Housing insecurity

By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering Housing insecurity in Pickering and across Durham is not a distant problem, and it is not limited to people sleeping outdoors. It affects workers, families, people recovering from illness, those escaping unsafe homes, and residents moving between couches, cars, temporary rooms, and shelters. I recently met with Margaret Eskin of DARS at her farm house to understand the organization’s work. I expected to hear about homelessness. Instead, I heard a much broader story involving housing instability, mental health, addiction, trauma, illness, gaps in government services, and responsibility being carried by a small local organization. Margaret described people whose housing insecurity may not be obvious: workers, people couch surfing, and a teacher who came to a warming centre with her dog after cancer treatment left her unable to work or afford housing. Some people sleep during the day because it feels safer than sleeping at night. The public often sees only the most visible cases, including open drug use, untreated mental illness, theft, aggression, and legitimate concerns for businesses and residents. But moving someone from one doorway to another does not solve the underlying problem. DARS operates a transitional farm residence in Pickering that houses six people at a time. Approximately 18 people lived there during its first 18 months. Residents are expected to keep the home clean, spend productive time outside the residence, and complete volunteer work. Compassion does not require eliminating responsibility. Routine, accountability, and purpose can help restore dignity. The farm supports that process through gardening, animal care, food recovery, maintenance, and small-engine repair. Residents receive internet access and connections to employment, housing, and income supports. DARS uses head leases. The organization rents a home directly from a landlord and assumes the lease liability while residents build stability and prove they can maintain the property. The goal may eventually be to transfer the lease to the tenants without an unreasonable rent increase. This gives landlords an accountable partner while opening a door for people with poor credit, limited savings, or no recent rental history. DARS provides meals, showers, and outreach. Food is more than nourishment; it builds trust. Someone who avoids a government office may still come for lunch, creating an opportunity to connect them with housing, employment, treatment, or income support. These programs remain financially fragile. The transitional farm receives no direct operating support from Durham Region and relies on City support, grants, donors, fundraising, food partnerships, and volunteers. Proven housing programs should not survive solely on the ability of a small organization to continually raise money. One shelter cannot be the entire answer. Pickering needs a full housing continuum: emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive and recovery housing, shared homes, head leases, treatment, rent supplements, and permanent affordable housing. Different people need different doors. Compassion and accountability are not opposites. Vulnerable people deserve dignity, treatment, housing pathways, and employment support. Residents and businesses also deserve safe, clean public spaces. Police cannot become the default social service, and non-profits cannot carry the entire burden. Many responsibilities belong to Durham Region and senior governments, but Pickering City Council is not powerless. The City can identify service gaps, support proven organizations, build partnerships, advocate for outreach, and demand measurable coordination between housing providers, police, health services, community agencies, and every level of government. DARS is already demonstrating practical local action. We should learn from it. Housing insecurity is already here.

