Dead and Gone… When the Funeral Is Over

Dead and Gone… When the Funeral Is Over By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a moment most families do not expect. It happens after the funeral is over. The service has finished. The chairs are folded away. The flowers have been taken home or left behind. People hug goodbye in the parking lot and promise to stay in touch. Then, slowly, life around you returns to normal. But inside the family that just lost someone, things rarely feel normal yet. If I were gone, I think this is the moment I would worry about most for the people I love. Not the paperwork. Not the arrangements. Not even the day of the service itself. Those things, difficult as they are, come with structure. People help. Funeral homes guide families. Friends bring food. Neighbours stop by. The days feel full. It’s the days after that can feel unexpectedly quiet. I have spoken with many families who told me the same thing later. The arrangements kept them moving. Once those were finished, the reality of the loss settled in more deeply. Grief does not follow the same timeline as the funeral. A service might last a few hours. The emotional part rarely fits into that window. Some families feel a strange emptiness when the activity stops. Others feel relief that the decisions are behind them. Many feel both at the same time. And sometimes, that is when the second wave of questions begins. Did we do the right thing? Would they have liked the service? Should we have chosen something different? If I were gone, I would want my family to know something simple. Those questions are normal. Grief has a way of revisiting decisions, even when those decisions were thoughtful and made with care. But no single choice defines the love people had for someone who died. Not the music. Not the number of people who attended. Not whether the arrangements were simple or traditional. What matters most is the intention behind them. I have seen families hold very modest gatherings that felt deeply meaningful. I have also seen large services that brought comfort because they allowed many people to share stories. There is no universal formula. The truth is that funerals exist partly for the living. They create a moment where people can acknowledge that something significant has happened. But healing rarely ends when the service does. Sometimes it begins there. If I could leave one quiet message for my family, it would be this. Take care of each other after the funeral, not just before it. Call each other a week later. Sit together again. Tell the same stories that were told during the service, even if you have already heard them. Grief softens slowly when it is shared. One of the gentlest things families can do for each other is to keep talking about the person who died. Not just during the formal moment when everyone gathers, but in the weeks and months that follow. Because the service may be the public goodbye. But the private remembering continues long after the flowers are gone. Next week, I will write about something many families only discover after arrangements begin: why two funeral homes can present quotes that look very different - even when the services being considered are nearly the same.

Feeling Alone? Take Comfort — You’re in Plentiful Company

Feeling Alone? Take Comfort — You’re in Plentiful Company Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It’s a sad irony. But the truth is, loneliness is one of the most crowded experiences in modern society. Some prefer their own company and are emotionally stable. There’s no harm in letting them be. But there is an astonishingly high number of people who can be called “situational loners”. These are people who may have recently retired, become empty nesters, have moved to a new community, or lost a spouse. Some people, once embedded in a tight group of friends, may find themselves geographically or generationally isolated. Maybe they were part of a scene that was once vibrant, but for one reason or another, the scene changed, and they didn’t. They long for the past and may feel socially out of place in today’s society. Others have outright rejected a world that offers constant online contact as a proxy for companionship. They see some people thriving with it, but the digital world is not for them. As a society, we’ve never been more connected. But on a human level, we are disconnecting. Smaller families mean fewer close-in relatives. The ease of mobility uproots connections to the communities our families called home for generations. Our convenience economy means we don’t know basic source information about things that are elemental to our lives. Call it instability, disconnection, isolation, or uneasiness. It’s a societal malaise that is evident as an upward trend in chronic high blood pressure, increased inflammatory markers, weak immune systems, hormonal imbalance, poor sleep, declining cognitive function, and worsening cardiovascular outcomes. A recent large-scale study has added a striking insight. Investigators analyzing tens of thousands of adults found that loneliness and social isolation are associated with measurable changes in proteins circulating in the blood, many linked to inflammation, immune function, and heart disease. In other words, the body registers loneliness as a form of biological stress, not just an emotional state. During the latter part of the winter season in particular, problems are magnified. After weeks of less daylight and reduced physical movement, the negative effects start to mount. What many people don’t realize is that the human body responds to connection the same way it responds to good nutrition or exercise. A brief conversation, a shared task, even a familiar greeting can lower stress hormones. These are small interactions, but biologically, they have a beneficial effect. The mistake many make is waiting to feel better before reaching out. In reality, reaching out is what produces the improvement. Health rarely returns by withdrawal. It improves through participation, however modest. Late winter is not the time for grand resolutions. It is the season for simple, repeatable habits. A daily walk at the same hour. A regular coffee with a neighbour. A volunteer shift. A phone call made every Sunday afternoon. These patterns rebuild rhythm, and rhythm is deeply reassuring to both mind and body. It is also worth remembering that nearly everyone you meet at this time of year is carrying some degree of the same burden. The person beside you in the grocery line, the neighbour shovelling snow, the acquaintance you haven’t called in months – many are waiting for someone else to make the first move. So if you are feeling alone, take comfort in knowing you are not uniquely afflicted. You are experiencing a very human signal that it is time to reconnect with light, movement, purpose, and people. Winter will pass. In the meantime, don’t hibernate from life. Step outside, reach out, and give your health the companionship it was designed to enjoy.

