Bridging Retirement Income Gaps

Bridging Retirement Income Gaps By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist What happens if you retire before you’re officially "supposed" to? Whether you’ve decided to "hang up your boots" early or life "threw you a curveball", retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap. That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65. So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture. Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime. Think of these "gap years" as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream. Here’s a game plan that may work for most people: Lean on your RRSPs First - If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend. Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate. There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF). Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year. If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively "melting down" your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill. You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption. Leave Your TFSA Alone - While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses. Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free. The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS - Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP. Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life. Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully. While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals–keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check. Keep your option open and ask questions before you make any change or commitments to withdrawing any funds.

Leave Your Earwax Alone

Leave Your Earwax Alone Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It's gross. That sticky yellow goo you can see in someone's ear! You want it to not be there. But before you reach for a cotton swab or one of those little scoops sold online, consider this: earwax is best just left alone, even if people have long struggled to do that. Some extraordinary uses for earwax are best stored in the history books. Pliny the Elder, a Roman naturalist who lived in the first century AD, listed earwax among the many ingredients in his encyclopedia of folk remedies, recommending it for everything from insect stings to skin sores. Other traditions are hard to appreciate. In Japan, mimikaki is the practice of cleaning another person's ears with a tiny bamboo pick. It's considered relaxing, and an act of affection. In India, itinerant ear cleaners offered ear-cleaning services in markets and on streets using metal instruments. Concerns about infection and injury have largely brought this to an end. There remains, however, an urge among people for earwax to be removed at the first opportunity. But resist the temptation. The truth is that your ears are self-cleaning and don’t need scheduled care, your partner’s attention, or commercial remedies. Earwax has an important function. It traps dust, pollen, bacteria, fungi and even tiny insects before they can reach the delicate eardrum. The skin inside the ear canal then slowly migrates outward, carrying old earwax with it. Every time you chew, yawn or talk, your jaw helps move the wax toward the opening of the ear where it dries and flakes away. Most healthy ears never need cleaning at all. Yet, many people interfere. The worst offenders are cotton swabs. Manufacturers often print "Do not insert into the ear canal" right on the package, yet millions of us do exactly that. Instead of removing wax, swabs can push it deeper, packing it against the eardrum where it can cause hearing loss, ringing, dizziness or pain. Ear, nose and throat specialists have a saying: "Never put anything smaller than your elbow in your ear." Earwax is a blended mixture of secretions from specialized glands, dead skin cells and a little oil. The combination keeps the ear canal slightly acidic, making it a difficult place for harmful bacteria and fungi to grow. A surprising fact is that earwax is genetic. People of European and African ancestry usually have wet, honey-coloured earwax. Many East Asians and Indigenous peoples have a dry, gray, flaky variety. The difference comes from a single gene. The same gene is also associated with underarm body odour. People with dry earwax are less likely to need deodorant – a wonderful "I bet you didn't know that" fact. Here’s another: scientists use earwax genetics to study ancient human migrations. As we age, earwax changes too. It often becomes drier and harder, making blockages more common in older adults. Hearing aids and earbuds can make matters worse by preventing wax from naturally working its way out. If your hearing suddenly seems muffled, don't assume it's old age. A plug of earwax may be the culprit and removing it safely can restore hearing almost instantly. So when should earwax be removed? Only when it's causing trouble: hearing loss, pain, fullness, ringing or when it prevents a healthcare professional from seeing the eardrum. Softening drops or gentle irrigation may help. But some people should avoid flushing the ear, particularly if they have a perforated eardrum, chronic ear disease or previous ear surgery. In those cases, removal by a healthcare professional is the safest approach.

Test Of Time

Test Of Time By Wayne and Tamara I have been lucky in life, growing up in nice neighborhoods, going to good schools, with parents who are very successful financially. I am about to finish my bachelor’s degree and work full-time at a good job. I am 20 and things are going great. My wonderful boyfriend is 22 and has been less lucky. He was raised by an amazing single mother who has worked two jobs to support her four children; they are from a low-income, mostly Latino community, where the schools are poor. As a result, life has been harder for him. Unlike my parents who have given me money to save, he has had to work full-time, often living paycheck to paycheck. Because of this he had been out of school but just started working on his degree again. My boyfriend and I couldn’t be happier. We are living together and know that we want to spend the rest of our lives together. We can’t imagine it any other way. In fact, we are treating the economic downturn as a great opportunity and are hoping to buy a small house at the end of the year. The problem is my parents consistently make nasty remarks about him and our relationship. They say he’s riding my coat tails, taking advantage of me, and once we’ve cohabitated long enough, will take half of what I have. The things they say come off as classist and even racist, and my mother and father know these remarks hurt me deeply. Should I tell my parents to take a hike? Keely Keely, you can’t imagine your life without your boyfriend, but at 20 you can’t imagine a world with rotary telephones. At 40 you won’t be able to imagine what you did at 20. Let’s take a step back and try to decide if it’s fair to tell your parents to take a hike. A universal characteristic of humans is that we prefer our own group to other groups. As primatologist Frans de Waal says, “Identification with the home team comes easily to group animals like ourselves.” We might call this preference prejudice, but ultimately it is grounded in our biology. Aside from this innate preference, how might things look to your parents? They know marriages of young people are the marriages most at risk. At 20, you are five or six years below the average age of women marrying in the U.S. That is cause for concern. In addition, almost everyone getting divorced thought they were marrying for life. Everything has gone well in your life so far. It’s hard to imagine things not going well. But statistically speaking, you are on a lucky streak. You have been shined on. Research shows all of us are more likely to believe bad events will happen to someone else, not us. We don’t doubt your boyfriend’s sincerity, but from your parents’ point of view, he has every reason in the world to want you. You are a shining star. He may genuinely think he loves you, but the package is so attractive it may have him dazzled. On your part, your parents may wonder if you are confusing admiration and altruism with love. Parents fear for their children, and you are scaring them. They see you buying a house and his whole family moving in. They see you responsible for five lives and the whole trajectory of your life plummeting. Do 20 plus years of nurturance and raising you mean nothing? No, they count for a lot. Some people your age have found the one for them. Only time will tell. It is fair to tell your parents to stop with the racist remarks, but telling them to take a hike is going too far. If you are right about your boyfriend, if he is everything you claim he is, his deeds and character will in time win them over. Wayne & Tamara

Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?

Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process? (Hint: It's Not the Job Seeker) By Nick Kossovan Desperation-monetizing career grifters, better known as self-proclaimed career coaches, sell the comforting fiction that the job seeker is at the centre of the hiring process. They peddle platitudes such as "interviewing the company" and "knowing your worth" to keep their predatory billing engines humming. It is a seductive, fragile illusion of control, but a dangerous one to believe. What these grifters never acknowledge is that the hiring process is the employer's exclusive prerogative. The employer owns their business; hence, they own their hiring process—designing it as they see fit—and make the final decisions. The job seeker, who bears none of the financial or operational risk that the employer is responsible for, is in no position to dictate how an employer should hire or what constitutes "being qualified." Behind the polite performance of the interview, your interviewer is seeking clinical answers to the questions bouncing around in their head: ● Are you qualified or overqualified? (Being overqualified comes with many hiring risks.) ● Are you a fit? (No manager wants to police a culture clash.) ● Are you someone they can trust? ● Are you someone whom they believe? (You aren't just talking a “good game.”) ● Are you teachable? ● Are you someone who'll be easy to manage? ● Are you someone who'll stick around, or will you bolt the moment the going gets tough? ● Can you be relied on, or are you fragile and will ask for a mental health day because it's raining? ● Are you a team player or will you utter the toxic phrase, "It's not my job”? How you describe yourself on your resume or in an interview is nothing more than your curated opinion of yourself. Employers don't hire opinions. They don't care that you self-identify as a "motivated self-starter" or a "dynamic leader." They hire predictable results. This is why you must show quantitative metrics, such as average deal size, contract renegotiation savings, budgets managed, revenue growth, audience reach, or customer retention rates, to support your claims. Employers hire candidates they believe will protect, and ideally enhance, their profitability without disrupting workflows or upsetting the current team. This is where the divide between the perpetual job seeker and the successful candidate widens into a chasm. Vague job seekers get ignored. Specific ones get hired. When you use vague, generalized language, you're expecting hiring managers to do the heavy lifting of figuring out what you actually do and the value you bring. This expectation is a form of passive entitlement. Hiring managers and recruiters are not in the business of solving riddles. A vague resume says, "I'm a hardworking communications professional." A specific resume says, "I managed a team of four to deliver three provincial marketing campaigns that increased inbound leads by 22%." Specificity removes the guesswork, replaces opinion with evidence, and respects the employer's time. While the final decision always rests with the employer, you are far from powerless. You can't force an employer's hand, but you can heavily stack the deck in your favour. Your qualifications are for the employer to judge, but how you're perceived by recruiters and hiring managers is entirely your responsibility. Tilting the odds in your favour starts with mastering three foundational pillars that shape how you're perceived. The first pillar is your professional image and digital footprint. If your resume piques an employer's interest, they'll Google you and scrutinize your LinkedIn profile and online activity to determine whether you're interview-worthy. If your online presence is non-existent, inconsistent, or worse, controversial, you're not getting called. Make no mistake, in 2026, curating and maintaining a clean, professional, and consistent digital footprint is required to get green-lighted for an interview. The second pillar is profitability. Every hire is an investment, and in business, investments must yield a return. The employer must believe you'll deliver results that positively impact their bottom line. Whether you're in sales, operations, or administration, your job is to show how your presence either makes the company money, saves the company money, or optimizes the time of those who do. The third and final pillar is proving you're a low-risk hire. Hiring's an expensive, time-consuming, and risky endeavour. A bad hire can disrupt team morale, hurt productivity, and make the decision-maker look bad, a fear that shouldn't be underestimated. Hiring isn't about finding the perfect candidate; it's about risk mitigation. Because the hiring process is a process of elimination, recruiters and hiring managers actively look for reasons to eliminate you. As a job seeker, your job is to present yourself as reliable, adaptable, easy to manage, and resilient, making you a safe bet to hire. The job market is an employer's market by design; an asymmetrical relationship in which those writing the paycheques dictate the terms. Always has been, always will be. Accepting this structural reality isn't a capitulation; it's a calibration. Once you've abandoned the illusion of control over who gets hired and focus entirely on managing your image, demonstrating you'll positively influence the bottom line, and lowering hiring risk, you'll stop being a job seeker begging for a job and become the candidate employers can't afford to miss out on.

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin Parliament Discovers the Internet

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin Parliament Discovers the Internet   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Tomorrow’s news may arrive carrying another suitcase full of shiny new words. Looksmaxing. Tradwives. The manosphere. Harmful content. Digital radicalization. Anti Feminist ideology. Most Canadians will hear these terms while making coffee, getting children ready for school, heading to work, checking on an elderly parent or wondering why the car suddenly needs another repair. Regular people do not wake up in the morning asking whether their neighbours have entered the manosphere. They are too busy trying to remember what day the recycling goes out. The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women released a report called Confronting Anti Feminist Ideologies in Canada. It examines internet trends, online influencers, looksmaxing, tradwife content and speech on social media. I tried saying looksmaxing out loud three times. By the third attempt, I felt as if I should either be joining a gym or ordering something from a drive through. “Yes, I would like one looksmaxing, a medium coffee and whatever option has fewer wrinkles.” Looksmaxing generally means trying to improve your appearance. That can become unhealthy or extreme online, especially when young people are told they will never be good enough. That deserves attention. But improving your appearance is not automatically radical. Getting a haircut, exercising, wearing better clothes or finally throwing out the shirt your wife has hated since 1998 is simply called living. Then there is the tradwife movement. This usually involves women online promoting traditional marriage, homemaking, cooking and raising children. Some people may dislike that choice. Others may admire it. But a woman wanting to stay home with her children is not automatically being controlled, brainwashed or recruited into some dangerous movement. Feminism was supposed to mean women had choices. That includes the choice to build a career, stay home, do both or change direction halfway through life. The manosphere sounds like a glass dome where men are kept until they learn how to load the dishwasher correctly. In reality, it is a broad label for online spaces where men discuss dating, masculinity, relationships and personal frustrations. Some of those spaces contain hatred and threats. Others contain lonely men struggling to talk about their problems. Government must be able to tell the difference. There are radicals online. There are people who threaten women, spread hatred and encourage violence. Women should be protected from them. Children should also be protected from predators, exploitation and people who use the internet to target the vulnerable. That is where the discussion needs to become more serious. Real women and children are being trafficked, sexually exploited, assaulted, threatened and abused. Some are lured online. Some disappear. Some are forced into situations they never chose. These are not fashionable words invented for a committee meeting. These are crimes, and they destroy lives. Canada should focus its strongest laws, police resources and public attention on those who commit real crimes against women and children. Traffickers, predators, violent offenders and those who distribute abusive material should face serious consequences. Protecting victims should never become secondary to debating whether a homemaking video or a man’s negative dating advice belongs under a new political label. The report contains 14 recommendations, including more online regulation, public education, digital literacy, programs for men and boys and further research. Canadians can read the complete report at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/FEWO/report-6/ The committee study page, including meetings, witnesses and submitted briefs, can be found at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/FEWO/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13147239 A committee report is not a law. It does not make homemaking, exercise, traditional marriage or criticism of feminism illegal. But reports can shape future policies, programs and legislation, so people should pay attention to the language being used. Regular Canadians do not spend their lives sorting their neighbours into ideological boxes. They judge people by how they behave. A kind man is a kind person. A cruel man is a cruel person. A woman who works outside the home is making her choice. A woman who chooses to stay home is making her own choice. Ottawa should protect freedom while going after genuine criminals. It should spend less time turning ordinary choices into suspicious movements and more time stopping the people who prey on women and children. That is not anti feminist. That is common sense.

Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet

Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE The greatest threat to democracy isn't always found at the ballot box. Sometimes it's found in the council chamber. Every election brings hope. New candidates knock on doors, attend debates, and make promises to the people they hope to serve. They speak passionately about lowering taxes, fixing neglected infrastructure, improving public safety, protecting neighbourhoods, increasing transparency, or restoring common sense to local government. The voters listen. They compare ideas. And then they choose. Election night is not simply about replacing names on office doors. It is about giving citizens a voice through the people they elect. But for too many newly elected representatives, something changes after they're sworn in. The campaign signs come down. The congratulations fade. And then the pressure begins. "Be a team player." "That's just how we've always done things." "Don't rock the boat." "Vote with the group." Those four phrases have quietly silenced more elected officials than any opponent ever could. Democracy was never intended to produce obedient followers. It was designed to elect independent thinkers. There is an enormous difference between cooperation and conformity. Cooperation means listening, debating, compromising when appropriate, and respecting opposing views. Conformity means surrendering your convictions simply because the majority expects it. That is not leadership. That is political intimidation wrapped in polite language. The public did not elect you to become another vote in someone else's bloc. They elected you. They chose your judgment. Your experience. Your courage. Your willingness to ask difficult questions when everyone else has become comfortable. Perhaps the greatest danger in municipal politics is something I call the slow surrender. It doesn't happen overnight. One vote here. One compromise there. One issue you decide isn't worth fighting. One uncomfortable question left unasked. Until one day you look back and realize the person sitting in that council chair no longer resembles the candidate who stood on doorsteps asking for the public's trust. History has taught us an important lesson. Mob rule has never been a reliable substitute for principled leadership. The majority can be right. The majority can also be wrong. That is why democracies require independent representatives—not rubber stamps. The easiest vote in politics is the one everyone else is casting. The hardest vote is the one your conscience demands. If you were elected because you promised to protect taxpayers, then protect taxpayers. If you promised to improve infrastructure, fight for infrastructure. If you promised accountability, demand accountability. Never apologize for keeping the promises that earned you the confidence of the voters. There will always be pressure to fit in. Pressure to stay quiet. Pressure to stop asking difficult questions. Pressure to avoid making colleagues uncomfortable. Ignore it. The people who elected you did not send you to town hall to become popular inside the building. They sent you there to represent the people outside it. Remember this every time you're asked to support the team. Your team isn't the voting bloc. Your team isn't the political establishment. Your team isn't the group sitting beside you around the council table. Your team is the taxpayer who believed your word meant something. This October, many new councillors will walk into municipal offices for the first time. My message to each of them is simple. Don't let your gunpowder get wet. Stand your ground. Ask the difficult questions. Challenge bad ideas—even when they're popular. Vote according to your principles, not according to pressure.Because if the people wanted another member of the old majority... They wouldn't have elected you.

BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE

BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE By Joe Ingino I have an open question to corporate Canada. Primarily to Bell and Rogers. Have you lost your sense of customer service? Have you no concern for your customers? Let me explain: Bell and Rogers apply the same care towards customers. They don’t. It appears that in their world. It is all about profit. All about saving money and making billions. Sadly we all pay. We are all subject to their tyrant policies and their ridiculous policies. The other day I had to call BELL. The general phone number takes you right to accounts receivable. An automated system does not welcome you as a customer. But instead reads you the riot act.... ie: It asks you to authenticate yourself. It claims it is for the clients security, (bull). Once you wasted five minutes... it tells you it is looking up your account. Then it gives you your balance and asks how you like to pay. I was calling for billing cause they over charged me... After the initial 10 minutes wasted with the automated system.... telling me that most of my concern can be dealt with some online automated system.... It gives you the option to press a key for a live person. As this happens. The automated system tell you that you are being recorded for your safety and that of the BELL “Specialist”. You got to be kidding me. In this particular case. After a 15 minute wait. I got this very rude woman. “Hi, my name is Petra, your BELL specialist. Could I have your name.” I tell her. Joe Ingino. She then proceeds to say, “Hello, Mr. Joe. (Mr. Joe!!!! I thought proper syntax: Mr. followed by last name) May I authenticate your account for your security?” I told her. I already did. Why did BELL waste 20 minute authenticating me if I had to do it with her. She rudely tells me, “I am sorry Mr. Joe, but that is BELL policy”. I openly asked her. Where is this call center? She said, “India”. I explained that I was over charged and wanted to talk to someone about it. She then said, “Oh, Mr. Joe. I am going to have to transfer you to a customer service specialist. Please hold. There may be a bit of a wait.” Another 20 minutes. Here come Abri on the line. With a heavy accent that was barely deciphered. She does not even identify herself. It was as if I was calling down to Loui’s bar and grill. I asked her is this BELL? She then identified herself. She was so rude and unprofessional. I asked her where in the world was this call center. She said,”Morocco”. She then proceeds to ask me to authenticate myself once again. I told her this was the third time. She pretty much answered, “I don’t care that is our policy”. Super rude. I had no choice so we authenticated once again. She then listened to my concern. She agreed there was an over payment... and she outright asks me. “What do you want me to do about it.” I was shocked. I asked her that she had horrible customer service skills. She did no seem to care. I then told her. It is your job to deal with customers is it not? I then requested she transfer me to someone in Canada as I was not impressed by her customer service skills. She then openly admits. “I am sorry but there is no one in Canada that can help you. No one in Canada wants to work for what they pay us here in Morocco.” I was shocked. This is a BELL employee? This truly pissed me off. How dare BELL farm out jobs that Canadians desperately need. All in the name of not having to pay benefit and taxes. We the consumers pay top dollar for cheap services. I say cheap.... because phone lines once they are laid out there is little or no real maintenance other than the usual interruptions. So then why are we paying a premium every month for something that has 10% value of what you are paying. Well, I guess the Golden Goose that lays the Perennial egg, generally means lasting for a long time, enduring, or constantly recurring. In everyday contexts, it describes situations, problems, or habits that happen repeatedly or exist continuously. Then the question remains.... Why are we paying top dollars to BELL?We as consumers have become to complaisant. We surrendered our ability to question. Bell/Rogers have caught on... and they charge what they want and set their own policy to dictate protocol. Pay or get cut off. Pay, pay, pay as you have no real choice. They are one of the same