GUIDE ON SELECTING CANDIDATES

By Joe Ingino Okay, let’s tear this Cracker Jack box wide open. It is an election year, and when someone knocks on your door, you always seem to get the same thing: a person with a huge smile attempting to gain your vote. At the door, they promise you the world. They ring every doorbell they can find. Unfortunately, once many of them are elected, they forget who you are. With that said, the box is now open. There are two types of election candidates: incumbents and new candidates. INCUMBENTS When an incumbent knocks on your door, the first question you should ask is: “What have you accomplished during your term in office?” If the candidate looks away or pretends to give you the answer you want to hear, that may not be the candidate for you. Ask: “How have my municipal services improved in comparison with my property-tax increases?” If the candidate simply tells you that services have improved without providing evidence or examples, that may not be your candidate. When evaluating incumbents, look for sincerity, honesty and humility. Do not fall for promises alone. Consider voting for candidates who ask what is important to you and provide a realistic timeline for addressing your concerns. Ask for their personal phone number—not only their office number or campaign line. If they refuse to provide a direct way to contact them, question how accessible they will be after the election. Look for genuineness. In my opinion, some incumbents become so institutionalized that they begin relying on charisma, smoke and shiny mirrors. Unfortunately, many constituents fall for it. NEW CANDIDATES When speaking with new candidates, ask simple questions: “What life experience do you have that qualifies you to represent the people?” If candidates talk only about their professional credentials, ask how those credentials have prepared them to understand municipal budgets, social issues and the needs of residents. Ask new candidates whether they have a solid understanding of taxation. Ask what their plans are to ensure that any future increases are kept to a minimum. Remember, the people you elect will make decisions on your behalf. OSHAWA’S LEADERSHIP Look at what has happened in Oshawa. In my opinion, voters elected Dan Carter based largely on charisma and promises. When faced with serious questions, I believe he often smiles but fails to provide meaningful answers. His budgets, in my opinion, are unacceptable. I believe taxpayers’ money has been wasted in many areas. In my view, Dan Carter did not have the real-world administrative experience required to run a city. Before entering municipal politics, he was best known as an on-air broadcaster. Now look at the state of Oshawa. Residents are concerned about crime, open drug use on city streets and homelessness. Mayor Carter’s response has often been that other cities have it worse or that the provincial and federal governments have failed to provide sufficient funding to lower-tier municipalities. The City can commit approximately $70 million toward refurbishing the GM Centre, yet it cannot invest comparable resources in a cooperative program involving the hospital and university. Such a program could potentially create warehouse-style transitional residences with appropriate mental-health services. Former GM properties remain available. Why are those possibilities not being seriously explored? In my opinion, Carter has demonstrated little vision and limited real-world experience beyond his own publicly discussed experiences with addiction and homelessness. Now consider Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Derek Giberson. On the Tito-Dante side, he has held public office for more than 20 years. What has he accomplished? How has residents’ quality of life improved during his time in office? Now that he is running for mayor, he appears to have solutions and answers to difficult questions that, in my opinion, should have been addressed during his many years on council. Then there is Derek Giberson. In my opinion, Giberson must answer difficult questions about the condition of downtown Oshawa. He supported supervised-consumption and harm-reduction initiatives and chaired a group involved in distributing supplies to people who use drugs. Where did officials believe unhoused clients would go after receiving those supplies? The city subsequently experienced serious concerns involving discarded needles in parks, creeks and other public spaces. This created what many residents viewed as a citywide health hazard. A group connected with the John Howard Society reportedly conducted a pilot cleanup project and collected hundreds of needles from parks and ravines within a short period. That total did not include needles that may still have remained in waterways. TAXPAYERS, BEWARE In my opinion, incumbents have not done enough to improve residents’ quality of life. Look around you. Can you afford more tax increases? Do you feel safe in your home and community? Have your schools, churches, neighbourhoods and City Hall improved? When evaluating incumbents, examine their records carefully. When evaluating new candidates, screen their qualifications, experience and promises just as carefully. Do not vote based on a smile, a slogan or a campaign sign. Vote based on experience, accessibility, honesty, accountability and results.