Travelling With the Environment in Mind

Travelling With the Environment in Mind by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ During March break, are you anxiously awaiting a week of warm sun and beaches, or several days of winter sports activities? Even when visiting out-of-town relatives, parents should think about ways to make their mid-winter adventure gentler on our ecosystem. To help you make responsible and sustainable choices before, during, and after your trip, Rachel Dodds and Richard Butler prepared a 272 page informative guide on eco travel entitled, 'Are We There Yet?: Travelling More Responsibly with Your Children’. This book donates 100% of the profits to the nonprofit World Animal Protection organization focused on ending animal cruelty. With detailed advice regarding all types of travel, it becomes essentially a blueprint for making the adventure with kids of all ages more enjoyable while focusing on reducing the impact on our ecosystem. It includes advice, resources, and facts, as well as many stories aimed at informing guardians on how to keep children happy and amused, while travelling and enjoying their destinations. Begin your holiday by turning down your home thermostat. Should your trip be spent on a Caribbean island, pack a reusable shopping bag for purchasing locally crafted souvenirs that support your destination’s local economy. Take your own thermos to be filled at water bottle stations. Enjoy varieties of fresh foods by shopping at local markets. At hotels, occasionally place the ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign on your door so that housekeeping won’t clean your room when you go out. To save energy, turn off the air conditioner, lights, and fans when you’re not using your hotel room. Taking shorter showers – even a minute or two less can make a difference in water consumption, which is really important in places where water is scarce. En route, inquire about environmental ideas offered by tour operators, hotel staff, as well as search websites that support responsible and local travel. If you are planning either a ski get-away or just a relaxing time at a local resort with a pool, there are apt to be down times for the kids. Allowing for their suggestions keeps everyone happy. Also, pack a deck of cards and a game for all ages to keep kids away from screens and continue to be happily engaged with the adventure. In hotels, hang up your towel so that the housekeeping staff will not replace it —you can even take your own hotel towel to the pool as washing towels for a single use, wastes both energy and water. ‘Are We There Yet’ helps you to navigate when travelling, and offers tips and inspiration on raising resilient, responsible children who will grow up aware of the many ways to protect and enjoy their environment. The familiar phrase, ‘are we there yet’, that resonates with parents, can also be interpreted to mean, ‘has our society reached the point of zero waste, lessened carbon emissions, and mitigated water/electricity usage’? Teaching by example is not just one way children learn, it’s the only way.

Market Volatility

Market Volatility By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist If market volatility has caused you to transfer your money into GICs or cash, you may want to ask yourself if you are still on track to meeting your personal goals. Whether it’s saving for retirement, a home or a child’s education, travel, keeping money in a lower-earning investment option may not give you the growth you need. If your goal is to find the most effective way to put your money to work and build up your wealth. There is a tried and tested strategy for investing called Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA), which smooths out the costs of investing by regularly buying over time. One way to do this is investing a lump sum of money into a temporary investment holding (ex: money market) to avoid market volatility and then systematically switch portions of that into your target investment(s) over a regular period. This helps you avoid the risk of market timing. Another way the DCA strategy can be achieved is by Pre-Authorized Contributions (PACs). PACs allows you to make deposits directly from a saving or chequing account and then deposit the amount to a particular investment(s) on a regular basis, such as monthly or bi-weekly. This will allow your savings to grow automatically. Dollar Cost Averaging is right for all markets - In a falling market: DCA can let you purchase more securities In a rising market: DCA can protect you from paying too much In a flat market: DCA ensures you always stay invested. Benefits of Pre-Authorized Contributions. Helps you stick to your plan - Takes advantage of compound growth. Eliminates the guesswork of when to invest. Helps you avoid the rush of yearly RRSP & TFSA contributions. Double your PAC -Even small increases to a PAC can help you reach your long-term goals faster. This investment strategy helps you minimize volatility and avoid the risk of market timing. It is not a one-day initiative but rather a continuous long-term activity. The earlier you start investing, the better you will be in the future. See how these strategies could assist you in achieving your goals. Let’s get started today!

