standing defence that protects good faith discussion of religious subjects. In simple terms, that defence has been a legal shield for religious teaching and debate, even when a topic is sensitive, even when the message is unpopular.
That matters because religion is not only comfort. A lot of it is moral claims. Right and wrong. Sin and forgiveness. Marriage. Family. Human nature. Those topics will always offend someone. In a free country, offence is not supposed to equal crime.
When the legal line gets blurry, people stop talking. Not because they plan harm. Because they do not trust how the line will be drawn later, who can file a complaint, or what happens when a sermon clip goes online.
And in 2026 everything goes online.
A phone in the back pew. A short clip. A caption added by someone else. A few angry comments. Then the pile on. Context disappears. Tone disappears. Even a quote can be treated like a personal attack.
Some people say, if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is not how modern life works. Words are messy. Sarcasm gets read as threat. A hard opinion gets labelled harmful. A quote gets treated like intent.
Here is the fear Canadians are talking about. A country can slide into punishing speech, not only violence. The fear is not only a fine. It is a police file. A court date. A lawyer bill. A criminal label. A job that suddenly goes cold when your name gets searched.
And yes, people talk about jail.
It sounds extreme until you look at other countries that already charge people over online speech. Canadians keep bringing up England because it shows how “we are targeting harm” can become “we are prosecuting messages.” In the UK, some offences cover online messages judged grossly offensive, and convictions can bring penalties, including jail time. That is why Canadians ask, are we heading the same way?
Bill C 9 also lands in a country where online harms proposals keep returning. Ottawa and regulators have been pushing for stronger rules that pressure platforms to reduce exposure to certain content. The goals sound fine. Protect kids. Stop threats.
But the mechanics matter more than the slogans.
If platforms face legal duties and penalties, they protect themselves first. The safest move is to delete fast and wide. More removals. More automated filters. Less tolerance for blunt debate. Less patience for context.
That is how lawful speech gets squeezed without a judge. Private companies become the gatekeepers because they do not want trouble. Even if you never get charged, you can still get shut down. Your post disappears. Your reach drops. You get a warning that explains nothing. Then you stop posting, because it is not worth the headache.
Now add the specific worry for churches. If legal protections around good faith religious discussion are narrowed, it is not hard to picture more complaints aimed at sermons, Bible verses, flyers, youth talks, even a pastor answering a question after service. The fear is not that pastors want to harm anyone. The fear is that a broad law plus a complaint driven culture equals trouble.
A lot of Canadians already watch their words at work. Now they fear they will have to watch their words at church too. Once a church starts preaching like it is scared, something has changed.
Ottawa will say these bills target hate, not honest debate. But laws do not live in press conferences. They live in definitions and enforcement. They live in how police, prosecutors, regulators, and platforms interpret them over time. They live in what gets labelled hate, and who gets to decide.
Here is a basic test any reader can use.
Do these laws focus tightly on direct threats and real violence, with clear language that protects lawful speech? Or do they drift into punishing ideas, moral claims, and unpopular opinions?
Once the state starts managing ideas, it rarely stops at the first target. Language broadens. Enforcement gets uneven. The safest move for ordinary people becomes silence.
If Ottawa wants trust, the answer is not vague speech law. The answer is tight language, clear limits, and strong protection for lawful expression, including religious expression, even when it offends someone.
If you care about free speech, do not sleepwalk through this. Read what Bill C 9 changes. Watch whether Parliament removes the good faith religious defence. Ask your MP one direct question. Can Canadians speak honestly about religion, morality, and politics without fearing a police file, or worse?
Because once fear becomes normal, freedom shrinks quietly, and you notice it only after your voice is already gone.
The YAR Factor: When Planning Debate Becomes Character Assassination
The YAR Factor: When Planning Debate Becomes Character Assassination
There was a time when land-use planning debates in Clarington revolved around traffic studies, air quality modeling, servicing capacity and waterfront access.
Now we have something new.
I’m calling it the YAR Factor — You’ re All Racists.
It emerged during discussion of the Courtice South Secondary Plan — the lands south of Highway 401 , west of Darlington Provincial Park and east of Energy Drive, adjacent to
the Clarington Energy from Waste Facility.
