The value of naming a beneficiary!

By Bruno Scanga Using a insurance contracts to reduce estate expenses naming a beneficiary is an important part of your estate planning process. When you name someone other than the estate as beneficiary of an insurance contract, the insurance company is obligated, under the Insurance Act, to pay any death benefit proceeds directly to the named beneficiary on record, avoiding the estate. Having the death benefit proceeds avoid the estate provides many advantages. This can avoid the delays of settling the estate, including estate litigation (such as will challenges), and bypass probate (probate fees vary by province) and other estate administration fees. Other estate administration, accounting, and legal fees could add up to another five per cent or more depending on the complexity of the estate—money not going to your loved ones. Market risk/liquidity settling an estate can be lengthy, frequently taking months or even years if the will is challenged or there’s other estate litigation. During this time, the investments are often frozen and exposed to market risks (e.g., a market correction). Instead, when a beneficiary is named, the death benefit proceeds are usually paid quicker upon receipt of proper documentation. This puts money in the beneficiary’s hands quickly to use as they see fit and significantly reduces exposure to market risks. Having even a portion of your estate with an insurance company can provide beneficiaries with much needed cash, alleviating the stress of having to pay any outstanding expenses and incoming bills while they wait for other funds from the settlement of the estate. Assets not subject to the deceased’s creditors When assets flow through an estate (which generally occurs when non-registered assets are paid by financial institutions other than insurance companies), they may become vulnerable to the deceased’s creditors. Beneficiaries could receive a substantially smaller inheritance if assets are not protected. Having the death benefit proceeds bypass the estate offers potential protection from estate creditors. To control this concern you can use the annuity settlement option to automatically transfer fund proceeds upon death into an annuity and specify scheduled payments for the beneficiaries. This is useful if you are concerned about your beneficiaries’ ability to manage money and prefer to have the proceeds and future interest paid out to them gradually over time. Ease the burden on the executor. While being an executor can be very rewarding; it’s also a big responsibility that comes with the risk of personal liability. By having assets dealt with outside of your estate so your executor doesn’t have to manage them, you can ease the burden and reduce the risk for your executor. Privacy Bypassing probate also preserves confidentiality as probate is a matter of public record; payments made by insurance companies are generally a private matter. This can be beneficial in situations where you and want to keep your wishes private and undisclosed between family members. When you name a beneficiary with insurance segregated fund contracts and guaranteed interest accounts (GIAs), you can keep more of your money in your family. Remember no question is to silly as one question can save you and your family substantial amounts of money!

The Emergency

By Gary Payne, MBA At North House in Uxbridge, the new food pantry offers something you might not expect to need when picking up groceries. An appointment. Clients register, then book half an hour to choose from shelves stocked with food and household essentials. If they can’t get there, staff can help them choose by phone or video and arrange delivery. When the pantry opened in September, its staff explained why that mattered. In a small town, you can run into somebody you know almost anywhere. Executive director Nathan Gardner mentioned the possibility of meeting someone from school or work while asking for help. Jennifer MacKay, North House’s housing services manager, said the appointments offered a degree of privacy that wasn’t always possible elsewhere. I’d never given much thought to that part of visiting a food bank. Needing the groceries is difficult enough. Then there’s the possibility of everyone knowing you need them. On Jan. 16, 1981, the Edmonton Gleaners Association became Canada’s first food bank. Its founders had noticed two things: people were going hungry, and perfectly edible food was being wasted. They wanted to connect the two. Food banks spread through the recession years that followed. In 2001, Edmonton’s Food Bank published a history to mark its 20th anniversary. Eleanor Boddy, chair of its board, acknowledged the contributions of volunteers and donors, but also wrote, “It is unfortunate that the need for a Food Bank in Edmonton continues.” That was 25 years ago. Even then, the anniversary wasn’t entirely a celebration. On Oct. 21, Food Banks Canada released its latest HungerCount report. It describes a system designed as a temporary emergency response, now being asked to provide long-term support. Temporary is an odd word for something that turned forty-five in January. Across Canada, food banks recorded more than two million visits in March. Here in Durham, Feed the Need’s network of food banks and other community food programs recorded more than 880,000 visits over the past year. Those are visits, not different people. Nearly one in five food bank clients nationally reports employment as the main source of income. Feed the Need says one in four Durham households experiences food insecurity. Having work, it seems, no longer guarantees having enough for groceries. I wouldn’t put any of this at the feet of donors. North House’s pantry came together through community donations and partnerships. It isn’t intended to replace Loaves and Fishes, but to work alongside it. The problem is that even the best-stocked pantry can’t make rent cheaper or stretch a paycheque any further. Back in Uxbridge, North House has made room for people to choose their groceries without worrying so much about who might see them. It’s a thoughtful thing to do. We keep finding thoughtful ways to live with an emergency that was supposed to be temporary.

