A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones In 1982, PubMed, a research database, indexed 740 papers with “vitamin D” in the title. In 2020, there were 5,566. Clearly interest has increased. Today, vitamin D is studied as a system-wide regulator and an essential component of skeletal, immune, metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, and inflammatory processes. But even a century ago, nutritionists feared the dangers of vitamin D deficiency. Warnings were dismissed as “alternative thinking.” Vitamin D was discovered in the early 20th century, when researchers noticed that children deprived of sunlight developed rickets, a bone-softening disease that left them bow-legged and deformed. In 1903, Niels Ryberg Finsen, a Danish physician with Icelandic roots, received a Nobel prize for pioneering the therapeutic use of concentrated light. Sanatoriums, which emphasized sunlight exposure, and cod liver oil, rich in D, were common treatments for tuberculosis and other infections, but Finsen’s work explained it. For decades afterward, vitamin D was viewed narrowly as a “bone vitamin” in spite of the success of sanatoriums. Once rickets was largely eliminated through supplementation of food, the medical profession lost interest. Blood levels were rarely tested. The assumption was that a normal diet and a bit of sunshine were enough. More recent research has shown D is not just a vitamin, but a hormone, influencing hundreds of genes involved in immune function, inflammation, muscle strength, and brain health. Across the human lifespan, as much as 3-4% of the human genome is influenced by vitamin D. It’s confirmed what early advocates suspected – deficiency is the norm, not the exception. With aging, skin becomes far less efficient at producing D from sunlight. An 80-year-old produces only a fraction that a 20-year-old can make with the same sun exposure. And if you live north of Atlanta, GA, you aren’t making enough D from sunlight in winter, period. Vitamin D is vital for mothers and developing children too. Diet alone often isn’t enough. Very few foods naturally contain meaningful amounts of vitamin D. Unless someone regularly eats fatty fish or takes supplements, intake is usually inadequate. That means blood levels fall well below what researchers now associate with optimal health, 40 – 100 ng/mL. Low vitamin D levels are strongly associated with increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis; loss of muscle strength and balance, leading to falls; impaired immune function and higher susceptibility to infections; chronic inflammation, which underlies heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis; and cognitive decline and mood disorders, including depression. In other words, vitamin D deficiency worsens many of the conditions we attribute to “normal aging.” Perhaps the greatest irony is this: vitamin D deficiency is easy to detect and inexpensive to correct. A simple blood test can reveal deficiency. Sensible supplementation can restore healthy levels. Yet many elderly patients are never tested, and when they are, the “acceptable” levels recommended by some authorities are likely too low to provide full protection. 2000 – 5000 IU or 50 – 125 mcg of D3 per day is a good start, guided by testing blood levels. Magnesium and Vitamin K2 are important companion nutrients to optimize vitamin D metabolism. Medicine is very good at treating disease once it appears, but far less interested in preventing it. Vitamin D deficiency is a textbook example of this failure. No vitamin is a magic bullet, and vitamin D is no exception. But ignoring a widespread deficiency that affects bones, muscles, immunity, and brain health makes no sense. If there is a lesson here, it is one that’s been repeated in this column many times: when common sense, biology, and well-conducted research point in the same direction, it’s time to pay attention, no matter how long it takes conventional thinking to catch up.

Dead And Gone… So Now What?

Dead And Gone... So Now What? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario If I Died Tomorrow: What I’d Want My Family to Know in the First 24 Hours? This is not an easy thing to write about, but it may be one of the most useful conversations we can have. If I died tomorrow, I know the first thing my family would feel is shock. Nothing prepares the people you love for that phone call. And in the middle of grief, there is often an added burden - the feeling that decisions need to be made immediately. So if I could leave behind one small piece of guidance, it would be this: the first 24 hours don’t have to be rushed. Here’s what I would want my family to know. First, take a breath I would want them to pause before doing anything else. The world will not fall apart if they sit down for a moment, call someone close, and simply breathe. I hope they wouldn’t try to handle the first day alone. A friend, a neighbour, a sibling - just having another person present can make everything feel less overwhelming. Where I died would shape the next steps If I passed away in a hospital or care facility, I would want them to know that staff will guide them. The process is familiar to them, even if it’s unfamiliar to my family. They will explain what needs to happen next. If I died at home, I would want my family to understand that things can feel less clear, but support still exists. In an expected situation, they may call a doctor or nurse. If it were unexpected, emergency services may need to be involved. Either way, they wouldn’t need to solve everything in the first hour. There is an official step before arrangements begin One thing many people don’t realize is that an official pronouncement of death is required. In a facility, that is handled automatically. At home, a medical professional takes care of it. I would want my family to know that paperwork and legal steps follow a sequence, and they don’t need to force the process forward before it’s ready. Choosing a funeral home can wait a little I think many families believe they must contact a funeral home immediately. If I were gone, I would want my family to know they usually have time. They could take a day to speak together, to think about what kind of arrangements fit our values, and to include the people who need to be included. The first conversation with a funeral home does not need to cover every detail. It can start simply. They don’t need every document on day one I would not want my family tearing through drawers looking for paperwork in the middle of grief. Yes, they will eventually be asked for basic information - full legal name, date of birth, health card details - but those things can come together gradually. If anything, I would want them to write down the names and numbers of the people they speak with, because the first day is often a blur. I would want them to slow down when decisions and costs come up In the days after a death, families begin hearing about service options, timelines, and pricing. Funeral professionals can be helpful, but no one should feel rushed. If I could leave one clear instruction, it would be: ask questions, request written information, and take time. The first day is hard enough without pressure layered on top of grief. A final thought If I died tomorrow, what I would want most is not a perfect plan. I would want my family to feel supported, to move slowly, and to know that they don’t have to do everything at once. The first 24 hours are about taking the next step - not all the steps. Next week, I’ll write about a question many Durham families face early on: what funeral and cremation costs typically look like in our region, and why prices can vary so widely.