Beyond Inappropriate

Beyond Inappropriate By Wayne and Tamara I have an ex six years older than me. Our relationship was troubled in the end. He was doing drugs and drinking excessively, and I was obsessive about fixing him. Finally I moved out without a goodbye and went back to my hometown many miles away. As terrible as our relationship was, he was my first love, and it took me a long time to get over him. I fought myself from trying to contact him. At the destructive rate his life was going I was sure he would end up dead. I thought of him often but never tried to reach out. Until recently. One night I punched his name into a computer people search and out came his work phone number. I called him, chatting like a nervous magpie. We both cried as we spoke, and he apologized and said he often thought of me. He wished things could have been different. I have been married 10 years with three children, and he is married a year with a new baby. After I hung up I thought about what I really wanted to say, so I sat down and wrote an email. It was totally inappropriate because it reminisced on intimate details, but I made it clear I wasn’t going to be able to carry on the platonic relationship we discussed on the telephone. I told him I would always love him and wish him well in the world, and ended with, “This is the last time I will ever intrude in your life again.” I then deleted his email, threw away his phone number, and went on with my life—until I received an email from his wife. She was furious. I only read the first few angry lines. Since I promised not to intrude again, I asked a close friend to send my apologies and intimate they would never hear from me again. His wife must have gone to some lengths to email a second time because I blocked her email address. She said I ruined her marriage and hoped I was happy. Then she told me to “be woman enough to respond yourself.” I know I sent a letter I should have kept to myself, but I sent it and now don’t know what to do to make it better. Barb Barb, in one episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” the Enterprise is carrying an unusual cargo: a cocoon containing a beautiful young woman. This woman, Kamala, is an empathic metamorph, designed to mold herself to one man. She is on her way to be married, a marriage which will end a feud between warring factions. By mistake, however, the cocoon is opened and the first man Kamala sees is Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Seeing Jean-Luc, Kamala announces, “I am for you.” Though her mistake is explained and she goes through with the wedding, Kamala tells Picard she is bonded to him, not her husband-to-be. Because first-time intimacy is imbued with an idyllic power and affects social standing and a woman’s psyche, most women feel a bond to the first man they are intimate with. This is true even when they were lied to and told they were loved when they were not. It is true even when the woman was merely rebelling against something and had sex with the worst possible person. Ask yourself, what could possess a happily married woman with children to contact a former lover who was an alcoholic, drug-using loser? What wrongness might be in her life now? Something must be wrong with your “happily married,” because happily married people don’t go looking for former lovers. Consider also if you have a trait of taking action regardless of its effect on others. If that trait is negatively impacting your life, then with some guidance you may be able to stop acting inappropriately and temper your impulsivity with reason. Wayne & Tamara

Charging Stores For The Abandoned Carts

Charging Stores For The Abandoned Carts A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist While watching the local news the other night I heard a story regarding Brampton, Ontario. Apparently, according to the newscaster, Brampton is now going to start charging stores for the abandoned shopping carts that are left randomly all over the City. The charge it is stated is $100.00 per shopping cart. They do pose a real problem, and I know about this firsthand having worked for a municipality in Durham Region for many years. These shopping carts are taken from stores or parking lots by people and left abandoned absolutely anywhere the person feels like dumping them. They often block walkways and sidewalks making it impossible for someone in a wheelchair or a person who is walking with an aide or device to get around them. They are a nuisance. It made me wonder why this hasn’t been done before. The municipality that I work for gets calls constantly to retrieve abandoned shopping carts form various areas of the city. They then have to send staff to pick them up. There is no charge to the store that the cart came from. In fact, the City is paying the people who go and retrieve these carts. It makes me wonder also, who came up with this idea? I know that here in Oshawa, Councillor Brian Nicholson just mentioned publicly that some or a few of his constituents had brought an idea to him regarding a walkway or pathway in Ward 5. He in turn consulted with the Regional Councillor for the same area, and they are presenting this idea to Council. That is brilliant. Why don’t more Councillors operate that way? It seems that Brian Nicholson is a rare breed. He lives in the community, speaks to his community, listens to his community, and then goes to city hall and represents his community. Imagine! I guess my bigger question here is why aren’t all Councillors doing this? We here in Oshawa also see the abandoned shopping carts all over our city. But when an idea is suggested by a member of the public, one of the first responses we hear deals with funding. Why can’t we have a Council that thinks outside the box or is at least willing to listen to people who do? There is often either revenue or savings to be had in the ideas of others. They just need to be listened to.