Under The Influence

By Wayne and Tamara I'm hoping you can help me discover the moral answer to a dilemma I recently encountered. I know I am not the only woman who has and will face this question, so I do hope you will print an answer. I recently met a very nice man (I thought) who lives about 40 miles away. We had a very nice date and he was a perfect gentleman. I eagerly accepted a second date with him in my locale. We had drinks, and he drank more than he should have, which is where my question comes in. As we drew the evening to a close he asked if he could hang at my house for awhile so he wouldn't drive 40 miles under the influence. I did not like this because I'm used to guys using this ploy to try to become intimate, and because people should be responsible and not drink too much when they need to drive. If I said no, that meant I could be putting him on the road to, at best, get a DWI and, at worst, kill someone. (I don't know how intoxicated he was; he seemed fine to me.) Against my better judgment, I allowed him to come into my home, where he almost immediately set on the path to become intimate with me. When I tried to send him home, he said he still was in no position to drive. I allowed him to stay and kicked him out in the early a.m. I'm still angry because I had laid out my boundaries very clearly. I didn't want him in my house, and I did not want to be intimate. But he obviously cared little about my feelings. In the future, what are my moral obligations in this situation? Do I tell him to drive home, make him sleep in his car (which means he'll drive home), or allow him to sleep on my couch (which puts my safety in danger and simply isn't what I want)? Jill Jill, Gavin de Becker once remarked, “The best cons make the victim want to participate,” and that explains this situation. This man tried to use your own niceness and sense of responsibility against you. de Becker calls the strategy “forced teaming.” In forced teaming one party tries to create a predicament which requires both parties to solve. The goal is to make the innocent party feel “we are in this together.” But that is never the case. Moral responsibility is not assignable. Someone who says “Stop me or I’ll do something bad” produces no moral obligation in you. It is simply the strategy of a person running a con. If there is a moral lesson here which applies to you, it is this. It is not right to allow a person to trick you and get away with it. Instead of getting you drunk so he could take advantage of you, he got himself drunk—or so he said—so he could take advantage of you. That may be a reversal of an old ploy, but the intent is identical. In relationships, people with bad intentions often pull good people off their path. An old adage says, a teaspoon of sewage will spoil a barrel of wine, but a teaspoon of wine will never improve a barrel of sewage. If this man had achieved intimacy with you, you might be tempted to think of this as a relationship and him as a possible husband. That would have you living in his world. But even if we assume he didn’t scheme this out and simply has a problem with alcohol, it doesn’t put him in a better light. Dating a budding alcoholic is of no advantage to you. It still makes him a man you don’t want. We don’t have the right to change others and seldom do we have the power.

What Does Consent Mean Now?

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Children learn the rudiments of consent long before anyone uses the word. We teach them to ask before taking another child's toy, to distinguish common from personal spaces, and to understand that not everyone wants a hug or a kiss. People have boundaries, and we must respect them. As adults, we learn the principle is considerably more complicated. And these days, it’s getting hard to follow. Sexual consent is now understood as an ongoing, voluntary agreement rather than something implied by a previous encounter, a relationship or even a marriage. In health care situations, patients are expected to participate in decisions about their care instead of simply deferring to professional authority. And in our digital lives, we are asked to consent to the collection, storage and use of personal information, often without much idea of what we are agreeing to. Informed consent has long been central to medical ethics, grounded in the idea that people have a right to make decisions about their own bodies. Yet the shift away from medical paternalism has been significant. A patient should understand the proposed treatment, its risks, the alternatives, and the consequences of refusing it. Signing a form is no substitute for a meaningful conversation. Now consider what happens when artificial intelligence enters the consulting room. AI can assist with interpreting medical images, identifying patterns in patient records, producing clinical notes and informing treatment recommendations. Patients may not know when AI is involved, what role it plays in a decision, or how much weight a clinician gives its conclusions. In a September 2026 editorial in The American Journal of Bioethics, Harvard Medical School researchers Marina Hovhannisyan and J. Wesley Boyd raise concerns. Traditional consent assumes that a patient is authorizing a reasonably defined intervention. AI systems, however, can be updated, retrained and used in new ways after that initial agreement. The authors argue that meaningful consent in AI-assisted care needs to be an ongoing process, with greater transparency about the technology's role and significant changes in its use. Consent given today cannot apply to a technology that changes tomorrow. Nor should patients be expected to understand the technical workings of a complex algorithm before they can make a reasonable decision about their care. Health institutions have a responsibility to explain what matters in terms ordinary people can understand. Think of the routine click on “I agree” that allows us to use an online service. We may be authorizing the collection of location data, the analysis of our behaviour or the processing of photographs and messages. How long the information will be retained? Who else might gain access? How might it be used in the future? Refusing permission invariably means losing access to a needed service. Is that meaningful consent, or the price of admission? There is also a question of power. A patient may feel unable to refuse a recommended procedure. An employee may be reluctant to challenge an employer's request for personal information. A consumer may have little practical choice if every available service demands the same permissions. A formal yes does not establish that a person understood the implications or felt free to refuse. None of this means that consent has become an obsolete idea. Quite the opposite. As technology gives institutions and companies greater capacity to collect information, influence decisions and act on our behalf, the principle of personal autonomy becomes more important. But the responsibility for protecting it cannot rest solely with individuals. These are questions for doctors, technology developers, lawmakers, educators and the public – not just for the person clicking the “I agree” button.