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Technology is woven into nearly every aspect of modern life, from daily texting to virtual ELearn classes to social media. While technology itself is not always negative, one of its most damaging uses is seen with its constant use by young children. Over the past few years, children have begun using electronic devices at much younger ages, which has reached a troubling point. Many children grow up addicted and immersed in screens, forming digital dependencies before they can walk. Living in a digital world from such a young age can make technology feel impossible to step away from, creating an unbreakable bond. These children, who are practically raised by technology, are often referred to as “IPad Kids.” These are the children who cry when their devices get taken away, or throw a tantrum the moment they feel bored. Although these behaviors may be upsetting to see, they have become commonplace in our society. They are something so normalized, yet so new. These reactions are not simply bad behavior, however habits enforced by years of learning and a system set up for addiction. It is important to understand where this dependence comes from without placing blame on individual parents. Many parents turn to technology as a tool for education, entertainment, or daily survival in a chaotic household. It’s used to fill the busy moments and occupy kids while attention is placed elsewhere. Tablets and phones are readily available for caregivers to use, so it feels expected to use them to their fullpotential. In most cases, the use of technology in parenting isn’t a choice of neglect, but of care. It’s an easy solution when parents are working long hours or managing countless household responsibilities. It’s a result of parents doing their best, and of attempting to use the resources most prominent in our daily lives. A reliance on technology affects children in significant ways as they grow older. Prominent screen time is often linked to a shortened attention span, difficulty with information processing, problem solving, and weaker social skills. Instead of learning to share at lunch time, strengthening communication on the play ground, or utilising creativity when doing crafts, children scroll and text, missing out on countless life lessons. This leads to countless consequences, such as a struggle with face-to-face interactions, emotional regulation, and independent thinking. Additionally, it can be difficult for parents to monitor all the content their children consume. It’s easy for a child to be exposed to inappropriate or overwhelming material online, even with parental restrictions. Social media and the internet can be unpredictable, and content is impossible to control, making it difficult to trust young children with technology on their own. The progression of these issues is evident when I compare my childhood with that of my step-sister. Although I am only six years older than she is, her childhood reflects very different themes and aspects of technology. At the age of ten, I was talking to my friends, playing sports, and enjoying life care-free. To contrast, my step-sister,who is ten, spends most of her time glued to digital devices, whether that be an IPad, television, or borrowed cellphone. She is already attached to social media, spending her mornings scrolling on Youtube Shorts or TikTok, despite her lack of a personal cellphone. Her attention span is very short, and she is constantly bouncing from one activity to the next, unable to focus on one option. I may use the same devices now, however, the importance is the ages exposed. I had a childhood without this prominence of technology which was able to help me set boundaries with the digital world, which my step-sister may not have. As children grow older, the “iPad kid” behavior often transitions into what may now be called a “screen-ager.” Now teenagers, these individuals know nothing but technology, and are unable to disconnect as the years go by. Constant phone use, social media scrolling, and digital entertainment have become normalized, blending seamlessly into society. In 2026, technology is unavoidable, and the expectation of completely eliminating screens is unrealistic, at practically any age. However, this only highlights the importance of limits, especially with younger children. The use of technology can not continue to be an instinct for simplicity, but a conscious action paired with balance, offline activities, and healthy technology use. This is the only way to ensure future generations do not continue a legacy of digital addiction and electronic parenting. This is the only way to break the cycle of an “IPad Kid.”