For those unfamiliar with planning law, a secondary plan is not a building permit. It is the blueprint that dictates what will eventually rise from the ground. It sets height. Density. Employment lands. Park configuration. Road alignments. Phasing triggers. It is where a community’s bones are drawn long before cranes arrive.
And this one is complicated.
We are talking about lands that:
- Sit beside a provincial park.
- Border an incinerator facility with potential expansion.
- Exist within the shadow of approved small modular reactor development.
- Will require updated nuclear emergency planning.
- Will demand new air quality studies.
- Will trigger development charge recalculations.
- Will intersect with GO expansion timelines and Courtice Road/401 upgrades.
- Contain significant employment lands tied to the energy sector.
This area is likely 13–15 years from full realization. But the policy groundwork happens now.
That’s why residents showed up.
They raised concerns about:
- Waterfront access.
- Condo tower height and density in the Kemp subdivision.
- Industrial adjacency.
- Whether the municipality missed an opportunity years ago to acquire the entire waterfront for roughly $2 million.
- Infrastructure sequencing before residential intensification.
These are not fringe objections. They are textbook planning questions.
And yet, instead of rebutting those concerns with studies, reports, and evidence, the debate veered into something else entirely.
Regional Councillor Granville Anderson publicly suggested that those opposing the residential component of the secondary plan are racist and Islamophobic.
That is not a planning rebuttal. That is amoral indictment.
Let’s be clear: racism exists. It must be confronted wherever it appears. But to broadly characterize policy opposition as racism — absent explicit discriminatory statements — is not anti-racism leadership. It is rhetorical escalation.
When elected officials label dissenters instead of answering them, three things happen:
1 . Public participation declines.
2. Trust in process erodes.
3. Real anti-racism work is trivialized.
The irony here is profound. When planning debates are reframed as moral purity tests, we stop debating policy altogether. We stop asking whether the development charge by- law is updated. Whether emergency plans align with approved reactor development.
Whether employment lands are being quietly eroded. Whether air modeling has been completed. Whether phasing matches infrastructure capacity.
Instead, we debate who is virtuous. That is governance drift.
There is also another uncomfortable layer. Repeated public praise of a developer’s
philanthropy during statutory planning meetings does not strengthen a file — it weakens it. Philanthropy is commendable. It should not be weaponizedas political insulation.
Developers deserve fair process, not performative adoration.
Planning decisions must stand on the Planning Act, the Official Plan, and evidence — not applause.
When I served in office and faced controversial development files, I did not dismiss
residents. I demanded studies. I ensured staff reports addressed legitimate concerns. I made my case with data.
Calling the public racist because they question density is not data.
The YAR Factor is dangerous because it shuts down debate by redefining disagreement as prejudice.
A municipality cannot build trust if residents fear being morally smeared for asking about building heights.
Clarington stands at a crossroads. The Courtice South lands will shape our waterfront, employment base, and infrastructure load for generations. These decisions deserve
rigorous analysis — not rhetorical shortcuts.
If council believes the residential intensification is sound policy, make the case:
- Show the servicing capacity.
- Demonstrate the emergency preparedness.
- Produce the air quality modeling.
- Update the capital forecast.
- Align the development charges.
Win the argument. But do not silence it.
Because once public consultation becomes avenue for character assassination, participation becomes a liability — and democracy becomes performative.
The YAR Factor may win a news cycle. It will not build a community.
Building A Culture Of Control
Building A Culture Of Control
As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region.
No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent.
Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion.
I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch.
Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended.
Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach.
Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway.
The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it.
This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation.
Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch?
Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance.
The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.
63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...
63 Million Insults And Our
Mayor Thanks Them...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS.
That they would make such a statement public in the first place...
But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for
investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa.
Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”,
as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked.
The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids
to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa.
In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they
rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa.
Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa.
This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it.
Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by
putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain.
If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not
to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands.
It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep
the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars.
I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God
that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows.
You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer.
In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys
like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all
they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or
nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead
beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee. I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics.
Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....
Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job
Saturday, February 21, 2026
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT…
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
What is it with humanity? No, matter what it is. The cycle of life is always the same. No matter the cause, purpose or other. Things come together for a common good and end up ruined, destroyed and or dead.
I say this with great liberty due to the fact that if anything history lessons are our indicators for our future. The Mayan, the Inca, Roman Empire, Vikings and so on...