Oshawa Once Helped Change Canada. Why Can't It Do It Again?

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Have you ever wondered how many inventions began with somebody sitting in a little workshop, scratching their head and saying, "There has to be a better way"? We tend to imagine inventions coming from expensive laboratories, universities or scientists with impressive degrees. But sometimes history tells a different story. Take Oshawa, Ontario. Most Canadians know Oshawa for General Motors. But long before the automobile assembly lines, this community was already making a name for itself through craftsmanship and innovation. In 1880, Robert McLaughlin patented an improved steering mechanism known as the McLaughlin Gear, helping establish his reputation as a carriage maker. Imagine Oshawa back then. Dirt roads, horses pulling wagons, blacksmiths hammering away and craftsmen building things by hand. Nobody was talking about electric vehicles or artificial intelligence. Yet the foundation of an automobile industry was taking shape. By 1907, the McLaughlin company was experimenting with automobiles. In 1908, Oshawa craftsmen were building bodies for McLaughlin Buick cars. One generation built transportation powered by horses. The next helped put Canadians behind steering wheels. Then there was the Pedlar company, manufacturing metal roofing, decorative building materials and prefabricated structures that travelled beyond Oshawa. Not everything was invented here. Sometimes innovation means taking an existing idea and making it better. But here's something we forget. We remember the wealthy industrialists. Their names appear on buildings, streets and historical plaques. What about the ordinary workers? The machinist who improved a piece of equipment. The carpenter who discovered a better way to build something. The factory worker who had an idea nobody bothered to listen to. How many inventions never saw daylight because somebody lacked the money or connections to develop them? And that brings me to Oshawa today. We hear plenty about economic development, innovation and attracting investment. City plans are filled with impressive language. But what does any of that mean to the ordinary person sitting at a kitchen table with an invention? Someone who has built something different but doesn't know where to take it? Are we helping that person, or simply waiting for another large corporation to arrive? Here's an idea for Oshawa's next city council. Why not hold regular public invention fairs? Not expensive conferences where everybody wears a suit and talks about millions of dollars. I'm talking about opening a community centre or public building and inviting ordinary people to bring their inventions. A retired mechanic with a new tool. A grandmother who designed something useful for the kitchen. A student with a simple mechanical idea. A tradesperson who figured out how to make a difficult job easier. Give them tables, demonstration space and an opportunity to show what they've created. Invite local manufacturers, machinists, business owners and people who understand patents and product development. Let inventors meet people who might help turn their ideas into something real. Universities and colleges could participate, but they shouldn't control the event. This should belong to the people. And participation should be affordable, preferably free. Perhaps one invention becomes a business employing five people. Another becomes a product manufactured locally. A third might never succeed, but its creator learns something valuable. Isn't that how innovation begins? Oshawa doesn't need another impressive report sitting on a shelf. It needs opportunities where ordinary people can walk through the door and be taken seriously. We cannot bring back yesterday, but we can give tomorrow's inventors a chance. And this isn't just about Oshawa. Every community across Canada has people with ideas, skills and imagination. So the next time you're sitting around the coffee table, ask yourself something. What did your little community invent or improve that helped change Canada? And perhaps the bigger question is this. How many inventions that could change Canada tomorrow are sitting in somebody's garage today, simply because nobody has opened the door?