We are in a tax emergency

We are in a tax emergency By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering Canada introduced federal income tax in 1917 through the Income War Tax Act. It was brought in during the First World War and presented as a temporary wartime measure. It was never intended to become a permanent, ever-expanding system that would grow generation after generation. Yet here we are. Today, personal income tax generates more than $234 billion annually and represents nearly half of all federal government revenue. What began as a temporary solution has evolved into one of the largest and most powerful financial mechanisms and employers in Canadian society. And the same mindset has spread throughout every level of government, including municipal government. Property taxes rise. Fees rise. Utility costs rise. Development charges rise. The cost of living rises. Every year, governments find new reasons to spend more money, create new programs, launch new initiatives, hire more staff, commission more studies, and expand their responsibilities further into our lives. But taxpayers are not an unlimited resource. At some point, we have to ask a simple question: Can people actually afford this? Sustainability is bigger than one conversation Sustainability is not just about climate change. Sustainability is not just about infrastructure. Sustainability is not just about technology. Sustainability is also about whether families can afford to raise children. Whether seniors can remain in their homes. Whether young people can buy a home. Whether workers can get ahead. Whether small businesses can survive. Whether citizens can maintain their economic independence and keep enough of what they earn to build the future they want. Without economic sustainability, every other form of sustainability eventually fails. Every promise has a cost As we approach this municipal election, voters are going to hear countless promises. New projects. New programs. New initiatives. New spending. But every promise has a cost. The question is not what politicians want to do. The question is whether taxpayers can afford it. For too long, governments have measured success by how much they spend rather than how effectively they spend it. Growth has become the default answer. More programs. More bureaucracy. More regulation. More taxation. Very few people stop to ask where it ends. This is why transparency matters. This is why accountability matters. This is why fiscal discipline matters. Because government was created to serve the public, not to continuously expand its footprint while asking taxpayers to carry an ever-increasing burden. Electing leaders who understand limits We should not be electing leaders based on who can promise the most. We should be electing leaders who understand limits. Leaders who understand that taxpayers are not an endless source of revenue. Leaders who are willing to ask not only "What should government do?" but also "What should government stop doing?" Leaders who recognize that every dollar spent was earned by someone who worked for it. What this election is really about This election is not simply about roads, parks, development, housing, or any single issue. It is about sustainability. Not just environmental sustainability. Economic sustainability. The sustainability of families. The sustainability of businesses. The sustainability of communities. And ultimately, the sustainability of a society where people remain free, independent, and able to keep the rewards of their own hard work. If we fail to have that conversation now, we may eventually discover that the greatest threat to our future was not what government failed to do. It was what government never stopped doing. Most politicians are more than happy to push the gas pedal, but who's got the brass to push the brakes?

Au Naturel

Au Naturel By Wayne and Tamara Ever since my boyfriend and I moved in together, things have gotten complicated. We rarely have sex anymore. I don't know what “rarely” means to anyone else out there, but let's just say I'm feeling rejected. Now it's a few times a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. When we saw each other once a week, he was all over me. I thought when we lived together, we'd have more sex, not less. When we do, it's great. I know I love it, and he seems to be into it, so I'm having a hard time understanding his reluctance. Over the past months, I've tried in various ways to entice him, seduce him, or propose a quickie if he's busy. Just as often, I give him his space. I bring it up in a gentle way. "Wouldn't it be great if we made a little more time for each other? We could start here," uttered in the bedroom, with a smile and playful tone. His response is always something like, "I need to pull another all-nighter for tomorrow's work deadline, and sex makes me want to fall asleep. And hey, remember last week, when we went two days in a row? Hey, hey, not bad!" Then he'll hug me guiltily and be off again to work in the dining room. Maybe we have different libidos. He was a virgin until we met; not to say all late-bloomers have low sex drives, but maybe there's a reason he waited so long to do the deed. As for me, I'm not exactly a man-eater, but I've been in a sexual relationship before and I love that aspect of connecting. The last thing I want is for sex to be an obligation. Maybe I'm asking too much, and the idea that young happy couples sleep together more than once a week is a media myth. Who knows? All I truly know is how I feel: humiliated, inadequate, and scared. About a week ago, after he rebuffed me so he could work again, I checked the history on our computer. Turns out he'd been up all night, watching documentaries and reading news--which has nothing to do with his job. I almost wish it had been porn, which would suggest he's horny, just not about me. Instead, it's pure intellectual research. I confronted him in a calm manner, but he said he reads the Internet to stay awake as he works. I get that, we're the multitasking generation. But still, since then, he's been online almost every night, for hours and hours, reading about everything under the sun. Except sex. I have told no one. Everyone thinks we're happy. My single friends envy us, and my married ones tell us to milk pre-marriage while we can. My dad calls him "Romeo." I would love to try therapy for both of us, but he rejects the American idea of "outsourcing" mental health care to strangers. Is this a phase, or is he just not that into me? Paris Paris, if you buy a house in the wrong location, remember one thing. It will always be in the wrong location. Licensed professionals cannot make all relationships work, and we doubt this is even a mental health issue. He is simply different from you. People who are right for us should be right for us in their natural state. If we want people to be authentic, we can’t continue in a relationship with someone who has to alter themselves so much they are not themselves anymore. If he acquiesces to your wishes, the changes are not likely to be permanent, and two things may follow. You will come to disrespect him, and he will realize you don’t love him for who he is. At that point he will scream, “Enough!” That may happen before the wedding, after the honeymoon, or after the two kids are born. Wayne & Tamara