Canada Must Rebuild Its National Research System

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has no shortage of scientific talent. Our universities produce respected research, our laboratories contain highly qualified scientists and engineers, and Canadian entrepreneurs continue to develop promising technologies. Yet Canada too often fails to convert this intellectual strength into lasting economic power, industrial capacity and national resilience. The problem is not simply a lack of money. It is the absence of a coherent national research system. Canadian research is spread across universities, federal departments, granting councils, provincial institutions, private companies and numerous temporary programs. Each part may perform valuable work, but the overall system is fragmented. Priorities are frequently changed, programs overlap, promising discoveries struggle to move beyond the laboratory, and Canadian intellectual property is often commercialized elsewhere. Canada needs to revive and restructure its approach to research. At the centre of that reform should be a renewed and strengthened National Research Council of Canada, or NRC The NRC was established to help build Canadian scientific and industrial capacity. Over its long history, it has contributed to advances in aerospace, construction, health, communications, manufacturing and many other fields. It possesses laboratories, technical expertise, research centres and close relationships with industry. However, the NRC is no longer positioned strongly enough to lead a national research effort. It operates within a system containing many agencies and departments, each with its own mandate, budget and administrative structure. Canada has created numerous research programs, but it has not created a powerful mechanism to coordinate them around major national objectives. The NRC should be given that responsibility and the power to realize it. This does not mean that the NRC should control every university laboratory or determine what every scientist studies. Fundamental research must remain open, creative and independent. Many important discoveries emerge precisely because researchers are free to explore questions without knowing where the answers will lead. But freedom in scientific discovery is not incompatible with national purpose. Canada must identify the technologies and capabilities that are essential to its future. These include artificial intelligence, advanced nuclear energy, quantum science, biotechnology, aerospace, Arctic technologies, cybersecurity, critical-mineral processing, food security, advanced manufacturing, defence research, clean energy and climate adaptation. More than mere academic subjects, these issues affect Canada’s economic independence, public safety, national defence and competitiveness in a rapidly changing world. The NRC should become the principal technical and coordinating institution for a long-term Canadian research and technology strategy; A strategy developed in conjunction with the federal government, provinces, universities, Indigenous communities, industry and the scientific community. The strategic plan should cover at least ten years and be updated regularly, not be rebuilt after every election or budget cycle. The government should establish a limited number of national research missions, with each mission having clear objectives, stable funding and measurable results. Sample Canadian missions could include: · to become a world leader in small modular reactor technology and nuclear-fuel recycling. · to develop technologies for the Arctic, including communications, transportation, surveillance, energy and infrastructure suitable for northern conditions. Other missions could address domestic vaccine production, critical-mineral refining, agricultural resilience or Canadian artificial-intelligence capabilities. The NRC should coordinate the laboratories, technical personnel and testing facilities required to advance these missions. One of the greatest weaknesses in Canada’s current system is the gap between discovery and production. A university researcher may develop a promising technology, but the project can stall before reaching a prototype, demonstration plant or commercial application. At that stage, foreign investors or corporations may acquire the idea, move the intellectual property abroad and develop the product elsewhere. Canada then celebrates the discovery but imports the finished technology. A stronger NRC should provide the bridge between research and commercialization. It should help promising projects with engineering, testing, certification, regulation, intellectual-property protection, pilot manufacturing and access to investment. It should work closely with Canadian small and medium-sized companies, which often possess good ideas but lack the capital and facilities needed to bring them to market. Publicly funded research should also produce a greater public benefit. When taxpayers finance major discoveries, governments should ensure that Canada retains meaningful access to the resulting technology. This does not require excessive state control, but it may require conditions related to Canadian intellectual property, domestic production, national-security review and continued Canadian participation. Canada must also modernize its scientific infrastructure. Many research facilities are aging, while access to expensive equipment is uneven. The NRC should oversee a national network of laboratories, pilot plants, secure computing centres and testing facilities available to universities and Canadian businesses. This network should be distributed across the country. Atlantic Canada could concentrate on oceans, fisheries and marine technology. Quebec could build further on aerospace, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Ontario could expand its strengths in nuclear science, automobiles, health research and engineering. The Prairies could lead in agriculture, biotechnology and food security. Alberta could advance energy technologies and carbon management. British Columbia could expand clean technology, forestry and ocean research. Northern research centres should support Arctic sovereignty and Indigenous-led development. A national strategy must also address the loss of talent. Canada educates outstanding scientists, engineers and graduate students, but many leave for countries offering better laboratories, more ambitious projects and clearer career opportunities. Short-term grants and temporary positions cannot sustain a serious research system. Canada must provide stable scientific careers and allow talented researchers to participate in projects of national significance. The federal granting councils should continue to support fundamental and investigator-led research. Their independence is important. However, Canada needs a clearer distinction between basic science, mission-oriented research, industrial development and strategic technology. At present, these activities are often mixed together without sufficient coordination. A National Research and Technology Council should therefore be created at the highest level of government. It should include the NRC, the federal chief science adviser, granting councils, provinces, universities, industry and specialists in defence, health, energy and agriculture. The NRC should serve as its operational arm. Progress should be reported annually to Parliament. Canadians should be told how many publicly supported technologies reached commercial production, how much intellectual property remained in Canada, how many companies were created, what facilities were built and whether Canada’s strategic dependence on foreign technology was reduced. Research policy cannot be measured only by the number of grants awarded or academic papers published. Those indicators matter, but they are not enough. Canada must also measure whether research produces Canadian companies, Canadian manufacturing, secure supply chains, better public services and greater national resilience. Canada is entering an era of intense technological competition. Countries are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, defence, energy, biotechnology, semiconductors and space. Scientific capacity is now inseparable from national power. Canada cannot afford to remain a country that produces excellent ideas but lacks the institutional strength to develop them fully. The answer is not to politicize science or restrict academic freedom. The answer is to combine independent discovery with strategic coordination and national ambition. Canada needs freedom in research, discipline in execution and determination in commercialization. A revitalized National Research Council can provide the leadership required to connect our scientists, universities, industries and governments. Rebuilding the NRC, Canada can transform knowledge into capability, innovation into industry and scientific excellence into a stronger and more independent nation.