Yet, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again. These mistakes come to fruition due to greed, ignorance and in many cases as Freud would assume a hyper extension of ego.
The ego is the conscious, organized part of the psyche that mediates between unrealistic, impulsive desires (the id) and the moral constraints of reality (the superego).
The superego is the ethical, moralizing component of personality in Freud's structural model, acting as an internal conscience that strives for perfection, guilt-free behavior, and societal conformity. With the understanding of these concept one can begin to appredicate failure in just about every system ever created by man.
We as human have a flaw in our psychic. It is as if we set up ourselves to fail.
Look at the history of the Internet for example. An electronic invention that revolutionized humanity.
I remember in it’s early stages. NO, one had computers and even less internet.
The technology was reserved for higher education and government institutions. I remember bringing the internet to Durham. I could not give it away. I approached all municipal government. They did not want it due to cost of updating their outdated computers.
During the early days, there were no browsers and no social media. ICQ was one of the first communication platforms. People could actually chat in live time. The internet during those days was self governed. People acted with respect and with civility. There was no commercialism. All operated on dial up modems with limited bandwidth.
Then came the introduction of very primitive browser. This opened the door to commercialism. People would sell books, booklets and self help books.
One of the first to appear online as a business was small companies like PayPal. Companies that offered the ability to make transactions over the internet.
This flooded the internet with porn site for pay. Online casinos running illegally. With the sudden surge in commercial interest online. The Google, Yahoo and many other browsers began investing millions in the development of their browsers.
Offering a platform for start up, home, and small businesses to sell their wares. Then the Amazon, Craig List and the like.
This realization of being able to make millions if not billions was the begging to the end of the internet. Today, the internet is nothing short of a commercial public toilet.
Flooded with all kind of tracking devices that produce millions of pop up windows offering you all kinds of merchandize.
The once internet that self governed and a marble for human communications has become a social public toilet.
Superegos - expressing all kinds of misinformation that set patterns of information controlled by governments through further misinformation. The old belief use to be. The most successful governments are those that can keep their population ignorant of the facts and fighting among themselves.
The internet is such arena. Now compounded by a false labeled Artificial Intelligence. We are doomed, as there is nothing intelligent about an artificial system set by our ignorance. AI is nothing but a new browser. A browser that can compose information faster than any human. This is not intelligence. This is just a show of our ignorance. The internet is slowly coming to it’s end.
Misinformation, over saturation of commercialism and the human need for interaction will soon deem the net absolete.
AI should be best labeled Artificial Ignorance of the facts.
A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
A Voice Before the Vote
A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections
By Camryn Bland
Youth Columnist
Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote.
Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize.
Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented.
Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them.
Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest.
What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility.
A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity.
One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed.
Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.
Friday, February 20, 2026
Gold Medals Are Not the Goal in Health
Gold Medals Are Not the
Goal in Health
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
The Olympics showcase people pushing to their limits. Athletes soar, leap, slide and score! Watching from the couch, feet up, drink in hand, we marvel at these feats.
In the natural world, certain animals push their limits too. Some migratory birds can fly for days – sometimes weeks – without landing. The bar-tailed godwit, for example, travels more than 11,000 kilometres nonstop across the Pacific Ocean, fueled only by stored fat and instinct. No cheering crowds. No gold medals. Just a destination and the will to reach it.
Such accomplishments are for the gifted. But what are the rest of us capable of doing?
I attended an event last week designed to inspire university leaders to be more innovative. There, one of the speakers talked about the “magic 10%”. Wholesale change is rarely successful, but changing 10% of something is a good strategy for getting results over time.
Many people fail to learn this lesson, even as history repeatedly teaches it. Lasting accomplishments, especially those related to health, tend to come not from heroic bursts of effort, but from setting a clear, achievable goal and working at it in increments.
It used to be true in sport too. Take the first marathon runners in the late 19th century. They were not elite athletes by modern standards. Many were ordinary people with day jobs, inspired by the idea of testing their endurance over a long distance. Training methods were basic, nutrition was poorly understood, and injuries were common. Some failed spectacularly. Others quit. A few persevered. What separated them was not brilliance, but persistence.