Five Truths Job Seekers Keep Refusing to Accept

By Nick Kossovan Punching a brick wall will fracture your hand. Yelling at the rainstorm you got caught in won't keep you from getting soaked. Fighting realities you can't change isn't a how-to-live-life strategy or a job-search strategy; it's self-sabotage. Yet many job seekers waste time and energy raging against ingrained hiring realities, growing bitter and angry when their expectations aren't met, which prolongs their job search. Job seekers who refrain from complaining about how employers hire and adopt the AAA approach land jobs faster than those who complain about hiring practices. · Acknowledge the unyielding realities of hiring and the wisdom to know what you can't control. · Accept that you can't change them and find serenity in letting go of what's beyond your control. · Adapt your strategy and have the courage to change what's entirely within your control: your actions. AAA mirrors Reinhold Niebuhr's Serenity Prayer, "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference," and acknowledges the fundamental truth that employers control their capital, workplace, and hiring process. Succeeding in today's job market requires letting go of misconceptions about "fairness" and any sense of entitlement you may have, and embracing the following five truisms: 1. The Law of Supply and Demand As a job seeker, you're offering labour, a commodity governed by supply and demand. When hundreds of job seekers have qualifications similar to yours, your market value declines. Expecting top-dollar compensation when employers are flooded with applications is like selling sand at the beach; no amount of self-importance can change the law of supply and demand. Positioning yourself as a rare commodity is how you overcome supply and demand. Generic qualifications in a job market full of them don't show what every employer wants: measurable results that boost profitability. Present yourself as a value proposition by quantifying past achievements in dollars, percentages, or time saved. 2. Job Searching Is a Winner-Take-All Competition A job search is a winner-take-all contest with one trophy: a job. Finishing second is no better than finishing last: no job. You don't win by regurgitating job descriptions; you win by treating every application like a title fight. Find where the company's bleeding, show performance metrics proving you've stopped that bleeding elsewhere, and make the hiring manager say, "I've got to meet this person!" 3. Hiring Is a Process of Elimination Recruiters and hiring managers don't scan resumes for reasons to hire you; they look for reasons to rule you out. Consider the math: 500 people apply, and only one gets the job. That means 499 were eliminated at some point in the hiring process. While there are countless reasons you could be eliminated, the four main ones are: · Mistakes and Errors: Typos, spelling and grammar errors, or a chaotic layout suggest you'll deliver low-quality work. · Lack of Alignment: Your resume and LinkedIn profile don't explicitly reflect the core skills the job posting requests. · Unexplained Employment Gaps: Employers view employment gaps as a red flag and can easily avoid candidates with gaps by not interviewing them. · Overqualification: Many employers see overqualified candidates as flight risks, expect higher compensation, and are harder to manage. You significantly increase your odds of avoiding elimination by ensuring your resume and LinkedIn profile are error-free, skimmable, and laser-focused on the position's required qualifications and experience, and by explaining any employment gaps. 4. Perception Is Reality In hiring, perception is the deciding factor. While your resume and LinkedIn profile create the initial impression that either compels the recruiter or hiring manager to reach out to you or eliminates you, the vetting phone call, video interview, and face-to-face interview are all important for shaping perceptions and, fingers crossed, preventing elimination. Every word you say, every shift in your tone, and every visual cue contribute to your interviewer's impression of you. For example, saying you want a "stable" environment often comes across as "can't handle change." (What workplace is stable these days?) How you dress, read the room, project confidence, and handle tough questions trumps your qualifications and experience. Show up underdressed or overdressed for their culture, and you signal that you don't fit in. If you get defensive or deflect blame when asked about a past failure, you'll be labelled arrogant and unmanageable. At the risk of sounding philosophical: you don't own how others interpret your actions; you only own the evidence of your choices. 5. Your Lifestyle Overhead Is Your Responsibility, Not the Employer's I've never known an employer who hires candidates to help fund the lifestyle they created. Your mortgage, car payments, and debts are irrelevant when a company sets a role's pay baseline. Employers determine your value by what you contribute to the bottom line. Show that contribution while taking personal responsibility: either shrink your lifestyle or expand your skill set. Getting angry at hiring realities won't change them; you'll only deplete your stamina and prolong your unemployment. You can't force employers to change how they hire. Accept what you can't change, use the AAA approach, and land your next job.

When it comes to providing security for my home and or business, what type of security is most effective?