Karmageddon Oshawa's Greatest Opportunity Is Still Ahead

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE For years, the discussion about Oshawa has focused on homelessness, addiction, public safety, and the gradual erosion of parts of the downtown core. These are real issues that affect residents, businesses, and visitors alike. They deserve attention, compassion, and practical solutions. But if that is all we talk about, we risk overlooking one of the greatest economic opportunities in Ontario. Oshawa is already home to an extraordinary collection of institutions that many communities would envy. General Motors, Durham College, Ontario Tech University, Lakeridge Health, and the cancer centre provide a remarkable foundation for future growth. Ontario Power Generation has established its corporate headquarters in Oshawa while Canada advances Small Modular Reactors at Darlington. Major industries often develop corporate office clusters away from their operating facilities, creating an opportunity for Oshawa to become Canada's leading nuclear office and professional services hub. I believe Oshawa's next Council should establish a Nuclear Economic Development Task Force focused on attracting engineering firms, consultants, technology companies, legal and financial services, and other businesses supporting Canada's expanding nuclear industry while filling existing downtown office space. The new Queen's University medical education presence also has the potential to become one of Oshawa's greatest economic drivers, attracting physicians, researchers, students, investment, and healthcare supply-chain businesses. Addressing homelessness, addiction, and downtown decline remains a daunting challenge. However, economic growth and downtown revitalization can reinforce one another. More investment, more jobs, and more professionals downtown can strengthen commerce and community vitality. Getting this right could solve two challenges at once: helping revitalize the downtown while positioning Oshawa as one of Canada's premier centres for nuclear and medical innovation.

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life Home Invasion Or Break-in

By Tom Reimer Metalex Security That’s all it takes for a home invasion or break-in; crime is at an all-time high and increasing daily! The following chapters are intended to educate, YOU are vulnerable, sorry to say, ignorant and disinformed. Let’s take a short walk back in time, Alarm systems are not new, Historians state that the Romans used geese in 386 AD as a way to alert them of danger. Around 1700 an English inventor created a door lock that was linked to a set of chimes, then a century later in 1853 came the first electromagnetic system that when a door or window would open a circuit would close and set off an audible alarm. Now, think about what these 3 periods have in common? I call this “my bone of contention”. All Alarms, past, current and future can only tell you that you are being violated and you better get yourself into a defence mode or if you are not present then drop everything, the vacation is over, head to your home or business to face reality, you have just become a victim of crime! I’m not against alarms, I personally have one, what this is about is that you need to be more proactive in your quest to protect your home and family. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been away for a few hours, for the day, for the weekend or for an extended holiday. It takes burglars only a few moments “5 Seconds” to smash their way into your home, go to predictable places for valuables and be on their way again. You are left not only with the physical loss and inconvenience, but also with a sense that your privacy and home have been violated by strangers. “The scar that refuses to heal” The following chapters will take an in-depth look at what makes you a target and what can be done to make you safe. Let’s start with outward appearance and what the thief is looking for. You take pride in home ownership and so you should. A well-kept yard, fresh-cut grass, beautiful, lush green grass, new car in the driveway, you have spent a lot of hard-earned cash to present this to the world and that’s OK but it also speaks of that, you have something to lose, I’m not suggesting that you make changes, only that you need to be even more diligent! Let’s start at front door, why? Every would-be thief let’s call him “Sly” wants to know if you are at home. so step one, Sly knocks or ring the bell, no answer? Well, the coast may be clear or are you just not answering? Hopefully not the latter, you don’t want to come face to face. Then, Sly looks through that window beside the door (side lite) no shadows, or movement, OK, seems simple, so Sly turns around to see if anyone is walking by, the coast is clear and one or 2 kicks backwards (donkey kick) and the door frame or lock is on the floor Alarm count down is beeping, so what! Sly heads up the stairs, doesn’t take off his shoes, no time! And where does he go? Yup, Master bedroom, what’s he looking for? Your stuff, it’s conveniently left everywhere cash and jewellery in a nice wood cabinet, maybe a watch or two, how about that ID in the top dresser drawer, grab the pillowcase and start filling. At this point the alarm delay is over, alarm is blaring and Sly is out of here. 5 Seconds can change your life, come back next week to learn some effective ways to protect your doors from a random kick-in. Stay tuned.