There’s Good Reason for an Afternoon Snooze

There’s Good Reason for an Afternoon Snooze Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Winston Churchill once said, "Nature has not intended mankind to work from eight in the morning until midnight without that refreshment of blessed oblivion.” He was justifying his habit of an afternoon nap, a practice he said that gave him "two days in one." Many hot climates around the world have embedded some form of shuteye during the midday heat. Spain and Mexico’s siesta. Italy’s riposo. Greece has quiet hours. In China, the midday sleep is widely accepted. And the Japanese have the practice of inemuri, literally “being present while sleeping.” Dozing off is seen as evidence of hard work, not laziness. But in North America, napping has an image problem. The adulation we have for snoozing babies and toddlers turns to scorn when teenagers put their feet up. Office workers risk being fired if they put their heads down. Good luck finding a spot in school and college settings where students can have a safe snooze. There’s a widespread conviction that we need to power through the day, and that doing so is the definition of industrious. Churchill thought differently, and he wasn’t alone. Leonardo da Vinci slept in short bursts throughout the day. John F. Kennedy was known to retreat for a brief afternoon sleep. Albert Einstein reportedly slept about ten hours at night and still enjoyed daytime naps. They were hardly lazy men. Researchers in Japan showed that even a short daytime nap measurably improves alertness, mental performance, and fatigue. Waking at just the right point in the nap reduced the grogginess many people complain about after sleeping too long. European researchers studying older adults in both China and Europe found napping wasn't good or bad. Like Goldilocks, it seemed to be "just right" when it was neither too short nor too long. Moderate naps were associated with better cognitive performance, while marathon afternoon snoozes offered no reward. Neuroscience can explain it. The brain is like a busy office. All morning, papers pile up, phones ring, and sticky notes cover every surface. A short nap is the cleaning crew. Memories are sorted. Unimportant information is discarded. New learning is filed where it can be found later. Meanwhile, stress hormones decline, and the nervous system shifts into a more restorative gear. That's one reason people often wake feeling clearer, calmer, and more creative. The sweet spot appears to be about 20 to 30 minutes in the early afternoon. That's long enough to recharge without descending into deep sleep, where waking can leave you feeling as though you've been hit by a truck instead of refreshed. Of course, there is an important caveat. If you're routinely sleeping for hours every afternoon because you're exhausted, that's another matter. Long or frequent naps can sometimes signal poor nighttime sleep, sleep apnea, medication effects, or underlying illness rather than helpful restoration. In health and sickness, context always matters. I'll admit, a nap still feels like an indulgence. It even feels wrong to relax when many people around the world are lurching from one crisis to the next. It's hard to settle in for forty winks knowing so many people are worrying about war, paying the rent, or simply getting through another day. I'd enjoy a midday snooze more if I knew everyone had the same carefree opportunity. But guilt has never been a substitute for sleep. And the evidence is clear: a short afternoon nap is one of the healthiest habits many people forego. We all should do it more. So if anyone accuses you of laziness, simply tell them you're following the latest international research. Then nodded off in the recliner.

Making Your Job Search Public Doesn't Do You Any Favours

Making Your Job Search Public Doesn't Do You Any Favours By Nick Kossovan Every day, my LinkedIn feed is filled with posts and comments from job seekers expressing frustration and anger, criticizing recruiters, blaming employers, and claiming victimhood. A large percentage of LinkedIn has become an online group therapy session, minus privacy and confidentiality. Recently, I saw a post from someone I know announcing that, out of sheer desperation, they'd subscribed to an AI tool to mass-apply on their behalf. This person should know better; making their job search a public spectacle wasn't doing them any favours; in fact, it was prolonging their unemployment. Searching for a job was never meant to be a public event; effective job searching requires absolute discretion. I long for the days when you'd meet a friend over a few beers to moan about the uphill battle of job hunting. Whether it was you or the other person searching, the other was always there to lend an ear, and the conversation stayed strictly between you. It was a private release valve, not a public broadcast. Today, job seekers vent online, naively believing (or not caring) that employers won't Google them or check their social media, especially LinkedIn, to determine if they're interview-worthy. If you're part of the "I have the right to say what I want!" camp, understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. How recruiters and hiring managers perceive you is your responsibility. The venting online follows a predictable, tiresome script: "I've applied to 500 jobs," "The hiring system is broken," or, what's become an urban myth, "The ATS keeps rejecting my resume." Unemployment is undoubtedly emotionally challenging; however, turning your job search into a public grievance campaign isn't a job search strategy; it's a surefire way to repel employers. Employers don't read displays of bitterness and resentment as passion. They see someone with an entitlement mentality who can't control their emotions when things don't go their way. There's a direct correlation between a candidate's digital maturity and their job search success. Often, job seekers blame technology for rejecting their applications. It's a comforting excuse that sidesteps personal accountability. The reality is more mundane: your resume either fails to demonstrate immediate value, lacks relevant keywords, or is poorly formatted. Employers use technology to manage volume, not to maliciously exclude candidates. Publicly attacking an employer's hiring tools and process shows you prefer complaining over self-reflection. Then there are the job seekers who evangelize working from home, a privilege, as an absolute right. Publicly demanding remote flexibility signals entitlement rather than collaboration. What does a hiring manager think when reading an "I shouldn't have to step foot in an office" rant? They see someone who feels entitled to dictate to employers how to run their businesses, an attitude they're unlikely to hire. Before you publish a post, pause and ask yourself: "How will recruiters and hiring managers perceive this?" In case you haven't been reading the room, LinkedIn has become a validation platform. Along with auditing your LinkedIn activity to determine whether you're contributing valuable industry content and whether you're a thoughtful professional who understands your industry's community, or simply adding to the negativity, they'll also cross-check your resume against your LinkedIn profile to verify your identity. In order to maximize LinkedIn's ability to attract recruiters and employers, rather than turning them off, ensure your behaviour on the platform focuses on value creation, not complaining. You establish a professional reputation by sharing insightful commentary on industry news, highlighting a peer's successful project, or offering constructive feedback that demonstrates your expertise. Every digital interaction either builds or diminishes your professional brand; hence, you build your professional reputation by consistently providing value and engaging in thoughtful conversation. The main reason to job search discreetly is to avoid posting anything hiring managers and recruiters might misinterpret, which will never be in your favour. Broadcasting your tactics, such as announcing you're going to "spray-and-pray" or venting about being ghosted or supposedly having been disrespected by your interviewer, signals a lack of professionalism. Employers judge your maturity and, by extension, your professionalism, by what you choose to communicate publicly. Keeping their sense of entitlement and the frustration and anger it generates off social media is one of the smartest moves a job seeker can make. The damage to one's job search from emotional oversharing is evident in a benchmark CareerBuilder screening study, which found that 70% of employers actively research candidates online and that more than half have rejected an applicant solely because of social media red flags, such as public complaints and "bad-mouthing" previous employers or hiring practices. The job market is a marketplace, not your personal diary. Instead of getting upset about rejections, critically assess how you approach recruiters and hiring managers; the problem almost certainly lies there. Quantify your impact on your former employers' profitability, sharpen your networking strategy, and ensure your LinkedIn profile aligns with your resume. Be a positive contributor online, not a negative one. Discuss your job search frustrations only with family and friends. Don't make your job search a spectator sport; doing so will only prolong it.