Change has come the same way in most medical advances, even when heroes should have won gold medals. When Edward Jenner proposed vaccination in the 1790s, he was ridiculed. When Ignaz Semmelweis insisted that handwashing could prevent deadly infections, his colleagues rejected him. Ultimately, it was the long accumulation of evidence that drove progress.
When it comes to our own health, we err in strategies that are entirely self-driven – overhauling our diet overnight, acquiring a treadmill, cutting out alcohol, and so on. But all-or-nothing thinking is an obstacle to better health.
The body responds best to steady and enduring signals, not sudden shocks. Lowering blood pressure by ten points, improving balance by daily practice, and enjoying one drink slowly instead of several in succession. These are not Olympic feats. But when adopted bit by bit and maintained, the benefits are cumulative.
There is a famous line often attributed to Goethe: “Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” The key word is begin. Not finish. Not perfect. Just begin.
Most people who successfully improve their health do so with help. A walking partner. A spouse who changes grocery habits. A health advocate who listens.
Failures along the way are not signs to stop. They are part of the process. Athletes fall. Birds are blown off course. History’s innovators were dismissed before being vindicated. The goal matters, but the best achievements to celebrate are day-by-day good choices.
We may never leap like Olympians or cross oceans on wings, but we can set goals that stretch us just enough to matter. Better sleep. Stronger muscles. More energy. Fewer pills. These are reasonable feats, and they are within reach.
Extraordinary health does not arrive suddenly. It is built methodically, one decision at a time, by ordinary people who decide that the effort is worth it.
Send me your examples of success with taking small, incremental steps to better health and I’ll post them at the end of the column at www.docgiff.com for your reference and inspiration.
What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?
Dead and Gone…
What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
When someone dies, families often hear a new term very quickly. The price list. It sounds simple enough. A document with prices. Clear. Straightforward. But if I were gone, and my family was sitting across from someone reviewing a funeral home’s General Price List for the first time, I would want them to know this. A price list can be helpful. It just doesn’t tell the whole story.
In Ontario, funeral homes are required to provide written pricing information. That matters. Families should not have to guess. The list outlines professional fees, transportation, facilities, vehicles, merchandise, and optional services. On paper, it looks organized. Almost clinical. Grief rarely is. Most price lists are divided into sections. There is usually a basic professional fee. There may be transfer charges. Preparation fees. Facilities and staffing for visitation or ceremony. Casket and urn options. Items most families have never purchased before and may never have thought about until that moment. If I were sitting with my family in that room, I would want them to understand something simple. Not every line on that page applies to them. A price list shows what is available. It does not automatically reflect what a family will choose. And that is usually where uncertainty starts to creep in. Two funeral homes may present similar looking documents, yet the final totals can differ. One may bundle services together.
Another may separate them. One may include certain third party costs in its estimate. Another may list them separately. Without context, the differences can feel bigger than they actually are. If I could leave my family one practical suggestion, it would be this. Ask which items are required and which are optional. That question alone can change the tone of the conversation. If a family is choosing direct cremation, for example, many line items simply do not apply. There may be no visitation. No chapel service. No hearse. No cemetery coordination. Those services remain on the list because they are part of the funeral home’s full range of offerings, not because they must be selected. A price list is meant to inform. Still, in the middle of grief, even straightforward information can feel heavy. I would also want my family to know it is completely reasonable to take that document home. To read it more than once. To compare it with another.
To ask for a written estimate that reflects the specific choices being considered, not just the full menu. No family should feel rushed to decide from a single sheet of paper. There is another detail families sometimes discover later. A funeral home’s price list may not include cemetery fees, clergy fees, obituary notices, or flowers.
Those costs often sit outside the funeral home itself. If that is not explained clearly, the final number can come as a surprise. Clarity rarely comes from the document alone. It comes from asking questions and taking a little time. If I were gone, what I would want most is for my family to feel comfortable speaking openly about cost without embarrassment.
Talking about money at a time like this can feel uncomfortable, but it does not diminish love. It simply helps prevent confusion. The purpose of a price list is not to pressure anyone. It is there to show what exists. What families choose from it should feel thoughtful, not hurried. Next week, I will write about something many families quietly wonder about after a death. What government benefits may be available, and how those programs actually work in Ontario.
Don’t let them scare you
Don’t let them scare you
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak.
There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side.
If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to.