Embrace the Dichotomy of Control

Embrace the Dichotomy of Control By Nick Kossovan The Enchiridion of Epictetus, by Stoic philosopher Epictetus (50 - 135 CE), opens with a straightforward truth: "Some things are in our control, and others are not." What you control are your beliefs, opinions, impulses, desires, fears, perceptions, and responses. What you don't control are others' beliefs, opinions, impulses, desires, fears, perceptions, and behaviours. I tend to compartmentalize, which is why I strongly recommend job seekers adopt Epictetus's dichotomy of control, which emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between what is within one's influence and control (internal) and what is outside it (external). When job seekers accept that they have no control over external factors and focus on the internal factors they can control, they tend to achieve much better job search results. Often, when pursuing the success we want, or more likely see others have, such as career advancement, we put all our efforts into learning new skills, attending classes, cultivating professional relationships, working extra hours, and promoting our efforts and results to our bosses and upper management, only to be disappointed with our rate of progression or to fall short of the success we're aspiring to. We thus learn once again that success depends on many factors outside of our control. A mistake we all make is equating control over our individual contributions with control over the overall outcome. Having firsthand experience, I’ll share advice that'll help you avoid years of therapy and lessen your stress, frustration, anger, and anxiety. The surest path to an optimal state of mind is to identify what we can and can't change, then focus on the former and accept the latter. When you job search within your sphere of control, you feel naturally free, independent, and empowered. Outside your sphere of control, you're vulnerable, constrained, and reliant. Every day, I see and hear job seekers pin their hopes on factors beyond their control, such as how employers design their hiring process, how gatekeepers behave (ghosting, lack of feedback), and whether they get hired. If job seekers focused only on what is truly their concern and within their control, and left the rest to recruiters and employers, they'd expedite their job search. For example, if you're feeling anxious before a job interview, remind yourself that your preparation, attitude, and how you present yourself are within your control. The interviewer's mood, biases, beliefs, company policies, what other candidates offer, and, especially, gut feel—the most crucial factor in hiring decisions—are beyond your control. Rejection is temporary if you allow it to be. Taking to LinkedIn to complain that you were unfairly rejected—according to you, you were qualified and aced the interview(s)—isn't only not a good look but also shows you don't understand that hiring decisions aren't yours to make. Take responsibility for your controllables. Don't let uncontrollables occupy your mind. You have no control over: An employer's timeline You've done your part (submitted a quality application); now it's up to the employer. Take a moment to breathe and redirect your energy toward another opportunity. Job market conditions You have no control over the economy or industry trends. The only thing you can control is making sure you're as good a candidate as possible. Employer preferences There's no way to know the preferences and biases of the person reviewing your resume and LinkedIn profile. No two recruiters, hiring managers, or (gasp) ATSs assess candidates the same way. Internal candidates Employers often post jobs despite having internal candidates to comply with policies, ensure fairness, compare talent, and maintain transparency, thereby avoiding accusations of favouritism. While competing with internal candidates is beyond your control, showcasing your fresh perspective is. Random events Companies downsizing, hiring freezes, AI eliminating jobs, and sending jobs overseas where they can be performed more economically are beyond your control. What you can control: The quality of your resume, LinkedIn profile, and cover letter The information you choose to provide to a company/hiring manager/recruiter is critical to landing interviews. Offer quantifying numbers, not opinions. Show measurable wins and how you enhanced your employer's profitability. Write a cover letter that compels the reader to read your resume. Not including a cover letter is lazy. I don't know a hiring manager who hires lazy. Your networking efforts Opportunities are all around you; the catch is that they're attached to people, which is why cultivating connections is the most efficient job search strategy. My networking tip: When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself, "How can I help this person?" Interview preparation Know and understand the company, the role, how you'd fit in, and your interviewer (Google and LinkedIn are your friends). Express genuine interest! Ask questions that show you're focused on what you can offer the employer rather than on what you want from them. Your online reputation Along with gathering information to learn more about you, employers are seeking "social proof" to confirm that you are who you say you are; therefore, take your digital footprint seriously, which most job seekers don't. Epictetus's dichotomy of control applies to job searching as follows: Letting go of what you can't control is liberating. Knowing what you can control is empowering. How you manage your controllables shapes your job search journey.