When Deflection Replaces Leadership

When Deflection Replaces Leadership By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE One of the oldest tricks in politics is simple: when you can't defend your record, change the subject. Throughout history, governments and politicians of every stripe have relied on deflection when faced with uncomfortable questions. Rather than addressing the issue itself, they attempt to redirect public attention toward something more emotionally charged. We're seeing that happen again. Across our community, residents have raised legitimate concerns about allegations of animal abuse, enforcement of existing laws, transparency, and the willingness of elected officials to show leadership. These are real issues that deserve real answers. Instead, too often the conversation shifts. Rather than debating the evidence, the focus becomes accusations of racism, Islamophobia, or intolerance. Let me be clear. If someone engages in racism or religious hatred, they should be called out. There is no place for hatred in a civil society. But neither should legitimate questions about public policy, animal welfare, or the enforcement of our laws be dismissed simply by attaching labels to those raising concerns. In a democracy, difficult conversations are not silenced by accusations. They are resolved with facts. Animal welfare is not a racial issue. The rule of law is not a religious issue. Leadership is not a partisan issue. These are community issues. The public has every right to ask whether municipal leaders are providing the leadership expected of them. When citizens raise concerns supported by evidence, elected officials should respond with transparency—not distraction. As we approach this municipal election, voters have an opportunity to decide what kind of leadership they want. Do they want leaders who engage directly with difficult issues? Or leaders who avoid uncomfortable conversations by changing the subject? The choice belongs to the voters. Whatever your political views, don't allow yourself to be distracted from the issue that brought you to the discussion in the first place. Stay focused. Demand facts. Demand accountability. And above all, remember that elections are how democracies correct their course.

Ontario's Municipal Elections: Taxpayers Deserve Better

Ontario's Municipal Elections: Taxpayers Deserve Better by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East When Ontarians vote in the municipal elections on October 26, they will do much more than elect mayors and councillors. They will decide what kind of communities they want to live in and, equally important, whether they still have confidence that local government is delivering value for the taxes they pay. Municipal government is often described as the level of government closest to the people. It is also the one that has the greatest impact on everyday life. It is responsible for roads, bridges, drinking water, public transit, waste collection, policing, fire protection, parks, libraries, recreation facilities, planning, and economic development. When municipalities perform well, citizens notice. When they do not, the consequences are impossible to ignore. Across Ontario, municipalities face genuine challenges. Population growth has accelerated demand for housing, transportation, water systems, and community services. Inflation has driven up construction and labour costs. Aging infrastructure requires billions of dollars in renewal. These pressures are real, and no responsible observer should underestimate them. However, acknowledging these challenges does not excuse poor financial discipline or weak accountability. Over the past several years, property taxes have increased substantially in many Ontario municipalities. For countless homeowners, seniors on fixed incomes, and small businesses, these increases have become increasingly difficult to absorb. Yet many taxpayers look around their communities and ask a reasonable question: Why are we paying more but seeing so little improvement? Roads continue to deteriorate. Traffic congestion worsens. Infrastructure projects are delayed. Public confidence in local government has weakened. In some communities, concerns about homelessness, public disorder, and declining downtown business activity have become more visible despite steadily increasing municipal budgets. The issue is not whether municipalities require revenue. They do. The issue is whether taxpayers receive value for the money they contribute. Good government is measured not by the amount it spends but by the results it delivers. Every municipal budget should be judged according to measurable outcomes, clear priorities, and transparent reporting. Every major project should demonstrate value for money. Every department should be expected to pursue continuous improvement and operational efficiency. Municipal elections should therefore become elections about performance. Candidates should not simply promise additional spending or pledge to keep taxes low. They should explain how they intend to modernize municipal administration, eliminate duplication, improve procurement, use technology more effectively, and ensure that every tax dollar produces tangible benefits for residents. Housing affordability will understandably dominate the campaign. Yet approving thousands of new homes without ensuring adequate infrastructure merely postpones today's problems until tomorrow. Growth must be accompanied by investments in roads, transit, schools, water systems, and community facilities. Planning must be integrated rather than reactive. Infrastructure renewal also demands leadership. Ontario's municipalities face billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. Bridges, water mains, storm water systems, and public buildings cannot be ignored indefinitely. Strategic long-term planning is essential if future generations are not to inherit even larger financial burdens. Public safety is another defining issue. Residents expect neighbourhoods that are safe, clean, and welcoming. This requires effective policing, but also cooperation with healthcare providers, mental health professionals, and social service agencies. Complex problems demand comprehensive solutions rather than political slogans. Economic development must also return to the forefront. Municipal governments should become partners in attracting investment, supporting entrepreneurs, and creating employment opportunities. Excessive bureaucracy and lengthy approval processes discourage investment and ultimately reduce economic growth. Another challenge is the relationship between municipalities and Queen's Park. Ontario municipalities carry increasing responsibilities while relying primarily on property taxes for revenue. A modern discussion is needed about municipal finance, one that provides local governments with sustainable resources while demanding greater accountability for how those resources are spent. Perhaps the greatest concern of all is voter apathy. Municipal elections routinely attract disappointing voter turnout, despite affecting the services citizens use every day. Democracy cannot flourish when participation declines. Every eligible voter should recognize that decisions made at city hall influence daily life as much as, and often more than, decisions made in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. Ontario's municipalities do not simply need larger budgets; they need better management. Before asking taxpayers to contribute more, every municipality should demonstrate that it has examined every opportunity to improve productivity, eliminate duplication, modernize procurement, embrace digital technologies, and streamline administrative processes. Families and businesses are expected to do more with less every day. Municipal governments should be held to the same standard. The October 26 municipal elections should therefore be about more than electing new councils. They should mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility, measurable performance, transparency, and service excellence. Citizens deserve local governments that spend wisely, plan strategically, and deliver visible results. Ontario's future will not be shaped only in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. It will be shaped in city halls, regional councils, and township offices across the province. Strong municipalities build a strong Ontario. When voters consider who to vote for this October, they should ask every candidate one simple but fundamental question: If you are asking me to pay more in taxes, what specific improvements will I see, when will I see them, and how will you measure your success? Those who can answer that question with honesty, evidence, and a realistic plan deserve the public's trust. Those who cannot should not expect taxpayers to continue writing blank cheques. Candidates nomination date deadline is 21 August 2026. More to come on this subject as the municipal election approaches.

Tick Tock It’s Summer Careful of Ticks...