So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family.
The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose.
Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.
By The Numbers
By The Numbers
By Wayne and Tamara
I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year.
The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better.
Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things.
To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me?
Daphne
Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule.
A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number.
But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them.
That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with.
Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer.
Wayne & Tamara
Benched
For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive.
But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count.
She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on?
Greg
Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman.
Wayne & Tamara
Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.
Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening.
They Fail Trust.
By Nick Kossovan
The crux of all hiring decisions comes down to one word: trust.
AI, combined with a growing number of malicious actors in the job market, has eroded trust between employers and job seekers, an issue that is worsening.
Today, everyone's resume looks great. Same buzzwords. Same frameworks. Same: "I managed," "I built," "I scaled." Miraculously, every candidate is strategic, results-driven and cross-functional. With AI, it is easy to create a slick veneer of tripe, filled with buzzwords from the job posting, at best, making hollow promises. Most job seekers, especially bad actors, focus on looking smooth.
In contrast, savvy job seekers focus on presenting evidence—quantifying their impact on their employer's business (read: profitability)—to build trust.
ATSs and, to a large extent, humans struggle to distinguish between effort, outcomes, and mimicking the job posting; therefore, hiring managers and recruiters seek job seekers who do what most don't: quantify, with numbers, the friction they caused in their previous employer's business.
What does "Led a team of inside sales reps to achieve sales quota" mean? What value does this sentence offer? Does it build any trust or credibility? The same for:
· "Managed and maintained the organization's social media accounts to strengthen Wayne Enterprises' online presence."
· "Managed the team calendar."
· "Handled customer inquiries."
· "Filed reports."
· "Supported sales and marketing efforts."
· "Improved office efficiency."
· "Hard worker with a go-getter attitude." (Isn't every jobseeker?)
These sentences list duties and opinions ("Employers don't hire opinions; they hire results") instead of what employers want to see: your accomplishments (read: results). Moreover, they fail to answer the critical "so what?" question.
Hiring managers and recruiters aren't asking, "Is this candidate impressive?" They're asking, "Can I trust this person to deliver the results we need?" Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles don't fail screening. They fail trust.
A highly effective job search strategy is to concentrate intensely on demonstrating to recruiters and employers that you are results-oriented. Candidates who come across as trustworthy, result-driven, and reliable, and who aren't afraid to own their results, are the ones employers swoon over.
A common job search myth, perpetuated by a sense of entitlement, is that one's experience, which is subjective, speaks for itself. It doesn't. Experience only holds value for an employer if the person with the "experience" can be trusted to produce measurable results. Job seekers need to understand that hiring doesn't occur in a reflective environment that gives a job seeker, who's a stranger to the hiring manager, the benefit of the doubt. Hiring occurs under pressure. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles are rapidly scrutinized for evidence of impact at prior employers. When a resume or LinkedIn profile doesn't provide evidence of impact, it becomes, without a second thought, a "No."
Hiring isn't mysterious, as many would like you to believe, especially those who benefit—make money—from you believing it is. It's layered. The first layer is answering the question every hiring manager asks themselves when scanning a resume: "What has this person achieved?" If what you've achieved leads the hiring manager to think, "[Name] could be someone we can use here," then the candidate moves on to the second layer, determining whether you can be trusted.
AI or not, resumes never tell someone's full story. As I pointed out at the beginning, the job market abounds with bad actors and job seekers who exaggerate or outright lie about their experience and qualifications, or whose behaviour (personality traits) isn't conducive to being an employer's ideal employee. Nowadays, employers understandably seek a comprehensive view of a candidate, so they:
· Google the candidate—check their digital footprint (read: behaviour)—and review their social media activity (articles, blogs, comments, posts), especially on LinkedIn, to determine whether they're interview-worthy. Does the candidate's online presence raise any questions? Are they associated with (written, commented on, reposted) any industry- or profession-related articles or blogs? What charitable activities do they engage in? Do any illicit or questionable activities appear?
· Look them in the eye, listen, and observe how they communicate during the interview. Speaking for myself, a lack of communication skills—the ability to articulate with confidence—is a non-negotiable requirement when I hire. The way a candidate communicates with me—I'll also ask candidates to write something to gauge their written communication skills and how they think (writing is thinking)—is how they'll communicate with customers, prospects, and their colleagues.