By Tom Reimer Protecting a home or business requires more than a single security product. Criminals often seek the weakest point of entry, making a layered security strategy the most effective approach. Security alarms, locks and doors, security film, security screens, and security glass each provide different forms of protection. Understanding their advantages and limitations can help property owners choose the right combination for their needs. Security alarms are among the most common security measures. Modern alarm systems can detect intrusions, motion, glass breakage, smoke, and other threats. Their primary advantage is immediate notification. When an alarm is triggered, the owner, monitoring center, or authorities can be alerted quickly. However, alarms do not physically stop a break-in. A thief may still gain access before police or security personnel arrive. While highly effective as a deterrent and early warning system, alarms are best paired with physical security solutions. Locks and reinforced doors provide the foundation of physical security. High-quality deadbolts, commercial-grade hardware, and steel-reinforced doors can significantly slow forced entry attempts. Strong doors create an important barrier that can discourage criminals looking for an easy target. Their weakness, however, is that they only protect designated entry points. If windows or glass storefronts remain vulnerable, intruders may simply bypass the door altogether. Even the strongest lock is only as secure as the frame and structure surrounding it. Security film offers an affordable way to strengthen existing glass. Applied directly to windows or doors, the film helps hold shattered glass together when impacted. This can delay entry, reduce injury from flying shards, and increase the effort required for a break-in. Security film is often used in homes, offices, and retail environments because it is relatively inexpensive compared to replacing glass. However, the glass itself can still break, and determined attackers may eventually penetrate it through repeated strikes. Security screens add another layer of protection by covering doors and windows with reinforced mesh and durable frames. They provide excellent resistance to cutting, prying, and kicking while still allowing ventilation and visibility. Security screens are popular in residential applications where airflow and comfort are important. Although effective, they work best alongside strong locks and other protective measures rather than as a standalone solution. Security glass provides the highest level of protection among these options. Unlike ordinary glass, security glazing is designed to resist impact, remain intact after repeated strikes, and significantly delay or prevent forced entry. Laminated and high-security glazing systems are commonly used in jewelry stores, pharmacies, financial institutions, and other high-risk environments. Unlike security film, which strengthens existing glass, security glass is engineered from the ground up to resist attack. Ultimately, the strongest security strategy combines multiple layers of protection. Alarms provide notification, locks secure access points, security film reinforces existing windows, screens add another physical barrier, and security glass delivers superior resistance against forced entry. When used together, these solutions create a comprehensive defense that protects people, property, and valuable assets while greatly reducing opportunities for criminals to succeed. For businesses facing smash-and-grab risks and homeowners seeking maximum protection, security glass remains the most powerful physical barrier, while alarms, locks, film, and screens work together to form a complete security solution.