Drop the Tax on Tools and Let Canada Build Again

Drop the Tax on Tools and Let Canada Build Again By Dale Jodoin Columnist Here’s something most Canadians do not realize. If a business in Ontario buys a $250,000 machine built in Ontario, it still pays sales tax on it. Even though it is Canadian made. Even though it will create Canadian jobs. Even though it stays inside Canada. We tax the very tools that build the country. In most provinces, businesses pay GST or HST on machinery. Yes, they can claim it back later through input tax credits. But they still pay it upfront. For a small shop, that can mean tens of thousands of dollars tied up before a single product is sold. At a time when we say we want more manufacturing and stronger productivity, why are we making it more expensive to invest? If we are serious about rebuilding Canadian industry, here is a simple starting point. No sales tax on machinery used to create Canadian jobs. No provincial barriers on Canadian made equipment. No internal trade walls between provinces. That is not radical. That is practical. Around three quarters of Canada’s exports still go to the United States. We can diversify. We should diversify. But we cannot replace that relationship overnight. Instead of endless tariff battles, focus on what we control. Lower the cost of production inside Canada. If a machine shop in Oshawa wants modern CNC equipment, the government should not take a cut. That machine raises output, improves quality, and creates skilled jobs. Why tax growth? If a food plant in Manitoba wants Canadian built packaging equipment from Quebec, it should move freely. No extra paperwork. No provincial slowdowns. It should not feel easier to trade internationally than between provinces. That is a problem we created, and we can fix it. Removing internal trade barriers would increase efficiency quickly. Canadian companies could sell to Canadians without friction. Skilled workers could move more easily. Equipment could cross borders without red tape. This is not ideology. It is math. Lower upfront costs. Encourage investment. Increase productivity. Support better wages. We hear about labour shortages. We also hear from young Canadians who cannot find strong career paths. That tells us we need better jobs, not just more low paying ones. Modern equipment changes the equation. A small manufacturer with advanced tools can compete. That company can afford to pay skilled workers properly. That is how you rebuild the middle class. Countries that focused on productivity did not weaken. They strengthened their industrial base. They exported machinery instead of finished goods. Canada has the skill and talent to do the same. But we also need to change how we talk about entrepreneurship. For too long, security has been tied to large institutions. Risk has been treated like something dangerous. Wanting to be your own boss can sound reckless. That thinking holds us back. There is nothing wrong with independence. Building your own company is not selfish. It is how communities grow. Schools should teach basic business skills. How to start a company. How to manage cash flow. How to price work. How to market a product. These are life skills. Encourage young people to create jobs, not just apply for them. Back it up with action. Create small industrial parks designed for startups. Affordable units. Short leases. Shared loading space. Simple zoning. Let a young welder rent a small shop without risking everything. Let a machinist test a new idea. Let a parts supplier start small and expand. Right now, cost is the biggest barrier. Rent. Fees. Permits. Upfront tax on equipment. Lower those barriers and you unlock energy that is already there. This is not about shouting across borders. It is about strengthening Canada from the inside. If tariffs remain at ten percent on some exports, fine. We cannot control every global move. But we can control our own policy. No sales tax on production machinery. No provincial trade barriers on Canadian equipment. No artificial walls between provinces. Encourage independence. Encourage skill. Encourage production. That is not surrender. That is strategy. We can talk tough. Or we can build smart. Let Canadians build again.

When Procedure Replaces Dialogue at Council

When Procedure Replaces Dialogue at Council Municipal democracy is not just about votes. It is also about conversation. For more than a century, local councils across Canada have relied on a simple democratic tradition: citizens come forward, present their concerns through a delegation, and elected officials ask questions to better understand the issue. It is a process rooted in parliamentary practice and reflected in frameworks like Robert’s Rules of Order. The purpose is straightforward — allow elected representatives to hear directly from the people and clarify what is being presented before decisions are made. Recently, however, an email circulated by Clarington’s Chief Administrative Officer has sparked a conversation about how that dialogue actually works. The email attempts to clarify the role of municipal staff during delegations. According to the message, delegations are presented to Council, and Council members may ask questions of the delegate or staff. Delegates themselves, however, are not permitted to ask questions directly of staff. If a delegate raises a question and a councillor wishes to know the answer, that councillor must ask staff on the delegate’s behalf. Furthermore, staff will not compile questions from delegations or prepare responses unless 208.Council formally directs them to do so through a motion. On paper, this interpretation aligns with a basic principle of municipal governance: staff receive direction from Council as a body. In Ontario, that relationship is grounded in the Municipal Act, 2001, which establishes that municipal administration implements the decisions and directions of elected council. But the question raised by many observers is not whether the statement is technically correct. The question is whether the interpretation risks changing the nature of public participation at council meetings. Traditionally, delegations have functioned as a two-way exchange. Citizens present concerns, councillors ask questions, and through that dialogue council gains a clearer understanding of the issue at hand. While delegates have never formally directed staff or controlled the meeting, they have historically been able to raise questions and signal what information they believe council should seek. In practice, a delegation might say something like this: “We would appreciate if council could obtain the following information from staff.” A councillor then decides whether to pursue that information. This system preserves council’s authority while still allowing the public to highlight gaps in information. The email from the CAO reinforces a much stricter interpretation of procedure — one where staff respond only to formal council direction and do not engage with questions raised through delegations unless a councillor explicitly asks. The difference may appear subtle, but its impact can be significant. Municipal councils are one of the few democratic forums where residents can speak directly to decision-makers. Unlike provincial or federal legislatures, local councils routinely allow members of the public to appear before them and discuss issues affecting their community. That accessibility is one of the defining features of local government. When that interaction becomes overly proceduralized, the risk is that delegations begin to feel less like dialogue and more like monologue. This is not about blaming municipal staff. Administrators operate within structures designed to ensure accountability and proper governance. Staff are not elected and must be careful about when and how they provide direction or information in a public forum. The principle that staff take direction from Council — and not from individual members of the public — is a sound one. But procedure is meant to facilitate democracy, not replace it. The spirit behind parliamentary traditions, including those found in Robert’s Rules, is to enable informed decision-making through orderly discussion. The goal is clarity and participation, not rigidity. That is why questioning delegations has been such an important part of municipal practice. Councillors ask questions not to challenge citizens unnecessarily, but to understand the issues facing their constituents. Often those questions help reveal information that might otherwise be missed. At its best, a delegation is a conversation between the electorate and the people they elected. The email from Clarington’s administration may simply be an attempt to clarify procedure. Yet it also raises a broader governance question worth considering: how much structure is too much when it comes to public participation? Democratic institutions depend on more than rules. They depend on trust, openness, and a willingness to listen. Council meetings should never become theatrical exercises where citizens deliver speeches while answers remain locked behind procedural barriers. The public deserves a forum where concerns can be heard, questions can be explored, and elected officials can fully understand the issues before them. After all, the purpose of local government is not merely to follow procedure. It is to serve the people who show up to speak.

THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM THE DECEPTION OF CHOICE…

THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM THE DECEPTION OF CHOICE... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States If you are like me... a number in a giant bingo game called life. Awaiting our number to be called by some superior entity to end our Destiny... Then we share life. A life that has been predestined at conception and brought to fruition at birth. A life that we have no choice but that to exist. A life that is dispensed under the predicament of freedom. Freedoms predestined by biological development and or physical growth. As we have no choice but that to flow with development. At an early age we learn that freedom is nothing but an illusion that keeps us on a path that is our destiny. In reality we have no freedom as it is predestined by many factors. An illusion is defined as a distorted perception of reality where the brain misinterprets sensory stimuli (visual, auditory, or tactile), causing us to see, hear, or feel something that differs from objective truth. Unlike hallucinations (absent stimuli), illusions are based on real, albeit misleading, external input. They are categorized as physical, physiological, or cognitive, arising from how our eyes and brain process, anticipate, and interpret information. This in part is the fundamental root of freedom. An illusion of something that is not. We are taught at an early age to conform. To adapt. To overcome adversity. Our freedoms are restricted by our own distorted perception of reality. This misinterpretation come about due to religion, economics, geography, political among a few things that surround that of wich we call life. These freedoms force us to choose. These choices are nothing but a cocktail of choices. Choices in a sea of deception of our own minds. Deception is the act of intentionally misleading others by spreading false information, distorting truths, or withholding information to gain an advantage, avoid punishment, or protect oneself. It encompasses lying, trickery, and fabrication, often severely damaging trust in relationships. It can be a one-time act or a pattern of behavior. Key Aspects of Deception: Methods: Includes lying, concealing information, exaggerating, or twisting facts. Motivations: Common motives include self-protection, gaining an advantage, social politeness (white lies), or intentionally causing harm. By definition this deception is one that takes part in our minds. Swaying our beliefs in our choices. Society sets forth all kinds of roadblocks in order to deceive us to think that through freedoms we have choice. In reality we have no choice. Other than that is predestined. Think for a moment. How much freedom do you really have? Can you just get up and take a six month vacation? Can you afford to purchase a luxury car? Can you walk out wearing nothing but shorts in the middle of winter? Can you walk in any place and demand service for no pay? Then what are we truly free to do? Get up in the morning, shower, breakfast and go to work. Day in and day out. Is that freedom? We work long days to pay bills and barely stay afloat. Is that freedom? Is that choice? If so then we can say that we have no freedom to choose. Our illusion of freedom is what fuels our choice to keep going on our daily grind. In reality we are nothing but tumbling balls in that bingo game of life I talked about on the first paragraph. We go about life from one system right on to the other. Our vicious cycle gives us the illusion of freedom and the deception that it is our choice. We tumble from social systems that oppress our true being to religious systems that oppress our basic human instincts through the fear of a God. Tumbling through financial systems that keep our choices limited to succeed even thought many of us have failed by the freedom to choose careers that pigeon hole us into vacuum of social restraints. Giving us a false sense of accomplishment and happiness when in reality we are nothing short of slaves of a system that has us tumbling in time as we evolve through our destiny. We are nothing but a number in a bingo game of life. BINGO!!!