Celebrating Valentine’s Day

Celebrating Valentine’s Day by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ February 14th is traditionally celebrated with chocolates, red roses, fancy greeting cards, and dining out. Many school classrooms become decorated with hearts, retailers may set out wrapped candy hearts, several restaurants offer a Valentine’s Day special menu, and most communities host social events. For all of us who celebrate Valentine’s in the traditional way, we can help protect our ecosystem with the following suggestions: Fair Trade chocolate is a good choice — especially if found in packaging that doesn’t include plastic wrapping. Unfortunately, boxed chocolates have black plastic forms that are not recyclable. I wish that these forms were made of editable wafers, paper muffin cups, or boxboard squares. Instead of candy in a fancy plastic wrap, search for honey, pickled beets, red pepper jelly, raspberry/strawberry jam, or maple syrup in glass jars.These might be considered as the best Valentine’s Day gift ever. Check out the recipes for serving a delicious creamed beet soup. Pomegranates — a festive red jewel-like fruit offers a surprise gift for Valentine’s Day. The ‘seed’ covers, known as arils, are juicy, edible sacs containing a small crunchy seed. Both the aril’s sweet, red pulp and inner seed are enjoyable to eat as well as being packed with nutrients. The red rind can be composted. Pomegranates offer an abundance of health benefits that include potassium, that is necessary for healthy nerve function and heart rate regulation, as well as providing vitamin C. They are rich in antioxidants and a good source of fibre. This fruit may help improve kidney and heart health. Take your own reusable small bags or other containers to bulk stores to select candy or nuts. If you are having a Valentine’s Day treat at a fast food place, take your own reusable mug. Select a potted plant over chemically preserved roses that are imported from Columbia, or flower bouquets with plastic wrap. Select gifts and decorations from local retailers or thrift stores. Take a container that can be reused, to serve as your doggy bag for leftovers when dining at a restaurant. Avoid balloons if decorating your home or community event. Choose printed cards on FSC or recycled paper. Avoid sparkles which can’t be recycled. For inspiring artistic souls that enjoy creating their own homemade gift cards with cartoon images of vegetables, the Compost Council of Canada suggests the following.: My ARTICHOKE every time you are away. BEAN Mine. My Heart BEETS for you. LETTUCE be Friends. I CARROT a Lot for You. You look RADISH-ING! PEAS be Mine. You TURNIP the World for Me. I Love You from my head to my TO-MA-TOES. Like other seasonal events involving gift sharing, spread the love to make a Valentine’s Day donation to the food bank. Fredica Syren, presenter of The Zero Waste Family blog, states, “Zero waste isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress, compassion, and staying accountable while still staying sane.”

Is this really the best the City can do?

Is this really the best the City can do? A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist After trying very hard to go with the flow for well over a year now, I feel I must say something about these seemingly random parking spots appearing out of nowhere in live lanes of traffic all over downtown Oshawa. Is this really the best the City can do? I commute daily and one day I was coming into Oshawa on King St. I was in the curb lane so that I could turn right onto Centre St. I went through the lights at McMillan and came to a stop. There, with no notice, was a parked car. Of course, my first thought was, what in the world are you doing parked in a live lane of traffic? Unbeknownst to me the City had put not one but three or four parking spots right there in the curb lane. They put in the parking spots, but they did not have any signage that would indicate the lane was coming to an end. After about a week there was some signage put up but really, to reduce the lanes right in the heart of the downtown. It just seems to me that there has been little to no planning for parking in our downtown core. The parking is the worst I’ve seen in any of the local municipalities, and something needs to change. They have made Athol Street a nightmare with cement barriers for bicycles along with metal rods that stick out of the ground forcing you to park a certain way but not leaving nearly enough room for cars to pass each other safely in opposite directions because it’s so narrow. Having the Tribute Centre there in the middle of this is just adding to the traffic nightmare the City has created in our downtown. On Bruce Street behind the Tribute Centre is a danger zone on event days with cars parked right up to Drew Street. If you are travelling along Drew heading toward King Street you cannot see if there are cars coming at all because the cars are so overparked, they completely block your view. Another very frustrating parking issue in our downtown area is the fact that people now seem to use the left-hand turn lane on Simcoe approaching Bond as a parking lot. I cannot tell you how many times I have pulled into the left-hand turn lane behind someone just to have them stop, put on their four ways and go into the Money Mart. Why is this being allowed to happen? I have also seen cars just flat out parked with no driver in sight. This is not an occasional thing; it is all the time. Why aren’t there fines being handed out for this type of infraction? It’s almost like the downtown core of Oshawa is an anything goes area. People just stop and park anywhere they want. I am tired of having to wait in one long line of traffic on King to get up to Centre because there is one random car parked in what used to be a live lane of traffic up to Centre Street. This City needs to do better. They are aware of the growth and it’s time they started planning for it properly.