Tick Tock It’s Summer Careful of Ticks... By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering Now into full summer mode, its time to spend more time outdoors, Be it a dog walker, hiker or an explorer, while enjoying this time of the year beware of those potential risks to your health. Lets take a look inside the Region of Durham’s Public Health Department and the role they play, offering programs and services as well as the managing and control of diseases that we unknowingly can be exposed to while enjoying the summer outdoors. Ticks and Lyme Disease Like many diseases Lyme disease can be treated but not cured, which is why it is important when outdoors this time of the year to take the necessary precautions. Wear light clothing, covering as once skin as possible. Ticks neither fly nor jump but transfer from long grass areas and or overhanging trees to their host. Some are the size of a sesame seed and hard to see. Once home its important to remove your cloths for immediate hot water washing and take a shower, checking your body as you wash. Should you feel an area where you have already been bitten, you need to remove the tick gently with fine tipped tweezers. (Durham Region Public Health does provide Tick Kit Tweezers at No Charge) There is no shortage of wrong information floating around, never try burning the area with a hot match nor spraying it with insect repellent. These practises not only will not work, but could harm you. Once you have been bitten, it is important to contact your doctor or if that is not possible a pharmacist that has been granted Ministry of Health approval to administer treatment. This must be done with in 24 hours. Assume the worse and advise them you have have been bitten and believe it could carry Lyme disease. Municipalities such as Pickering are working with Regional Public Health, signs are placed along many trail entrances reminding those using the trails of risks along with a QR code to Regional Public Health for more information. Also as a prevention buffer zones are required along public walkways abutting Municipal or Regional Properties. Mosquitos and West Nile Virus Durham Region has been tracking and responding to the risk of West Nile virus as far back as 2003 when the Province of Ontario began funding the program. 76% of all reported cases occur between July to September. However with current environmental impacts such as Global warming risks can be increased throughout the year. The Durham Regional Heath Health Department conducts surveillance and control activities for West Nile virus along road sides, in catch basins, stagnant surface water sites, trapping adult mosquitoes and sending them for testing and identification and investigating reported human cases. While numbers have decreased over the years Regional Public health recommend prevention as the best defence. When walking at dusk or dawn (most prevalent times of risk) wear long sleeve shirts, long pants and covered shoes as well as spraying your clothes with an insect repellent. On your own property eliminate stagnant water. Should you notice stagnant water on private property or municipal property, including Conservation lands and Hydro corridors report it to your Municipality. Municipal Bylaw officers work as a team with Regional Public Health to ensure that the area is treated with larvicide while the Bylaw team will work with the property owner to remedy the situation which could mean pumping out the stagnant water or cutting the long grass and weeds.

Bird E-Scooter Pilot Review: My Experience, What I Learned,

Bird E-Scooter Pilot Review: My Experience, What I Learned, and Where We Go From Here By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering When Pickering launched its Bird e-scooter pilot, opinions quickly became polarized. Some residents loved the added transportation option, while others raised legitimate concerns about safety, sidewalk riding, underage users, clutter, and enforcement. Rather than forming an opinion from social media posts alone, I wanted to understand the program firsthand. So I met directly with Bird’s Durham Region management team, toured their local operations, rode the scooters throughout Pickering, asked dozens of difficult questions, and listened carefully to feedback from residents on both sides of the debate. One thing became very clear: not every scooter people see around the city is a Bird scooter. Private e-scooters, many of which have no speed limits, no GPS tracking, and no accountability, are frequently mistaken for Bird units. That’s an important distinction because the rules, technology, and enforcement options are very different. I was encouraged to learn that Bird operates far more sophisticated technology than many people realize. Every scooter is GPS tracked, allowing Bird and the City to monitor usage patterns, parking locations, and compliance. Geofencing allows speeds to be automatically reduced in sensitive areas and can even prevent scooters from operating in prohibited zones. Bird also operates a 24-hour support line and maintains crews that collect, charge, inspect, and reposition scooters on a daily basis. The company has also implemented measures to discourage misuse. Riders who repeatedly park improperly or violate program rules can receive warnings, temporary suspensions, or permanent bans from the platform. That said, technology alone is not enough. Many of the concerns raised by residents are absolutely valid. I have personally witnessed scooters left in inconvenient locations, riders ignoring traffic laws, people riding on sidewalks, and what appear to be underage users operating scooters. Whether those incidents involve Bird scooters or privately owned devices, the public experiences them the same way. In my view, the success of this pilot depends on three things: education, enforcement, and communication. Many residents simply don’t know the rules. Ontario law requires riders to be at least 16 years old, and those between 16 and 17 must wear a helmet. Riding responsibly and parking properly should be clearly communicated before and during every ride. Enforcement is equally important. Rules without enforcement quickly become suggestions. Dangerous behaviour should have consequences, whether that involves Bird removing riders from its platform or police enforcing provincial and municipal regulations when necessary. Communication also needs improvement. Many residents don’t know who to contact when they encounter a problem scooter or have concerns about the program. Making reporting easier would help address issues much more quickly. I also believe Council should rely on data, not assumptions when evaluating the pilot. The City has access to extensive information about ride volumes, usage patterns, parking compliance, safety incidents, and other performance metrics. Those facts should guide future decisions far more than emotion or speculation. After completing my review, I don’t believe the answer is simply to ban the program, nor do I believe it should continue unchanged. Instead, I support a balanced approach that strengthens enforcement, improves public education, increases transparency, and holds both the operator and riders accountable. If the pilot can demonstrate that problems are being addressed and that the benefits outweigh the risks, then it deserves fair consideration. If it cannot, Council should not hesitate to make changes. Good policy isn’t about choosing sides. It’s about gathering facts, listening to residents, asking tough questions, and making informed decisions.

Have you ever known a friend who bought an investment just because it had a massive run-up the year before?