Canada’s Mining Sector at a Crossroads: From Extraction to National Renewal

Canada’s Mining Sector at a Crossroads: From Extraction to National Renewal by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Each year, the global mining community gathers in Toronto under the banner of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). What was once primarily a forum for geologists, financiers and junior explorers has evolved into something far more consequential: a barometer of Canada’s economic sovereignty. This year, the tone is unmistakable. Canada’s mining sector stands at a crossroads. Critical mineral supply chains are being weaponized. Infrastructure renewal is overdue. Democratic alliances are recalibrating. The energy transition is accelerating. In this convergence lies both opportunity and risk. The central question is strategic: Will Canada remain largely a supplier of raw materials, or will we integrate our mining strength into a coherent national strategy for infrastructure renewal, economic resilience and geopolitical relevance? Over the past decade, supply chains have steadily moved from commercial instruments to geopolitical leverage. Energy exports have been used as pressure tools. Semiconductor shortages exposed vulnerabilities in advanced manufacturing. Food corridors have become bargaining chips in international disputes. Critical minerals now sit at the centre of this strategic competition. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, rare earth elements and copper are basics not only to electric vehicles and wind turbines, but to artificial intelligence hardware, advanced defence systems, aerospace components and grid modernization. Control over extraction matters. Control over processing, refining and logistics is decisive. Canada possesses vast geological wealth. We are among the world’s leading producers of potash, uranium, nickel and gold, with significant reserves of lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements. Yet reserves alone do not translate into strategic influence. Without domestic processing capacity, transport corridors and regulatory coherence, geology becomes unrealized leverage. If supply chains are being weaponized, complacency is not an option. For too long, mining has been treated as a regional or cyclical sector—important to certain provinces but peripheral to national strategy. That framing is outdated. Mining today is infrastructure policy. Modern critical mineral development requires roads into remote regions, rail links to ports, clean and reliable power generation, high-capacity transmission lines, broadband connectivity for automation, worker housing and integrated logistics. These are precisely the components of the infrastructure renewal Canada urgently requires. The Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, Quebec’s Plan Nord, Saskatchewan’s uranium basin and British Columbia’s copper corridors are not isolated prospects. They are potential nation-building corridors. In the 19th century, railways bound Confederation. In the 20th, pipelines and hydroelectric dams powered industrial growth. In the 21st, critical mineral corridors can anchor economic renewal—if integrated into a national plan. Such integration demands coordination. Mining projects should align with long-term transportation strategies, clean energy expansion and regional economic diversification. Indigenous partnerships must be embedded from inception. Equity participation models, revenue sharing and co-development agreements can transform projects into shared engines of prosperity rather than sources of conflict. At this crossroads, Canada faces a structural decision. We can continue exporting concentrates for processing abroad, capturing limited value while others dominate higher-margin segments of the supply chain. Or we can deliberately build midstream and downstream capacity. Lithium refining facilities, nickel sulphate plants for battery precursors, rare earth separation capacity, cathode and anode manufacturing—these are not aspirational concepts. They are logical extensions of a strategy that treats critical minerals as strategic assets. Other jurisdictions understand this. The United States has deployed aggressive industrial policy through its Inflation Reduction Act. The European Union has advanced its Critical Raw Materials Act. Australia is accelerating approvals and investing in processing hubs. Capital flows to clarity. Projects migrate toward predictability and strategic intent. Canada cannot assume that global partners will indefinitely depend on us if we fail to move up the value chain. A serious national mining strategy must therefore include incentives for domestic processing, support for mineral technology research and development, and mechanisms for strategic stockpiling where appropriate. This is not protectionism. It is strategic alignment within allied supply chains. No discussion of Canada’s mining future can avoid regulation. Investors consistently cite timeline uncertainty as a primary deterrent. Projects that require a decade or more to move from discovery to production struggle in an era of accelerated industrial competition. Environmental stewardship must remain rigorous. Indigenous consultation must be meaningful and constitutionally grounded. Canada’s reputation as a responsible mining jurisdiction is a competitive advantage. But predictability is equally essential. Streamlined processes, coordinated federal-provincial reviews, defined benchmarks and firm timelines can coexist with environmental integrity. Duplication and bureaucratic layering do not enhance environmental protection; they create delay and erode investor confidence. Internal trade barriers compound the challenge. Labour mobility restrictions, interprovincial regulatory misalignment and fragmented infrastructure planning weaken national competitiveness. In a strategically contested world, domestic fragmentation is a liability. Smart governance—not deregulation—is the objective. The implications extend beyond economics. In an era of renewed geopolitical rivalry, economic security underpins democratic resilience. Nations dependent on adversarial suppliers for critical inputs compromise their policy flexibility. Canada can serve as a reliable anchor within an allied critical mineral ecosystem—supplying not only the United States but also European and Indo-Pacific partners seeking diversified sources of processing and refining. Our strengths are real: rule of law, political stability, high environmental standards and increasingly sophisticated Indigenous partnership frameworks. These are competitive advantages in a world where governance risk factors heavily influence into supply chain decisions. If integrated into a coherent national strategy, Canada’s mining sector can enhance domestic prosperity while strengthening democratic alliances. Embedding mining within a broader infrastructure renewal agenda yields multiple dividends.It supports the energy transition by securing materials essential for electrification. It stimulates regional development in Northern and rural communities. It strengthens strategic autonomy in defence and advanced technology sectors. It generates high-value employment across engineering, processing and advanced manufacturing. It reinforces Canada’s credibility as a dependable partner in an unstable world. These benefits are interconnected. The greatest risk at this crossroads is not opposition but drift. Canada has often excelled at announcing ambitious frameworks. Implementation has been uneven. Projects stall. Capital migrates. Windows close. Geology does not guarantee leadership. Policy does. PDAC should be more than a marketplace for exploration financing. It should function as a strategic checkpoint—an opportunity for governments, industry and Indigenous leaders to align around a clear national objective. Canada’s mining sector is not seeking special treatment. It is seeking coherence: a coordinated federal-provincial critical minerals acceleration framework; infrastructure corridors explicitly linked to mineral zones; incentives for domestic processing; predictable regulatory timelines; embedded Indigenous equity participation; and strategic collaboration with democratic allies. At this crossroads, the choice is clear. We can remain a warehouse of raw materials—exporting potential while importing finished products. Or we can treat critical minerals as the foundation of a renewed Canadian economic strategy, linking infrastructure, industrial policy and democratic resilience. The direction we choose will shape not only the mining sector but Canada’s strategic relevance for decades to come. The crossroads is here. The decision is ours.