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

When Schools Erase Books, They Erode Public Trust

When Schools Erase Books, They Erode Public Trust By Dale Jodoin Columnist Parents across Ontario are reacting with anger and growing concern after learning that more than 10,000 books were removed from a high school library in London, Ontario. What many first assumed was a routine cleanup has turned into a serious public debate about censorship, education, accountability, and who controls what children are allowed to learn. Schools are meant to prepare students for the real world, not protect them from it. That belief is now being openly questioned. The decision came from the Thames Valley District School Board, which oversees schools throughout the London area. At H B Beal Secondary School, the library collection dropped from roughly 18,000 books to about 8,300. More than half the books were removed in a short period of time. This was not caused by flooding, age, or lack of space. It was an intentional decision made by administrators responsible for public education. The financial cost alone has alarmed many families. School library books are purchased with taxpayer money. A conservative estimate places the average cost of a school library book at around 20 dollars, with many costing more. At 10,000 books, that represents at least 200,000 dollars in public funds removed from use. This comes at a time when school boards routinely state they are underfunded and in need of more resources. Parents are asking how destroying paid-for educational material can be justified while classrooms continue to face shortages. The anger deepened once it became clear which books were removed. This was not limited to outdated or damaged material. Many of the books taken out are widely recognized classics that have been taught in schools for generations. Among them were Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, books often used to teach students about propaganda, power, and the dangers of unchallenged authority. Other reported removals include To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, Hamlet, and Macbeth. These works are foundational to literature and education. They are meant to challenge students and provoke thought. Parents argue that education is not supposed to be comfortable. Difficult books lead to difficult conversations, and those conversations are how students learn to think critically. Shielding young people from ideas because they may cause discomfort does not make them stronger. It leaves them unprepared for the real world. What has caused even greater outrage is how the books were handled. Some were destroyed. Others were removed without clear plans for donation or redistribution. Parents question why usable books were not offered to families, public libraries, or community organizations. The lack of transparency has damaged trust. To many, this feels less like routine library management and more like erasing ideas. The school board has described the removals as part of an effort to make libraries more inclusive and culturally responsive. Many parents reject that explanation. They argue that inclusion means adding perspectives, not removing history. Expanding a library does not require destroying what already exists. Parents say they support new voices and new stories. What they oppose is removing established literature because it challenges modern sensitivities. This is where fear enters the conversation. Book removal is not new. History provides clear warnings. In Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, books were burned because they challenged the state and its ideology. Writers and thinkers were silenced so citizens could not question authority. Under Joseph Stalin, books were banned or rewritten to fit government narratives. History itself was reshaped. Education became a tool of control rather than truth. Parents are not claiming Ontario is becoming a dictatorship. They are pointing out that the method is disturbingly familiar. When those in power decide which ideas are acceptable, education shifts away from learning and toward obedience. Controlling books controls discussion. Controlling discussion limits thought. The removal of Orwell’s work has not gone unnoticed. Parents argue that Animal Farm and 1984 warn precisely against this behaviour. These books show how language can be manipulated and how dissent can be quietly erased. Removing them sends a message, whether intended or not, that questioning authority is unwelcome. Another major concern is the lack of parental involvement. Many families say they were never consulted. There were no meaningful public meetings, no votes, and no advance notice before the books disappeared. Parents trust schools with their children for most of the day. They expect transparency. They do not expect decisions of this scale to be made without their knowledge. After public backlash intensified, Ontario’s education minister ordered a pause on further library removals while the issue is reviewed. While some parents welcome the pause, many say it came too late. They want accountability. They want to know who approved the removals, what criteria were used, and why families were excluded from the process. This issue goes far beyond one school or one city. Families across Ontario are now questioning what may be happening in other districts. They are asking how many libraries are being quietly reshaped and under what standards. Education depends on open debate. When debate disappears, trust disappears with it. What parents are demanding now is straightforward accountability. Public schools do not belong to boards or administrators. They belong to the public. Transparency is not optional. It is a responsibility. Trust between schools and families is fragile, and once broken, it is difficult to restore. Decisions that affect education, history, and access to ideas must be made openly, not behind closed doors. Education works best when it is honest, challenging, and accountable. When schools quietly remove books and call it progress, they risk losing the confidence of the people they serve. If public trust is lost, no review process or policy statement will easily bring it back. Parents are watching closely. They are asking questions. And they are making it clear that silence is no longer acceptable.

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better By Nick Kossovan In terms of hiring, I have this, admittedly somewhat idealistic, holistic view: STEP 1: Candidates apply to a job opening. STEP 2: Candidates who applied according to the employer's application instructions and based on their resume, appear qualified are selected for further assessment. STEP 3: The selected candidate's LinkedIn activity and digital footprint are reviewed to assess their online behaviour. If no controversial behaviour is found, they're scheduled for a telephone screening call. STEP 4: Those who pass the screening call are scheduled for face-to-face interviews (a maximum of three). STEP 5: The candidate most likely to be the best option, often considered the least painful, is hired. "Sometimes all you can do is choose the least painful option." - Michael Kouly, Journalist As a side note, my hiring philosophy is to accept candidates as they present themselves and hire them if they belong. Looking back, most of my hiring mistakes have been in giving candidates the benefit of the doubt. "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time." - Maya Angelou Choosing [whatever] is simply selecting the best available (keyword) option you have at the time. At any stage of an employer's hiring process, especially during telephone screenings and face-to-face interviews, an employer may decide not to pursue an applicant's candidacy because they've identified other applicants whose qualifications, experience, and potential better align with the role's specific requirements and desired outcomes. The candidate's personality is also considered. Those seen as a good match for the company culture and team are preferred. Ultimately, employers aren't eliminating candidates; they're searching for and selecting the candidate they feel is the optimal fit to achieve the position's goals without disrupting their culture or the team. This hiring dynamic offers several perspectives: · Hiring is a relative comparison. Job seekers tend to forget they're being compared to other candidates. In 2026, given the complex economic climate employers face, hiring, as it has been for quite some time, isn't about finding a candidate "who'll do"; it's about finding the best match from the available pool of candidates, which is quite large. Employers can't afford to make bad hires. While you might be a highly qualified candidate, if another applicant presents themselves as a closer match—someone more in sync with the company and industry, easier to manage, and more relevant—the employer is likely to choose them. · Recruiters and hiring managers are increasingly focusing on a position's expected results and the value those results add to the company's profitability. A "position value"—the impact on company goals and revenue, along with the cost of labour versus productivity gain—is the primary factor, more than the skills and experience required, that determines the compensation package offered. · Assessing candidates for cultural and team fit has become paramount. The fit needs to be glove-like. Employers, understandably risk-averse, want to avoid hiring candidates who'll be challenging to manage, underscoring that, as an employee, being a good soldier is often the best strategy for long-term employment. · The degree to which a candidate demonstrates interest in the job and in joining the company (e.g., by including a compelling cover letter, sending a thank-you note after every interview) strongly influences hiring decisions. Employers regard genuine interest and enthusiasm as signs of long-term commitment and motivation. Job seekers keep refusing to acknowledge that they aren't the only game in town, that there's always someone younger, hungrier and more qualified than them. When your interviewer says they'll get back to you, it means they're not concerned about losing you. If you aren't formally notified of being rejected within a week, assume that you've been placed in the "keep them warm" pile, or that you've been ghosted, and the employer is okay with losing you. You may have been solid, but you didn't "blow them away." I've seen this happen time and time again. It's common for employers to leave a position open until the right candidate is found, especially if the role isn't critical to profitability. Speed doesn't beat finding the perfect candidate. A job seeker's best job search strategy today is to demonstrate to an employer that they're an excellent option by showing: · They can follow instructions. · They don't harbour a sense of entitlement. · They're friendly and cooperative, and easy to manage. · They want to contribute to the employer's business profitability. · They're a lifelong learner. Two final candidates. One role. Both interviewed well and are qualified. Who gets hired if not for the candidate's resume, LinkedIn profile and "perfect" answers? The candidate who asked questions that showed they were more interested in what they could do for the employer than what the employer could do for them. The candidate who followed up after every interview. The candidate who showed genuine interest in the employer's products and/or service offerings and challenges. The candidate who appeared more interested in contributing to the company's success than just seeking a job. When job hunting, keep in mind that employers evaluate you based on the signals you send through your resume, application, digital footprint, and interview behaviour. Employers use your signals to determine whether you'll be the least painful option.