SATAN’S CHOICE: A NEW GENERATION, A NEW PURPOSE, A NEW LEGACY

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington Satan’s Choice is a name woven into Ontario’s motorcycle history. It represents a tradition, a brotherhood and a story that stretches back generations. Today, a new generation is adding its own chapter. I believe that chapter deserves to be heard. What interests me most is the people involved, the lives they are building and the good they are doing in their communities. I have a personal reason for asking. I know Harley Guindon. I have watched him work to build a different life, and I have encouraged him along the way. A legacy and a new chapter Bernie Guindon is an important figure in the history of Satan’s Choice and Ontario motorcycle culture. His story is well known, and the club’s legacy has endured for decades. Now Harley Guindon and a new generation have an opportunity to honour that heritage while creating something that reflects who they are today: people with families, businesses, friendships and a commitment to their communities. For me, that is what makes this story worth telling. A lunch at the Albany Club In October 2021, I invited Harley to lunch at Toronto’s Albany Club. It was an opportunity to recognize the hard work I had seen him put into his life and business. Harley later described the lunch in an Instagram post dated October 7, 2021. He recalled asking why I would risk bringing him there. My response, as he recounted it, was that he had spent five years changing his way of thinking and becoming a legitimate businessman; past mistakes should not forever tarnish someone who had worked hard to change. His public reflection on that meeting meant a great deal to me. What I wanted him to understand was simple: recognition and respect are not reserved for people with perfect histories. They can also be earned through effort, accountability and a sustained commitment to doing better. I was recognizing a friend whose determination and progress I respected. A new generation, under an old name Harley has spoken publicly about reviving Satan’s Choice with his father Bernie’s blessing. There is something meaningful about a son carrying forward a name connected so closely to his father, while helping shape its future in his own way.In Oshawa, Harley G’s has become a visible part of his business and community identity. Councillor Brian Nicholson has also commented publicly on Harley G’s and its presence in Oshawa. I see this new chapter as an opportunity to highlight fellowship, entrepreneurship and community service—qualities that deserve attention wherever they appear. From Reputation to Community Responsibility We now have several public examples worth examining. In an August 27 Facebook post, Harley G’s Oshawa promoted its backpack drive for local children. The appeal sought backpacks, pencil sharpeners, binders, scissors, lunch kits and school-safe snacks, with donations accepted at its Simcoe Street South location. It was a straightforward request for the community to help students begin the school year prepared. In October, Harley Guindon publicly promoted Christmas food and toy collections for Oshawa. A separate post by Barrett Thompson announced a holiday donation initiative associated with Satan’s Choice Rivers Edge MC. These posts document charitable appeals and stated intentions; they should not be confused with independently audited donation totals. And in Sudbury, local reporting described members of the revived Satan’s Choice serving food to people at the Energy Court homeless encampment. Feeding neighbours who need a hand is a generous, practical act, and one worth celebrating. Taken together, these examples show a willingness to show up for others. They tell an encouraging story about people using their time, resources and connections to make a difference. When I sat with Harley at the Albany Club five years ago, I believed that people deserved a chance to build a different future. These community initiatives are among the examples that deserve to be part of that conversation. A Code Worth Living By There is another aspect of motorcycle club culture that I have always respected: the importance placed on integrity, loyalty, respect and standing by your word. A handshake should mean something. A commitment should mean something. And when you give someone your word, you should be prepared to stand behind it. These are principles I believe are essential to what Harley Guindon and the new generation of Satan’s Choice are working to achieve today. Having spent much of my life in municipal and provincial political circles, I cannot help but draw a comparison. Imagine how much better our political institutions would function if every elected representative approached public service with that same commitment to personal integrity, mutual respect and keeping promises. We spend considerable time talking about codes of conduct, ethics rules and accountability in politics. Yet the most fundamental principles are remarkably simple: tell the truth, respect others, honour your commitments and stand by your word. Oshawa. Those values should never belong exclusively to any club, organization or profession. They should be the foundation of how we conduct ourselves everywhere, including in the halls of our legislatures. And perhaps that is one of the most important messages in the new chapter of Satan’s Choice: a legacy is built not simply on the name you carry, but on the principles you choose to live by. From Ontario to the World What makes this new chapter of Satan’s Choice particularly remarkable is how quickly Harley Guindon’s vision has grown. What was initially envisioned as an Ontario-based motorcycle club soon expanded across Canada, then across North America and, according to the club’s own account, now includes several chapters internationally. But to me, the significance is not simply how many chapters open or how many members wear the Satan’s Choice colours. It is about the values that travel with them. If the principles of respect, integrity, loyalty and standing by one’s word that Harley is working to instill become the foundation of every new chapter, the potential positive influence reaches far beyond Oshawa. Every community with a Satan’s Choice chapter could benefit from members who embrace those principles and demonstrate them through their actions. That is the opportunity before Harley and the new generation: to build something international while maintaining the personal values and community spirit that inspired its revival. A club can expand through its membership. But its legacy grows through the respect it earns. Building a legacy through action A legacy is built through the things people do, often quietly and without expecting recognition. That is why these efforts matter. The new generation of Satan’s Choice has an opportunity to become known for supporting children, helping families, feeding people in need and being good neighbours. The examples we are already seeing are encouraging. I am pleased to recognize this positive work, and I hope it inspires more of the same. I know Harley as a person, a businessman and a friend. I have seen the work he has put into building his future, and I believe that work deserves to be recognized. The next chapter is ours to write. And that is how a new legacy grows.

Democracy or Mediocracy

By Joe Ingino On July 6, 1988, the night of the election, Mexican officials famously announced that the ballot tabulation system had crashed, and results had stopped being reported across the country. This created a chaos across the country. More recently also in Mexico. A digital dark arts campaign by mercenary hackers helped Enrique Peña Nieto win Mexico’s 2012 presidential election, according to an imprisoned Colombian hacker who says he was involved. Andrés Sepúlveda, an online campaign strategist, claimed he had also helped to manipulate elections in nine countries across Latin America by stealing data, installing malware and creating fake waves of enthusiasm and derision on social media. Not to far back. The elections tampering pandemic hit America. The Democrats vs Republican is still paying out. The cancer that was originated by the CIA as a tool to easily over throw countries...has now taken front stage center and threatens the foundations of democracy.    And now back to Durham. I hate to cry wolf....but the overwhelming phone calls over election numbers have never been so high. On November 26, 2026 came and went. To most it was just another election. To others it brought forth questions. Question such as why was there a problem with the tabulations for both Oshawa and Pickering. Why did Durham have issues tabulating in these two municipalities. Why did the number in Ajax and Whitby skew so much? When I reached out to my CIA friend. He openly said. It is not so much about tampering but about manipulation by leading political parties. Others, outcomes may be explained by mere particular group turn outs. Interesting... I know that one way to control and manipulate votes.... is to send out voters cards with misspelled names. Most would not think much of such a mistake. Unfortunately, this opens the door for scrutineers to make a judgement call depending on the candidated they support. For example. If the scrutineer select candidate A over B and the electorate select B. The scrutineer may claim the vote void as the name was wrong. Or if the electorate chooses A then the scrutineer may just pass it off as a clerical error. This type of election manipulation is a tactic that goes undetected. In Durham, it appears that this election went as smooth as a rocky road. I say this due to the fact that the two major municipalities experienced tabulation issues and no public release or explanation was ever forwarded. In most countries this discrepancy would bring public outcry. Here in Durham. It is another day. I truly believe that tha Elections Ontario should make some sort of public release explaining this anomaly. Has democracy become such a mediocracy that we as electorate have given up our ability to expect accountability? What is truly sad is that as a society we are aboard an out of control train of sort. We have elected officials that have little or no qualification to hold the positions they do. We expect them to make multi million and in some cases billions. Yet, many have never held a position in business or government for that matter. Standards keep dropping and people for all the wrong reasons are taking leadership roles. On an up note. Clarington has a new mayor. A man that is not a politician. A man that has his community at heart. An average guy like you and me. Hard working and passionate about making a difference. They say that outsiders do not make good politicians. Well I think in the case of Tom Dingwall, we have a leader and not a politician. I strongly believe that he will turn things around and work in the best interest of his constituents. Congratulations to all that ran and won.