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 Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Today the traditional approach to debt means that each month millions of Canadians jump through financial hoops to meet their final obligations, paying their bills, cover borrowing costs and try to put something away into savings, investments, and retirement. Most Canadians manage their finances by doing two things: 1. Deposit their income and other short-term assets into chequing and saving accounts 2. Borrowing when they need to, through mortgages, lines of credits, personal loans, and credit cards. Sounds simple enough, Unfortunately, they usually receive low or no interest on money they deposit, while they pay high interest on money they borrow. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the deposit and borrowing were combined? Why not have every dollar you earn pay down your debts until you need to spend that money? All in One account. This this the most efficient ways to manage debt and cash flow. This account is where you can have your saving directed and applied to your debt. In using this account your savings and income automatically reduce your debt to save you interest. You can have a combination of borrowing with a fixed rate and another portion of your debt in an open line of credit. The fixed rate accounts can help provide payment certainty in arising environment. This approach can reduce interest costs and lower the risk of overspending in the account. You can create a tailored debt management system based on your needs: · Income · Lifestyle · Cashflow Surplus · (undesignated money left over at the end of the month) · Interest rate risk tolerance · Understanding a good debt versus overwhelming debt Fixed or variable mortgages rates – which on is right for me? If you are looking for a traditional mortgage, you may not completely understand between fixed rates and variable rate mortgages. Each has is own benefits and your choice will depend on your situation and your personal preference. Your best options are to shop the marketplace and ask your advisors questions to ensure the plan you are getting meet all your need. Chequing vs savings Instead of juggling between a chequing and a saving account, why not have an option where you can enjoy the best of both? Most banks want you to operate with multiple banks. It important to know that you are not maximizing your money by using separate chequing and saving accounts. There are solutions that can help you benefit from higher intertest rates of a saving account along with the liquidity of a chequing account. Always ask questions, never accept the plans until you are 100% satisfied this will do what you want it to do for you. Remember Comprehensive, Diversified Strategic Planning.

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

Election Season Approaches

A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist As election season approaches, I have noticed conversations around our city are starting to change. I am sure that most are familiar with the Facebook groups that cover Oshawa be it downtown, uptown or south. There are several. For the most part I can’t help but notice there is so much negativity and down right nastiness in some cases. When it comes to venting on the way things work here in Oshawa, however, I seem to see a lot of people follow up with something like, mark your ballot, or I’ll let them know in October. That is wonderful if in fact that were the case. Unfortunately, so many don’t bother to go and actually do that. Engagement is so important. Whether it’s a conversation in a hockey arena, a coffee shop or the grocery store, people need to talk about what’s going on and then have their voice heard come election time. A strong city depends on its people to feel connected and to care about the direction their city is headed in. I for one feel that we have a reactive council and that does not serve anyone well. The circular thinking of this council is why the downtown area is what it is. That needs to change. People need to vote for different representatives if a different result is what they want. If you have questions, make someone answer them. We should be investing in small businesses, welcoming new investments, taking care of our seniors and helping newcomers to put down roots. Oshawa is a wonderful city capable of so much if only people would stop with all the negative talk and disregard. While we as citizens don’t expect perfection, we certainly have a right to expect communication and inclusion. An election gives everyone an opportunity to not only have their say but to help shape the next chapter of Oshawa’s story. Make sure you don’t forfeit your chance to be a part of that. Decide right now that your voice is important, because it is! Don’t let October 26th be just another date on the calendar. Get out and make a difference in your community.

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.