Who Really Runs Your City Hall?

Who Really Runs Your City Hall? Community Planning vs. Development Services — Explained Without the Spin One of the biggest misunderstandings in municipal politics is the belief that City Hall is one big machine making decisions behind closed doors. It isn’t. There are two very different branches inside every municipality that shape your community — and confusing them is exactly how bad decisions slip through without accountability. COMMUNITY PLANNING — The Rule-Makers Community Planning decides what is allowed and where — long before a shovel ever hits the ground. They deal with Official Plans, Secondary Plans, zoning bylaws, land-use policy, and long-term growth vision. Their job isn’t approving buildings — it’s deciding what kind of city or town you’ll live in 10, 20, or 30 years from now. Mr. X translation: Community Planning designs the city before anyone applies for permission. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES — The Rule-Enforcers Development Services steps in after the rules are already written. They don’t decide what should go there — they decide whether a specific project follows the rules already in place. They handle site plans, subdivisions, engineering, servicing, permits, and inspections. Mr. X translation: Development Services makes sure developers follow the rules — not invent new ones. The Simple Analogy Community Planning is the legislature. Development Services is the permit office. Community Planning decides what can be built. Development Services decides how it’s built. Why This Matters - When residents show up angry about a development, they’re often told it complies with policy and council’s hands are tied. That’s usually because the real decision was made years earlier in a planning document most people never saw. If the public doesn’t like what’s being built, the issue is almost always bad policy — not permits. Final Mr. X Line: Cities aren’t changed by cranes and concrete. They’re changed quietly — by planners writing rules nobody’s reading