Remembrance Must Renew Canada’s Will to Stay United

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On November 11, Canadians will gather before cenotaphs, bow their heads and observe two minutes of silence. We will remember those who died, honour those who served and repeat our solemn promise never to forget. This year, we should also ask ourselves a difficult question: what responsibility does their sacrifice place upon the country we are becoming? After Alberta’s referendum and amid the tariff conflict with the United States, that question carries particular urgency. Canada faces pressures from within and beyond its borders. Remembrance Day should help us recover the shared purpose necessary to meet them, while keeping the fallen at the centre of our observance. Alberta’s vote offers an opportunity. Unofficial results showed a decisive preference for remaining in Canada rather than beginning the legal process towards a binding separation referendum. The distinction matters: this was not a direct vote on independence. Nevertheless, the message provides an opening for renewed national cooperation. It must not become an excuse for Ottawa to declare victory and stop listening. A country cannot remain united simply because separation appears costly or uncertain. It must offer its citizens convincing reasons to build their future together. Albertans deserve respect, as do Quebecers, Atlantic Canadians, Ontarians, British Columbians and the people of the Prairies and North. Unity requires a federation whose members believe their contributions matter and their concerns receive a fair hearing. The tariff conflict reinforces the need for that solidarity. American restrictions and Canadian countermeasures have reached across industries and communities. Behind every trade announcement stand workers, businesses and families facing uncertainty. Even if negotiations produce relief, Canada should remember how vulnerable economic dependence can make a sovereign country. We should seek a constructive relationship with the United States. Geography, commerce, family connections and our defence partnership make that relationship essential. However, friendship requires mutual respect. Canada needs the capacity to defend its interests without having every disagreement become a test of whether we can withstand economic pressure from our largest customer. That is where remembrance acquires a contemporary meaning. Those who served did not all share the same politics, language, religion or birthplace. Their experiences were different, and their reasons for serving were personal. Yet service required them to accept obligations beyond themselves. They depended upon one another. The country they represented was larger than the differences they brought into uniform. As a retired Canadian Army officer and former parliamentarian, I believe that lesson deserves renewed attention. Military service teaches that common purpose requires preparation, trust and responsibility. A unit cannot function if every member considers only personal advantage. A federation also weakens when its leaders treat every national decision as an opportunity to defeat another region. This does not mean citizens should remain silent about unfair policies. Democracy depends upon disagreement. Governments must answer for decisions that damage livelihoods, waste public money or deepen regional resentment. However, criticism should aim to improve the country. Political leaders have a particular obligation to avoid turning legitimate grievances into permanent hostility towards fellow Canadians. Remembrance Day must remain above party politics. No government owns the flag, no party owns patriotism and no province possesses a superior claim to military sacrifice. The cenotaph belongs to the whole community. Its meaning diminishes whenever public figures use the dead to validate a partisan position or suggest that dissent amounts to disloyalty. We should therefore approach November 11 with humility. Veterans hold different views about Canada’s future, just as other citizens do. Honouring their service means respecting that freedom. The unity worth preserving is a democratic unity, strong enough to accommodate disagreement and confident enough to confront the country’s failures honestly. Nevertheless, ceremonies should encourage responsibility after the wreaths have been removed. A government that praises military sacrifice should equip the people serving today. Defence commitments require trained personnel, reliable equipment, functioning infrastructure and the ability to protect Canadian territory. Parliamentary speeches cannot substitute for readiness. Sovereignty becomes fragile when a country repeatedly postpones the practical work required to defend it. The same principle applies to veterans. Public gratitude must be reflected in accessible treatment, timely benefits and sustained support for families. A veteran struggling with an injury should not have to prove repeatedly that the country owes a duty of care. Remembrance becomes credible through the quality of that continuing relationship. Economic resilience also belongs within a serious discussion of independence. Canada should make it easier to trade across provincial boundaries, develop infrastructure, connecting regions and bring Canadian products to additional markets. Energy, transportation, manufacturing and critical minerals should be approached as opportunities for shared prosperity. Provinces need reasons to see one another as partners. These choices will involve difficult negotiations. Indigenous rights must be respected, environmental responsibilities addressed and public investment scrutinized. Calling something a national project should never exempt it from accountability. However, endless jurisdictional confrontation also carries a cost. A country that cannot organize its own strengths leaves others greater influence over its future. Our schools and community institutions have a role as well. Young Canadians should understand whom we remember, what military service demands and why democratic freedoms require protection. They should encounter veterans as people, with achievements, losses and complicated memories. Historical understanding can give the ceremony meaning that repetition alone cannot provide. This November 11, let us preserve the silence, the solemnity and the focus on those who served. Then let that remembrance influence our conduct throughout the year: how we govern, how we disagree and how we treat one another across provincial boundaries. Alberta’s referendum cannot settle every grievance. A trade agreement cannot guarantee lasting economic security. Both remind us that Canada requires continuing effort. The fallen left us no instructions for every policy dispute. They left us a responsibility: to care for the country whose uniform they wore. We honour them best when we keep Canada free, capable and united. Lest we forget!