"The ability to communicate is critical to building relationships, to leadership, and to learning." Sheryl Sandberg, American technology executive, philanthropist and writer.
· Ensure the applicant can walk their talk by asking them to take an assessment test or complete an assignment. I've lost count of how many candidates I've interviewed who talked a good game but didn't pass an assessment or submit a subpar assignment.
Resumes and LinkedIn profiles have always contained a great deal of fluff, embellishments, and falsehoods. As employers grow increasingly weary of job seekers' claims, the core issue job seekers face is communicating their value in a few seconds and convincing employers they can be trusted. Job seekers who empathize with employers, have trust issues, and therefore focus on building credibility to gain trust will be far ahead of their competition.
When the Weather Becomes the Argument
When the Weather Becomes the Argument
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
I’ve been listening to the noise for years now.
Every storm is proof of something.
Every heat wave is a warning.
Every cold snap is either evidence or denial depending on who’s talking.
Snow falls in a place that “never” had snow before and suddenly it’s the end of the world. Then summer runs hot and dry and we’re told deserts are creeping closer. Turn on the television and it feels like the sky is either burning or about to freeze solid. It’s always urgent. Always dramatic. Always now. I’m not writing this as someone waving a sign. I’m writing this as someone who reads history before reading headlines.
Because history has weather too.
There was a time called the Little Ice Age. Winters stretched long and bitter across Europe. Rivers froze hard enough to walk across. Crops failed again and again. People starved quietly. In 1816, after Mount Tambora erupted, snow fell in June across parts of North America. They called it the Year Without a Summer. Farmers planted fields and watched everything die. Food prices soared. Anger followed hunger.
That happened long before carbon taxes. Long before gas engines. Long before politicians learned how powerful environmental language could be.
Then there were warmer centuries. The Medieval Warm Period allowed farming in places that later became too cold. Vikings settled Greenland. Vineyards stretched farther north. The planet has always moved in cycles, like breathing in and out.
So when someone says the weather has never done this before, I slow down.
That does not mean nothing is happening today. Temperatures have risen since the late 1800s. Arctic sea ice has declined in recent decades. Sea levels have edged upward. Satellites, surface readings, ice cores, they all show change. Most climate scientists agree that human industry, especially fossil fuel use, contributes to warming.
That part deserves honesty.
But honesty must run both ways.
What unsettles people is not the data. It’s the tone.
Every flood becomes proof of collapse.
Every wildfire becomes a moral judgment.
Every question becomes denial.
Regular families are not sitting at kitchen tables debating atmospheric chemistry. They are trying to afford groceries. They are watching heating bills climb in winter. They are feeling fuel costs ripple through everything they buy. When policies meant to save the planet raise everyday costs, people notice.
They notice when carbon pricing shows up on their bills. They notice when farmers say input costs are rising. They notice when governments speak of sacrifice while global emissions continue rising elsewhere.
Canada tightens. Parts of Europe tighten. Meanwhile China emits more total carbon than any other nation. India grows. The United States remains high on a per person basis. Global emissions do not disappear just because one country sets targets.
That tension fuels frustration.
It is fair to ask whether policies are effective. It is fair to ask whether they are balanced. It is fair to ask whether working families are carrying more weight than large industrial players.
What is not fair is shutting down those questions.
Yes, the climate changes naturally. Yes, humans now influence it. Both can be true. Oceans shift heat across the planet. Solar cycles rise and fall. Volcanoes inject particles into the sky. These forces still exist. Climate systems are complex. They do not respond to one cause alone.
We have also heard dire warnings before. Acid rain would destroy forests forever. The ozone hole would bring catastrophe. A coming ice age was once discussed. Some environmental concerns were real and addressed. Others were exaggerated. The world did not end.
That history makes people cautious. There are claims about secret weather control programs spraying the skies. There is no solid, credible evidence supporting large scale secret operations controlling daily weather patterns. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Without that proof, they remain claims. There are debates about lab grown meat, methane from cattle, new technologies aimed at reducing emissions. Those discussions deserve transparency. Long term effects should be studied carefully. Innovation should not move faster than understanding.
But fear should not be the engine.
Fear makes people compliant. Fear moves markets. Fear wins elections.