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin A Country Afraid to Talk

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               There was a time when you could sit around a coffee table with friends, neighbours, or co-workers and talk about almost anything. You didn't always agree, but that was part of the conversation. You challenged each other. You laughed. Sometimes you change your mind. Most times you didn't. Then you poured another cup of coffee and carried on. Today, it often feels different. Raise a question about immigration, crime, education, religion, the cost of living, or politics and, before long, someone reaches for a label instead of an answer. "Racist. Nazi. Bigot. Colonizer." Four words that can end a conversation before it even begins. Just like that, the conversation is over. I believe Canada loses something every time that happens. Before I go any further, let me be clear. Real racism exists. Real hatred exists. Hate crimes deserve to be investigated, and those responsible should face the full force of Canadian law. All Canadians, regardless of their race, religion or background, deserve equal protection. That's not my point. I fear the day when labels become more important than evidence. Words like "racist," "Nazi," "bigot," and "colonizer" are heavy words. They describe serious ideas with painful histories. They should never be thrown at someone simply because they ask an uncomfortable question or hold a different opinion. More than one million Canadians served during the Second World War, and tens of thousands never returned after fighting Nazi tyranny. That history deserves respect. Using these words carelessly weakens their meaning and can make genuine cases of hatred easier to dismiss. If someone commits a hate crime, prosecute them. If someone falsely accuses another person of hatred, challenge that accusation with the same commitment to fairness. Justice only works when it belongs to everyone. Canada earned its reputation by becoming a country where people from different backgrounds could live under the same laws while holding different beliefs. Agreement was never the goal. Respect was. That is why I worry about what some young Canadians are learning I am not talking about every teacher or professor. Many work tirelessly for their students. But education should teach people how to think, not what to think. Students need to learn to ask questions, examine evidence and back their ideas up with facts. If disagreement is met with a label instead of a discussion, we are teaching division instead of citizenship. Canada has welcomed people from every corner of the world. Most came looking for safety, opportunity, and freedom. They have strengthened our communities in countless ways. They deserve our respect. But becoming Canadian also means accepting a shared responsibility. If you came here to escape conflict, don't recreate it here. Our streets should never become battlefields for conflicts that began somewhere else. Peaceful protest is a Canadian right. Violence, intimidation, vandalism, and hate have no place in Canada. Governments also have a responsibility to lower the temperature of public debate. I believe the federal Liberal government, often supported by the NDP on key votes, has spoken about unity while many Canadians feel more divided than before. Others will see that differently, and that is their right. What matters most is that Canadians believe the law is applied fairly and equally to everyone. This isn't really about Left or Right. It isn't about race. It isn't about religion. It's about whether Canadians can still disagree without treating one another as enemies. Here's the question I keep coming back to. Are we really becoming a country that's afraid to talk? Or have we become a country that's forgotten how to listen? Listening doesn't require agreement. It requires enough respect to hear another person before deciding they're wrong. Most Canadians aren't looking for another argument. They're looking for fairness. They're looking for honesty. They're looking for the confidence that they can ask a difficult question without immediately being branded by a label. A free country isn't measured by how loudly people speak. It's measured by whether people with different opinions can still sit around the same coffee table when the conversation is over. If we lose that, we won't lose Canada all at once. We'll lose it one conversation at a time. Not because we stopped talking. Because we stopped listening. Maybe that's the real question each of us should ask the next time we sit down around a coffee table. Are we there to win an argument, or are we there to understand one another? I still believe Canadians can find their way back to the coffee table. I just hope we don't wait until there's no one left willing to pull up a chair.