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late Recently, the Town of Whitby did the right thing. After being warned by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that its ban on members of the public recording council meetings raised serious Charter concerns, Whitby’s council voted to reverse that policy and reinstate recording rights for the public. This isn’t just a local policy adjustment — it is a reaffirmation of fundamental democratic norms that should never have been in doubt. In contrast, the City of Pickering has taken a series of steps that, collectively, narrow resident participation in local government and erect barriers to transparency just when openness is most needed. I have formally asked the City Clerk, the Mayor, and members of Council to review and revise Pickering’s policies and procedures so that residents can genuinely engage with their local government. This request is rooted not in partisanship but in principle: open meetings and open government are foundational to a functioning democracy. What Changed in Pickering? Over the past term, Pickering adopted a number of measures that, intentionally or not, restrict community access to council: Public recording of council and committee meetings is prohibited. If the public wants to record what is happening in an open meeting, they cannot unless the policy changes. This goes against the basic idea that a public meeting should be publicly accessible and documentable without restriction. Whitby acknowledged this and corrected their policy. Delegation times were cut from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. This might seem small, but for everyday residents, community advocates, and experts without a megaphone, five minutes is barely time to begin explaining a concern, let alone have their voice heard. Public Question Period before Council meetings was removed. Residents can no longer stand up and ask questions of their Mayor and Council before meetings when they have concerns about what is happening in their city. The removal of this basic question-and-answer opportunity cuts off a direct line of accountability between elected officials and the people they serve, and sends the message that resident concerns are an inconvenience rather than a priority. Only Pickering residents are routinely allowed to speak. Residents from elsewhere in Durham Region are barred from addressing council unless special permission is granted, even though many Durham residents work in Pickering, pay regional taxes that fund services impacting Pickering, and are directly affected by decisions made in our council chambers. Three members of Pickering Council plus the Mayor sit at Durham Region Council, where decisions made regionally impact every municipality. Residents should not lose their voice at the local level simply because they live one municipal boundary away. Residents cannot speak to matters not on the agenda without a two-thirds vote. Previously, Pickering residents could speak to any matter of concern as long as they provided notice in advance of a council meeting. Now, even residents who follow the rules and give notice can be denied the opportunity to speak if two-thirds of Council does not approve the topic. In practical terms, this means if Council does not like what you want to speak about, you may not be allowed to speak at all. This shifts public participation from a right to a permission-based privilege. Media access is limited. The media cannot record meetings without a two-thirds vote of council. On more than one occasion, members of the media were escorted out of meetings, and when the matter came to a vote, council refused to allow media to remain and record. Public meetings should be accessible to journalists without hurdles. This undermines the open government principles protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Communication avenues are unnecessarily restricted. Councillors are not permitted to use their own ward budgets to advertise or inform residents in local newspapers unless those newspapers are approved by the CAO. If a paper is not approved — including community outlets such as The Central — councillors are prohibited from using their budget to communicate with residents through that outlet. The stated concern is that some papers contain opinion pieces, yet the City advertises in major outlets that also carry opinion content. This uneven standard restricts how councillors can reach residents and limits access to local, community-based media. Why This Matters A council meeting isn’t a secret club. It’s a public forum where decisions about taxes, services, infrastructure, and community life are made. When policies limit who can speak, shorten speaking times, block recordings, remove public question periods, restrict media access, and turn resident participation into something that requires Council’s approval, the result is less accountability and less trust. Transparency isn’t optional. It isn’t something that communities should have to fight for legally. It should be the default. Whitby’s recent policy reversal should be a wake-up call for Pickering: restricting public access and scrutiny is both unnecessary and legally vulnerable. Rather than waiting for external legal pressure, our City should proactively correct course. What Needs to Happen Pickering must: Amend policies to clearly allow members of the public to record open meetings — audio and video — with only reasonable, content-neutral restrictions related to safety and non-disruption. Restore meaningful delegation time and reinstate a public question period so residents can directly ask their Mayor and Council questions. Ensure that voices from across Durham Region can be heard when decisions affect them, without unnecessary procedural barriers. Allow the media to record open meetings without requiring a supermajority vote. Permit residents to speak to issues they care about, even if Council has not placed those issues on the agenda. Remove unnecessary restrictions on how councillors can use their ward communication budgets to inform residents through local media outlets. Democracy Doesn’t Work in a Vacuum I did not raise these concerns lightly. When Pickering passed each of these restrictive policies by 6–1 votes, I cautioned that they raised serious concerns about Charter-protected freedoms and democratic access. Whitby’s reversal confirms that those concerns were valid. Local government should be closer to the people, not further from them. It should empower residents, not silence them. I remain hopeful that Pickering’s leadership will choose transparency, openness, and democratic engagement — before legal action becomes necessary. Despite me putting the City of Pickering on notice that this policy violates Charter-protected freedoms, The Mayor is choosing to delay any changes until 2027 — leaving residents’ rights infringed in the meantime. “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