If you tell citizens the planet will collapse within a decade, they may accept policies without scrutiny. If you tell them disagreement equals ignorance, they may stop speaking.
A healthy society does the opposite. It questions loudly. It reads broadly. It allows disagreement without exile. We are not fragile creatures waiting for extinction. Humanity has survived ice ages, plagues, revolutions, failed harvests, and wars. We have endured heat and cold, drought and flood. We adapt. We build differently. We learn from mistakes.
What we cannot survive is intellectual laziness.
Blind denial helps no one. Saying there is no warming at all ignores strong evidence. Blind acceptance helps no one either. Accepting every policy as necessary without examining costs and benefits weakens democracy.
The truth lives in the middle, uncomfortable and complicated.
The climate is changing. Humans influence it. Natural cycles continue. Governments respond. Some responses are sensible. Some are flawed. Some may be more about revenue than results. That deserves scrutiny. Plant a tree if you want. Recycle because you care. Conserve energy where it makes sense. Protect your land and water because they belong to your children.
But keep your mind active.
Read history. Read science. Read independent voices. Notice who profits from the alarm. Notice who profits from denial. Notice who becomes wealthier while ordinary people tighten their belts.
Balance is strength.
We will survive warming years and cooling years. We will survive new technologies and flawed policies. We will survive loud headlines and political speeches.
But survival with dignity requires vigilance.
A free country does not demand silence. It demands engagement.
Ask questions never accept what a government is giving you because they're getting comfortable making money off your hard work
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Municipal governments in Ontario are widely regarded as financially disciplined. Balanced-budget requirements, strong audit practices and conservative debt management have created a culture of fiscal caution. That discipline has value. But in an era defined by housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and constrained revenue tools, caution alone is no longer sufficient. Most municipalities structure their finance departments around accounting expertise. Treasurers and chief financial officers are typically trained in audit compliance, financial reporting and budget administration. Their mandate is to ensure that spending aligns with revenues, that reserves are properly allocated and that statutory requirements are met. These functions are essential. But they are not economic modelling.
Accounting is, by nature, retrospective. It records and categorizes what has occurred. Economic modelling, by contrast, attempts to forecast behavioural responses to policy decisions. An accountant asks whether the budget balances. An economist asks what will happen if a variable changes. The distinction matters. Municipal councils today are routinely making decisions about development charges, property-tax rates, infrastructure financing and long-term debt issuance. These decisions influence housing supply, business location, migration patterns and assessment growth. They shape the local economy for decades. Yet many municipalities approach these questions primarily through an accounting lens. Consider development charges. When rates are increased to fund capital projects, the financial logic is straightforward: growth should pay for growth. But what is the elasticity effect? At what point do higher charges suppress housing starts? How does that affect long-term assessment growth?
Could a lower rate generate higher total revenue over time? These are economic questions. They
require modelling. The same applies to property-tax policy. What level of increase begins to influence business investment decisions? How sensitive are commercial properties to tax differentials across municipal borders? How do households respond to cumulative cost pressures? Without economic forecasting, councils risk making technically balanced but economically inefficient decisions. The consequences are rarely immediate. A budget can be balanced while housing starts decline. Debt ratios can appear manageable while assessment growth slows. Tax rates can rise incrementally without recognizing the point at which competitiveness erodes. Over time, however, these effects compound. Senior levels of government routinely integrate economic modelling into fiscal policy decisions. Provincial and federal ministries publish forecasts, stress-test assumptions and examine
behavioural impacts before implementing major changes. Municipal governments, which now manage increasingly complex infrastructure and growth mandates, should do the same. This does not mean replacing treasurers with economists. Accounting discipline remains indispensable. But municipalities would benefit from institutionalizing economic expertise alongside traditional finance functions. An in-house municipal economist – or a formalized economic modelling unit – could evaluate development-charge sensitivity, tax elasticity, infrastructure return on investment and long-term debt sustainability under varying growth and interest-rate scenarios. Major fiscal decisions would then be informed not only by compliance requirements, but by forward-looking analysis. Ontario’s municipalities
are being asked to grow faster, build more housing and maintain affordability, often with limited fiscal tools. In that environment, optimizing spreadsheets is not enough. Municipal governance must evolve from budget management to economic strategy. Balancing the books is necessary. Modelling the future is essential.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)