I Don't Believe in Networking. I believe in Getting to Know People

By Nick Kossovan The word "networking" makes most people's stomachs turn. It conjures images of hotel conference rooms, aggressive business card swapping, and awkward, forced conversations in which everyone is subtly looking over their shoulder to see if there's someone more important they should be speaking to. If that's your mental picture of networking, you can't be blamed for resisting it. Undoubtedly, active networking has its place in job searching, just not to the extent self-proclaimed career coaches want you to believe. I don't believe in networking. I never have. I believe in something far more practical, rewarding, and effective: getting to know people. Shifting your focus from a process to a person changes everything. When you shift your mindset to having no agenda other than simply learning about the person, fear of rejection evaporates. Networking treats people like stepping stones or checklist items; getting to know someone treats them like a destination. You aren't pitching; you're exploring. You aren't trying to extract an immediate favour or engineer a shortcut. Ironically, once you stop treating people like vending machines where you insert a conversation and expect a job lead to appear, your job search and career trajectory will start to flourish. However, you need to change your definition of success. This approach rests on a fundamental human truth: showing interest in someone is a massive gesture. In a world where everyone seeks attention, giving someone your undivided attention is the ultimate differentiator. It's rare, flattering, and makes you incredibly memorable. Demonstrating genuine interest in someone's professional and personal journey is the ultimate compliment. People love to talk about themselves, and they remember the few who actually listen to them. The show-interest approach centers on a fundamental human truth: showing interest in someone is a powerful gesture. In a world where everyone is seeking attention, giving someone your undivided attention is the ultimate differentiator. It's rare, it's flattering, and it makes you incredibly memorable. Demonstrating genuine interest in someone's professional and personal journey is an ultimate compliment. People love to talk about themselves, and they remember the few who actually listen. In a 2024 UC Berkeley article, Why You Need to Expand Your Professional Network, Dr. Julia Schaletzky perfectly captured this dynamic: "A big part of networking is helping others; it lays the foundation for a reciprocal, mutually beneficial relationship. And it isideal to develop a strong network in times when you can give to others, so people are ready to help when you need it—for example, in case of a sudden layoff or life change." Dr. Schaletzky's insight hits the nail on the head. Relationship-building must happen before desperation sets in. It's your ego's sense of entitlement that leads you to expect a stranger to clear a path for your career, even though you haven't taken an interest in theirs. Strangers owe you nothing. Approaching someone you've just met, let alone someone you don't know, with an "I want something" attitude is likely to get you ghosted. You need a different conversational strategy, one that treats conversations as a discovery process, not an interrogation or a sales pitch. When you meet someone for the first time, ask yourself the networking tip I often share: "How can I help this person?" Determining how you can be of help begins with asking open-ended discovery questions about their personal and professional realities. Rare is a Saturday morning, weather permitting, when my longtime golf partner and I aren't teeing off at our local course. Most of the time, we're paired with another golfer or a twosome we'll be spending the next four hours with. To get to know them personally and professionally, I don't pitch myself; I ask low-pressure discovery questions. First, I break the ice: "How long have you been golfing?" "Have you played this course before, or do you have other local favourites?" Next, I pivot to the personal: "Do you live nearby?" "Where are you from?" "What brought you to this city?" Finally, I transition into the professional arena: "What do you do for a living?" "What led you to your career?” "What's the most challenging aspect of your job right now?" Notice that none of these questions asks for a job or an internal referral. Instead, they focus solely on the other person. By adopting this curiosity-driven approach—whether on the golf course, waiting in line to be served, or on a long flight—I've significantly broadened my professional network, received job offers, and gained numerous freelance opportunities. As I've noted in past columns, job opportunities are all around you; the caveat is that they're attached to people. Making it a habit to get to know people leads to several profound outcomes: · Trust replaces impersonal transactions. · Career opportunities arise naturally. · Job market intelligence is gained. · Your professional reputation grows organically (you become known). · You leave memorable, lasting impressions. Write a new internal script about networking. Drop the transactional mindset. Consider being solely interested in getting to know your fellow human beings. My experience has proven one undeniable truth: staying open-minded, asking discovery questions, and actually listening open doors that no resume could ever unlock.