MARK CARNEY IS PLACING CANADA’S HEAD SQUARELY IN THE MOUTH OF A CHINESE TIGER

MARK CARNEY IS PLACING CANADA’S HEAD SQUARELY IN THE MOUTH OF A CHINESE TIGER CANADA’S VERY OWN PRIME MINISTER is playing a very dangerous game of high international politics with one of the world’s most aggressive totalitarian regimes. In recent weeks, Prime Minister Mark Carney has decided to launch a significant and highly controversial shift in Canadian foreign policy by establishing what the Liberals are now trying to package as “a strategic partnership" with the Chinese Communist Party. This is a significant change, which Carney tries to justify as "taking the world as it is" rather than as we wish it to be – a statement that has drawn intense criticism for potentially compromising Canada's national security. This is happening despite concerns over China’s human rights record and nearly a year after he called China "the biggest security threat" facing Canada. Carney went on to tell members of the press that "the world has changed" in recent years, and that these new arrangements will somehow set Canada up well for "the new world order". Our more intimate relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, he added, has become "more predictable" than our relationship with U.S. president Donald Trump. He even went so far as to write, in a social media post, that Canada was "recalibrating" its relationship with China’s totalitarian regime, "strategically, pragmatically, and decisively". Make no mistake, this is really happening, however frightening it may sound to those who do not support Liberal party ideology in this country. As to the economic circumstances that surround all of this, we can – in part - look to the United States. Since taking office for a second time last year, president Trump has imposed tariffs on various sectors, such as metals and automotives, which has led to increased uncertainty for counties like ours that have for so long decided to piggyback on America’s capitalist culture. The North American free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico (USMCA) is now under a mandatory review, with Canada and Mexico having both made clear they want it to remain in place. But the decision to carve out a major new deal with China is a declaration by the Liberals that the future of North American free trade is increasingly irrelevant within the realm of socialist Canadian politics. Our Prime Minister made some very ques­tion­able choices in both Beijing and Davos that may come back to bite him - and all Canadians - by ali­en­at­ing mod­er­ate Amer­ic­ans while unwittingly arm­ing author­it­arian pro­pa­gand­ists. The Liberals have been seen as overly con­cili­at­ory towards their new masters, and Mark Carney’s glowing endorse­ment of Chinese Communist Party pro­pa­ganda is a steep price to pay in a desperate move to cozy up to Xi Jinping. The federal Liberals are making no attempts at hiding their moral bankruptcy, and Mark Carney’s latest performances have revealed his gov­ern­ment's will­ing­ness to appease an author­it­arian power. Over the past two dec­ades, China has per­pet­rated an array of hos­tile acts against Cana­dians by sanc­tioning, threatening and har­assing politi­cians and mem­bers of various com­munit­ies. They have inter­fered in Cana­dian polit­ics, weapon­ized trade for geo­pol­it­ical pur­poses, and per­pet­rated his­toric levels of espi­on­age and theft of intel­lec­tual prop­erty. Canada's secur­ity agen­cies continue to identify China as the most cap­able and per­sist­ent stra­tegic threat we face. With regard to the deal-making on tariffs that came about due to lingering frustration with the United States, our federal government secured a deal where China dropped its own tariffs on Canadian canola seed (from 84% to 15%), lobsters, and crabs. In exchange, we cut our 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) to 6.1% for up to 49,000 vehicles annually. A new memorandum of understanding aims to increase Canadian exports to China, and to explore Chinese investment in Canada’s energy sector (as if that prospect can be seen as somehow helpful to our country). The proposed partnership even includes "pragmatic engagement" on public safety, such as law enforcement cooperation on narcotics trafficking and cybercrime. Don’t hold your breath. The whole thing offers a dan­ger­ous new pre­ced­ent, because eco­nom­ic­ally, Canada mat­ters very little to most Chinese firms. The real prize for the Chinese Communist Party is not access to Cana­dian mar­kets, but the spec­tacle of Amer­ica's neigh­bour kow­tow­ing to Beijing. It sets an embarrassing bench­mark for future negotiations by enhancing totalitarian propaganda that the free world is now entirely vulnerable. Worst of all, the EV component of these deals is positively frightening. The deal will see Canada ease tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles that it imposed in tandem with the U.S. in 2024. As one might expect, the reaction was swift, with some, like Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe hailing it as "very good news". Farmers in his province have been hard hit by China's retaliatory tariffs on Canadian canola oil, and the deal, he said, would bring much needed relief. But here in Ontario – home to Canada’s auto sector - Premier Doug Ford was sharply critical of the deal. He said removing EV tariffs on China "would hurt our economy and lead to job losses". In a post on X, Ford said Carney's government was "inviting a flood of cheap made-in-China electric vehicles without any real guarantees of equal or immediate investment in Canada's economy". He’s right about that, and you can rest assured the electric vehicle provisions in the trade deal will ultimately help China make considerable inroads into our domestic automobile market. With the lower EV tariffs, approximately 10 per cent of Canada's electric vehicle sales are now expected to go to Chinese automakers. The Liberals under Mark Carney have signaled to the rest of the world that they’re now warming up to China, and the fallout has only just begun. All signs point to the end of Canada’s domestic automotive industries, and there’s no denying that reality. To put it simply, if countries like ours continue to treat nego­ti­ations with the Chinese Communist Party as being an intelligent and strategic move – one that buy’s us time to restruc­ture a weakening eco­nom­y - our future sovereignty will be compromised. The Liberals are poorly placed to res­ist being coer­ced by the Chinese, and Mark Car­ney's rhet­oric in Davos will ultimately be seen as a not-so-soph­ist­ic­ated moral compromise for accom­mod­at­ing totalitarianism. At the end of the day, words alone do not con­fer moral author­ity or defend sov­er­eignty. It's up to every concerned Canadian to ensure our Prime Minister doesn’t let Canada’s collective head get bitten off, because – as Winston Churchill used to say – you can’t negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.

White Flags For Sale!!!

White Flags For Sale!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers

After the red flags, the pink flags, the black flags, orange flags and the pride flags. There is only one choice flag choice left. A big white flag... as we surrender to the U.S. before they have to come and liberate us from the invasion from within due to the insane immigration policies. There is no such thing as Canadian politics. Our own non-elected Prime Minister is pushing for a new world order.... and don’t get me wrong I am no conspiracy theorists.... But as your community Chief of Information. I can tell you things are not looking good for what is supposed to be a democracy in Canadian politics. Just this past week the news wire read: Conservatives vote to keep Pierre Poilievre on as party leader... The leadership vote result came after Poilievre delivered a rousing speech to Conservative members Friday evening at the party’s annual convention in Calgary. Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have overwhelmingly voted to keep Pierre Poilievre on as their leader, the party revealed Friday after a late-night vote at its annual convention in Calgary. More than 87 per cent of voting members cast their ballot for Poilievre to stay on as leader, the Conservative Party said in a statement. He’s now the first Conservative leader since Stephen Harper to be given a second chance by the party faithful as they seek to regroup from a disappointing loss in April’s federal election. He beat the strong result Harper earned in 2005 by three points. The vote result came after Poilievre delivered a speech to Conservative members Friday evening where he struck a hopeful message and laid out his vision for a future Conservative government. “When you start something, you never give up,” he said to a cheering crowd. “I’ll never give up.” Poilievre faced a critical leadership review under the party’s bylaws after leading the Conservatives to a fourth-straight election loss against the Liberals. The party opted instead to forego a vote on whether to hold a review and simply asked delegates whether they support Poilievre remaining as leader. Really... have we not learned our lesson from accepting shinny mirrors? Things that glitter are far from valuable but if anything blinding.... Come on people. Here we have Poillievre, queen of the pretty boys... could not win his riding. If it was not for a party sacrificial lamb. He be serving you at McD. But because he looks good, a charming voice and can spew the fiddler on the roof tune... and has all the political rats in a frenzy... He is not rewarded. Wake up people. Have we not learned anything from electing pretty boys to office that do not have the gusto needed to do the job adequately. The current Liberal leader at the least has business experience and is a prince in the financial world. To bad that he has no clue on the pain and suffering of the average Canadian and is more concerned over giving Billions of our dollars to the Ukraine. I have been a long time supporter of the Conservative party. I must admit I am disgusted by the lack of leadership and the open nepotism. Look at the Oshawa MP. She was handed the MP position by the previous MP. As a thank you for being his personal watch dog. An MP that does not return phone calls and or emails. This is not a leader. Then on the opposite of the political scale. You have the local Oshawa MPP. A hateful NDP’er. In her defense I doubt she knows how to dial a phone as she in her many terms has yet to return a phone call. I don’t have any issue with any other MP or MPP. Sad that in this great nation. We have no leadership and we have to consider waving a white flag in hope of making Canada Great Again.