Why voting in Pickering matters

By John Meloche Pickering is home to me, and I want a say in how it grows. As a parent, I also want my children to inherit a community where people feel heard. That is why our municipal voter turnout matters to me, whether residents choose to vote online or visit a local polling station. Pickering’s certified October 26 election results show 35,976 ballots cast among 91,259 electors, a turnout of 39.42 per cent. Fewer than four in ten eligible voters participated. I find that difficult to accept when the decisions being made affect the neighbourhoods we live in and the services we depend on. Across Durham, Ajax reported turnout of 32.4 per cent, up from 22.5 per cent in 2022. Clarington reached 34 per cent, compared with 28 per cent four years earlier. Uxbridge reached 49.4 per cent. There is progress to acknowledge, alongside plenty of room to bring more residents into the conversation. Working in technology, I understand the appeal of voting online. If we can save someone a trip across town or let a busy parent vote after the children are asleep, that has value. For someone facing mobility barriers, voting from home can also offer greater independence. Pickering gave residents that option, with online voting from October 19 to 26 and paper ballots available in person on election day. I like the principle behind offering both. People should have a practical way to vote that they understand and feel comfortable using. I would not want a neighbour excluded because they lack reliable internet or struggle with an unfamiliar website. Nor would I want someone with limited mobility facing an unnecessary journey. A system that works beautifully for one person can still present obstacles for another. We need to take both experiences seriously. There are good reasons to protect voting in person. A private booth gives someone space to make their choice away from household pressure. Staff can provide assistance, and paper ballots leave a physical record for a recount. I understand why those features help people feel confident. Online voting deserves equally serious questions about security, privacy and independent verification. I want clear explanations of how voters are authenticated and how results can be checked without revealing individual choices. Asking those questions is part of taking the responsibility of running an election seriously. People deserve answers they can understand without technical expertise. We should also be realistic about what convenience can accomplish. In Clarington, 95.7 per cent of participating voters used an online device. Yet turnout was still 34 per cent. That tells me the method was popular among voters; it does not tell me why everyone else stayed away. A 2024 study of Ontario municipal elections found no lasting turnout increase from internet voting after accounting for differences between municipalities and the timing of adoption. I would be cautious about promising that technology alone will persuade people their vote matters. For me, that is where the larger responsibility begins. Councils need to explain decisions clearly, make budgets understandable and demonstrate that public input receives serious consideration. Residents should be able to see a connection between taking part and the direction their community takes. I also want us to ask people who did not vote what got in their way. Was it time, information, access or a feeling that nothing would change? We will learn more by listening than by assuming we already know. I want Pickering to be a place where voting feels accessible and worthwhile. Our next challenge is reaching the neighbours who stayed away and understanding what would help them take part in shaping our city.