Dead and Gone… The Things We Still Do Their Way

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca Families carry forward all kinds of habits without giving them much thought. Some are useful. Some are oddly specific. Others survive mainly because nobody has ever seen a reason to do things differently. A recipe is made the same way every Christmas. The car is packed in a particular order before a trip. The doors are checked twice before bed. Someone cuts the grass in the same pattern their father did, even though they would probably have trouble explaining why. Nobody sits a child down to teach most of this. You simply grow up watching how things are done around the house. Your father packs the car a certain way. Your mother knows when something is cooked without looking at a clock. Years later, you find yourself doing the same thing and only then realize where it came from. Sometimes another person catches it before you do. You say something your father used to say, or reach for the same old tool in the garage, and a family member gives you a look. Nothing more needs to be said. Everyone knows where it came from. Recipes probably cause more of these conversations than anything else. Families can argue for years about what was actually included, how long something was cooked, or whether the person who made it ever measured anything properly. Someone remembers a written recipe. Someone else insists the written version was never followed. Instructions such as “a little,” “just enough,” or “until it looks right” are somehow expected to settle the matter. They rarely do. Someone eventually changes the recipe, usually for a perfectly sensible reason, and the first response is that it does not taste the same. Then the old recipe card comes out. Half the family cannot read the handwriting, and the other half insists the card is wrong anyway. By the time dinner is served, nobody has settled the original question, but several stories have been told about the person who used to make it. The less useful habits survive too. There is always somebody who arrives far too early, keeps pieces of wood that might be needed someday, or takes the same route across town long after a better one has opened. The person who complained most about those habits is often the one who ends up carrying them on. My father had his own way of doing many things. Some of it made perfect sense. Some of it probably made sense mainly to him. Since he passed away, I have caught myself doing something the way he did it or using one of his expressions without thinking. Usually I am halfway through an ordinary task before I notice. Not long ago, I put something back in the same place he always kept it. There was no particular reason it had to go there, and I doubt I had ever consciously decided to keep it there. It was simply where it belonged. I realized afterward that I had been doing that for years. That is often how these things continue. Nobody announces that a habit is now part of the family. Nobody even notices it leaving one generation and arriving in the next. It simply remains in the house, attached to a meal, a job, a phrase or a way of doing something. Of course, every generation makes changes. A recipe gets adjusted. A job that once took an afternoon can now be finished in an hour. A rule that seemed absolute when we were children quietly disappears once we are the adults making the rules. Still, enough remains that somebody usually recognizes the original. Sometimes it is the very habit everyone once found annoying. The reminder to bring a sweater. The need to check the weather before leaving. The insistence on arriving while everyone else is still setting up. We laugh about these things, but we also keep doing them. A familiar habit can bring up a story without anyone trying very hard. Someone says an old expression, packs the car a certain way or reaches for the same battered tool, and the conversation moves naturally to the person who did it first. There is no formal moment of remembrance. It is simply part of whatever else is happening that day. Years later, the habit may turn up in a grandchild who never met the person who started it. They may follow the same routine or use the same phrase without knowing where it came from. To them, it is not family history. It is simply the way things are done. Nobody decides which habits will last. The useful ones probably have an advantage, although usefulness is clearly not required. Some remain because they save time. Some remain because the family likes them. Others remain because nobody has found a better place to keep that old tool.

There is a legend

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist There is a legend about a successful financial advisor in Warren Buffett’s stomping grounds of Omaha, Nebraska. It is reported that this advisor has learned the art of communicating the basics of wealth building with the local farmers. The advisor, who we will call Fred Smith, greets clients in his office with a window behind his desk that overlooks fields of blowing wheat and corn. Many clients look at him skeptically when he explains the simple power of investing for the long-term and multiplying their savings into large amounts of money from their modest savings. They often blink at him with glazed over eyes and ask: ‘How can this be?’. To demonstrate his point about the magic of compound growth by owning a share of the growing profits over time of a group of world class equities, Fred leans across his desk and picks up a glass vial. He points to the seeds of wheat inside it and states, “If I show this vial to a resident of a city such as New York or any major urban center, and say to them, with these few seeds, I can populate many acres of land to grow vast amounts of wheat to feed entire cities, what do you think they would say to me?” They would likely stare at Mr. Smith in disbelief. Yet that is exactly what he is suggesting can happen to their modest savings if they have the patience to focus on the long term. This is the same patience that couples bring to their successful farming business with the ability to handle adverse weather conditions, volatile grain prices, long days of hard work, pestilence, government regulations and crop failures amongst other challenges on their path to success. The magic ingredient to their success is the power of compound growth on savings. For example, a dollar invested for 20 years at 8% grows to $4.66 and if left to compound for another ten years for a total of 30 years it more than doubles again to $10.06. While the return matters, the most important factor is the number of doublings that occur in one’s lifetime. Several books* and consumer finance personalities use the following example: If you were offered $1 million dollars right now or the option of taking an American penny (recognizing that Canada no longer has a penny) that is doubled in value every day for 30 days, which offer would you take?** The other key ingredient is time to allow compound growth to work its magic. And it is never too late to put compound growth to work for you. Whether you are in your early 20’s or even in your late 50’s time and compound growth on your savings can work for you. Many people now live into their late 80’s and 90’s so even someone who is just retiring can look forward to another thirty years or so as their investment time horizon. Looking after the pennies and the dollars will follow!