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Parliament resumes its winter–spring sitting, Canadians will hear a familiar refrain: budget pressures, housing, health care, public safety, global instability. These issues matter. However, the most important test of the coming parliamentary session will not be what is debated. It will be how Parliament conducts itself while doing so. This session arrives at a moment of institutional strain. Trust in public institutions is fragile. Politics feels louder, sharper, and more transactional. Minority Parliaments, once the exception, are now the norm. Against that backdrop, the House of Commons is about to undergo one of its annual stress tests: months of budget votes, committee battles, confidence motions, and relentless political pressure. How Parliament behaves over the next several months will say a great deal about the health of Canadian democracy. A session that matters more than it looks The winter–spring sitting is where Parliament earns—or loses—its relevance. It is when governments must justify how they will spend public money and oppositions must demonstrate that scrutiny is more than obstruction. Budgets and estimates are not symbolic exercises; they are the clearest expression of democratic accountability. In a minority Parliament, these votes are also tests of legitimacy. Every confidence motion asks a basic question: does this government still reflect the will of the House? That question can only be answered credibly if the process itself is taken seriously. If debates feel rushed, opaque, or purely theatrical, public confidence erodes further. If Parliament demonstrates discipline, transparency, and respect for process, trust—slowly—begins to recover. Procedure is democracy’s guardrail There will be predictable calls in the coming weeks to “cut through the process” and “just get things done.” Procedure will be blamed for delay. Committees will be accused of dysfunction. The House will be portrayed as an obstacle. That framing misunderstands Parliament’s role. Procedure exists precisely to slow decision-making when stakes are high. It forces governments to explain themselves, oppositions to justify resistance, and all parties to confront consequences beyond the news cycle. In a time of polarization and misinformation, these guardrails matter more, not less. This session will test whether MPs treat procedure as a shared democratic asset—or merely as a weapon. Committees: the real proving ground For most Canadians, committee rooms are invisible. Yet this is where democratic resilience is most tangibly built or broken. Committees can be places where evidence trumps rhetoric, where public servants are questioned seriously, and where cross-party cooperation still occurs. Or they can devolve into partisan theatre, designed for clips rather than conclusions. This session’s committee work—on spending, public safety, procurement, foreign interference, or health care—will quietly shape whether Parliament is perceived as competent or performative. The public may not follow every hearing, but they feel the outcomes: delayed reports, unanswered questions, or credible recommendations acted upon. Democracy weakens when committees become frivolous. It strengthens when they do their unglamorous work well. The executive temptation Another quiet risk will hover over this session: executive drift. When Parliament is difficult, governments are tempted to govern around it—through regulation, administrative discretion, or time allocation. Sometimes urgency justifies this. Over time, it becomes habit. Each time Parliament is bypassed, a little democratic muscle atrophies. A resilient parliamentary session is one in which government accepts discomfort, opposition exercises restraint, and major decisions are debated openly—even when outcomes are uncertain. Efficiency is not a democratic value on its own. Accountability is. Civility is not nostalgia Calls for civility are often dismissed as naïve or old-fashioned. In reality, civility is functional. It allows disagreement without delegitimization. It keeps opponents within the democratic tent. This matters in the months ahead. Budget debates, public safety legislation, and foreign policy questions will be contentious. If rhetoric consistently suggests that political opponents are not merely wrong but dangerous or illegitimate, public confidence suffers. When Parliament models respect under pressure, it reinforces democratic norms beyond the chamber. Resilience is not consensus. It is the ability to disagree without tearing the system itself apart. What Canadians should watch for The coming session offers clear signals that citizens can watch—even without mastering parliamentary procedure: · Are budget assumptions explained honestly, including trade-offs? · Do committees produce serious work, or just noise? · Are confidence votes treated as constitutional moments, not stunts? · Is Parliament engaged, or is power steadily shifting elsewhere? These questions go to the heart of democratic health. A narrow but real opportunity Canada is not in democratic free fall. That is the good news. But resilience is not permanent. It is cumulative, built through habits, norms, and expectations. This parliamentary session offers an opportunity—quiet, procedural, untelevised in many moments—to rebuild some of what has been lost. It will not happen through grand speeches or new legislation alone. It will happen through discipline: showing up, listening, explaining, and accepting limits. Parliament does not need to be loved. It needs to be trusted. As MPs take their seats this winter, they inherit more than an agenda. They inherit responsibility for whether Canadians still believe that their democracy works when it is under pressure—not just when it is convenient. This session will answer that question. Hope for the best!