The Gift of Readers

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It’s been a year since my father bid us adieu on the first of July as Canada Day fireworks lit up the Toronto harbour. So I want to share a special column with you this week, a reflection on how I feel. There are so many thoughts that come to mind. But one word rises above all others, and this is gratitude. I am grateful for my father, yes. But it is also you, the readers of this column that I wish to thank. I want you to know how much you all meant to my father, and now how much you mean to me. My father had a passion for writing. He penned his first column in October 1974, in which he wrote, “Let me show you how having too little or too much faith in the doctor can get you into trouble.” And weekly thereafter, that’s exactly what he did. I remember bundles of letters from readers that came weekly to our home. That’s what inspired him. He loved being a doctor, but it was the connection with readers that had him utterly addicted to being a medical journalist. What would he say now? He’d remind us that not every reader was a fan. And he’d give us an update regarding his intended prayer at the Pearly Gates that St Peter would grant him admission – and ownership of all newspapers, such that he could publish what he really wanted to say! But I am convinced that it was all your letters over many years, those in favour, but also those against his views, that bolstered his vitality. Now I am on the receiving end of the same dynamic. And I feel the inspiration. This time last year, so many of you wrote a note of condolence. I thank you very much, as it helped a great deal. I’ve enjoyed getting to know who is at the other end of the Gifford-Jones column. In as much as today’s readers are advancing in age like my father, I am also thinking about those who have departed – those who traveled with my father through the 1950s and his early medical practice, the 1960s and 1970s during his pioneering days for women’s health, the 1980s and his campaign for better pain management, and then the last decades of his life when he fought against big pharma’s grip on the medical establishment. You are missed. While my father had a few choice words for the editors who fired him, I have nothing but gratitude for those that have kept me on! I have thanks, too, for all the people in the natural health community who provided my father with an enormous extended family – from retailers coast to coast to health-conscious consumers who continue to prove that Mother Nature is a healing force like no other. My father was a Harvard-trained medical doctor and surgeon who did not like being told lies as the answers to challenging questions. This made his controversial stands on modern medicine well worth observing. Whereas I am better described as a connector of people and ideas. What often amazes me is how narrowminded people can be, readily jumping to conclusions on very little information. If I have my father’s luck and determination, there will be another 43 years ahead of me until I write my final column, like he did a year ago. I’m looking forward and trust a good many of you are too. Please keep your letters coming. And again, my deepest thanks.

I Fair Weather Friend

My best friend Becky and I have known each other since we were 12. We are now both 48. Nine weeks ago I broke my ankle and was on the couch for eight weeks. This left me horribly housebound, not even able to get myself a cup of coffee or drive, because I needed crutches. Becky’s husband is our financial planner. The week after I broke my ankle he called my husband to do a financial review. I know he wanted to move our money around since this is how he earns commissions. We hadn’t heard from them since Christmas, and the sole reason he called was business. Even though my husband told him it was a bad time because I had broken my ankle, I did not get a phone call, flowers, or a card from them. I thought perhaps they were having some kind of financial troubles and put it down to that. Last weekend I flew to another city for a wedding and stayed with my sister-in-law. I was still in a cast and using a cane. Low and behold, on Sunday my sister-in-law tells me she is having guests over but won’t tell me who. My mouth fell open when a car pulled up and it was Becky and her husband. They were in my sister-in-law’s city for a convention. I was gracious and polite while Becky showed me her new 2-carat diamond ring and told me they bought a house in another country so they can escape our cold winters. This morning I received an email from Becky—again, not a phone call—asking to come over so her hubby could do business. I burst into tears. My husband’s reaction was we should pull our business away from her husband and find another financial planner. This would be a slap in the face, and I’m not sure I want to go that far. My husband also suggested we reply to the email saying we are going to go visit those who helped me convalesce and bring them gifts of appreciation. He thought they would get the hint. What would you do? Carolyn Carolyn, when the wife of an attorney we knew would mention they were going to a party, he would sometimes correct her. He would say they were “going on the clock.” This attorney understood that much of his business originated with social occasions. Most of us don’t think the people we occasionally call, like our plumber, are friends, but many people think the accountant or planner they socialize with is a friend. And they may be. But they may also be using friendship as the shoehorn they need to make a living. Though it’s unpleasant to consider, your lifelong “friend” and her husband may think you aren’t making them enough money to send you a gift. They may believe you have dropped below the level at which they need to be polite. We wouldn’t give Becky credit for the email she sent. Email takes no time and effort. She could do 16 of them in her bathrobe before lunch to help her husband make money. We start from this premise: it is not wise to make emotional decisions about money. If you think you can do better with a different financial planner, then move your business. But if her husband is making you money, call and say, “When we are ready for a financial review, we’ll let you know.” If these two knew you might move your account, they may treat you better—the way a new financial planner, anxious to keep your business, would act. But remember, there is never an advantage in letting someone move your assets around just to generate a commission. Your 36-year friendship appears to be less than what you thought. That’s actually a plus. It is always good to know who our friends are. Wayne & Tamara