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist It is a completely natural human instinct. We are hardwired to look for patterns and gravitate toward what feels successful. If a specific investment just posted a large annual return, it feels incredibly reassuring to put our money there. But in the investing world, relying on what feels immediately safe is often one of the riskiest moves you can make. It is the financial equivalent of trying to drive down a highway while staring exclusively into your rearview mirror. The Reality Check Let’s look right here at home. Imagine a specific Canadian ETF has a phenomenal year. Usually, this happens because a specific sector—perhaps energy or financials—went on a sudden tear. The financial news is glowing, and everyone at the neighborhood barbecue is talking about their returns. It is incredibly tempting to abandon an existing asset allocation strategy and concentrate more money in these specific “high-flying” investments. But markets are cyclical. The exact sector that carried the TSX to new heights last year might be the one taking a breather this year. When people make investment decisions based primarily on a previous year’s soaring performance, they aren’t discovering a secret; they are just paying top dollar for yesterday’s news. The Danger of Our Own Instincts This brings us to the most unpredictable variable in your portfolio: you. To be completely candid, investors are often their own worst enemies. Human beings suffer from “recency bias,” a psychological glitch that makes us believe whatever is happening right now will continue happening forever. We get fearful and want to sell when the market drops, and we get greedy and want to buy when the market is already expensive. True financial resilience isn’t about flawlessly picking the winning investment every single time. It is about managing our own behavioral risks. It’s about recognizing that volatility is a normal part of the landscape and building the emotional endurance to handle it, rather than leaping from one “hot” trend to the next. Your Behavioral Buffer This is exactly why working with an independent financial advisor is so critical. A good advisor does much more than just look at spreadsheets; they act as a buffer between your money and your impulses. When human nature is screaming at you to chase a soaring asset or to panic-sell during a temporary dip, your financial advisor can be a voice of reason. They anchor you back to your actual, long-term plan. They help you build the financial and emotional resilience necessary to separate the daily market noise from your ultimate destination. At the end of the day, lasting wealth is rarely built by trying to predict the future or chasing the ghosts of past performance. It is built through patience, discipline, and endurance. When it comes to your financial success, remember the golden rule… Time in the market is a far more reliable strategy than trying to time the market.

The Traditions We Never Meant to Start

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how few family traditions seem to begin with much intention. We often think of traditions as something that is carefully passed from one generation to the next, almost as though someone makes a conscious decision that a particular gathering, meal, or routine should continue. Looking at families over a long enough period, I am not convinced that is usually how it happens. Most traditions seem to have much more ordinary beginnings than that. They often grow out of practical decisions made during periods when life has changed and everyone is simply trying to make the next family gathering feel a little easier. At the time, those decisions rarely feel significant. They are simply the best answer to the situation everyone happens to be facing. I have watched families work through the first Christmas after someone dies, the first Thanksgiving, or the first birthday that arrives without the person who had always been at the centre of it. Those first occasions carry enough emotion on their own that very few of us are thinking about the future. The conversations are usually much more practical than sentimental. Someone in the family suggests gathering at a different house because it will be easier for everyone. Somebody else in the family offers to cook because that is one less thing for everyone else to worry about. A different day may be chosen because travel has become more complicated. The decisions almost always sound temporary. "Let's just do it this way this year." It is a sentence I suspect most families have spoken in one form or another. What interests me most is how often "this year" just becomes next year, and then the year after that. The first decision was never meant to create a new tradition, it was simply trying to protect the family from having to absorb every change at the same time. Looking back several years later, however, it becomes surprisingly difficult to remember when the temporary arrangement stopped being temporary. I have seen this happen in my own family. After my grandfather died and my parents had moved closer, we decided to gather on Christmas Eve at my sister's house. As far as I remember, nobody described it as a new tradition. It simply seemed easier that year because of where everyone was staying, and after everything that had happened, nobody was looking to complicate Christmas any further. The following year someone mentioned how nice it had been, so we did it again. There was no discussion about changing the family forever. There was simply another practical decision that felt right at the time. Years later, Christmas Eve at my sister's house had become part of who we were as a family, and I cannot honestly tell you when it stopped feeling temporary. I think that is what makes traditions so interesting. We often imagine they are inherited, but many seem to emerge instead. They grow out of ordinary decisions made by ordinary people who are trying to take care of one another during periods when life feels less certain than it once did. Nobody writes them down. Nobody announces that a new family custom has been established. They simply repeat often enough that eventually they begin to feel as though they have always existed. Perhaps that is why families become so protective of them. By the time a tradition feels permanent, most people have forgotten the practical reason it began in the first place. What remains is not the original decision but everything that has happened since. Children grow up expecting things to happen a certain way. New spouses are introduced to customs that seem decades older than they really are. Grandchildren assume the tradition has always existed because, as far as they can remember, it has. The longer I have watched families move through life's transitions, the more I have come to believe that traditions rarely begin with a decision to create them. More often they begin with people trying to take care of one another for just one year, only to discover much later that they had quietly given the family something that was worth keeping.

Private Security Is Growing Is Oversight Keeping Up?

Private Security Is Growing Is Oversight Keeping Up?           By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               You stop at the grocery store after work. Like most Canadians, you're buying fewer groceries and paying more for them. You count the items in your cart before you reach the checkout, hoping the total won't be any higher than you expect. As you leave, a security guard stands near the doors. Most of us walk right past without giving it a second thought. Maybe we should. Ten years ago, seeing security guards almost everywhere wasn't common. Today they're part of everyday life. We see them in grocery stores, hospitals, apartment buildings, shopping malls and at community events, not just in Durham Region, but across Ontario, Canada and the United States. Somewhere along the way, private security quietly became part of the landscape. Standing there, I found myself asking a simple question. Who's making sure this fast growing industry is growing the right way? According to the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General, the number of licensed security guards in Ontario grew from about 92,000 in 2020 to more than 162,000 in 2025. The number of licensed security companies has also continued to grow. That is a remarkable increase in a short period of time. Growth is not the problem. Growth without oversight might be. Before anyone misunderstands, this is not a criticism of security guards. Most are hardworking professionals doing a difficult job. They protect businesses, answer questions, help customers and often calm situations before police are ever called. They deserve our respect. As the demand for security grows, however, so should the expectations placed on the industry. Stores face more theft. Hospitals deal with more violence. Apartment buildings are hiring more security. Public events rely on guards more than ever before. Every day, security guards are expected to make decisions that can affect businesses, customers and families. Some of those decisions have to be made in only a few seconds. Most people never think about security guards until something goes wrong. That is why training matters. There is no public evidence of an increase in assaults by private security guards in Durham Region. The facts simply do not support making that claim. But asking whether oversight is keeping pace with growth is a fair question. Are all security companies giving new guards enough practical training in Ontario law before sending them into the public? Or are some relying too much on learning while on the job? Knowing the law is not optional. Every guard should know exactly what they can do, what they cannot do and when it is time to call the police. A uniform does not make someone a police officer. Every profession has people who make mistakes, and private security is no different. There have been cases in Canada and the United States where guards have gone beyond their legal authority or used force that was later questioned by the courts or investigators. Some incidents have resulted in injuries. Those cases are the exception, not the rule, but they remind us why good oversight protects everyone. Good training teaches more than the law. It teaches when to speak, when to listen and when to step back. It prepares guards for real situations, real pressure and real consequences. Good decisions protect everyone. Poor decisions can change lives forever. The best security guard is the one who never has to use force. Good oversight also protects the many companies that already invest in proper training. Their reputations should not suffer because of the actions of a few. Strong standards build public confidence. They also help employers attract better people and give guards confidence in doing their jobs safely and professionally. Ontario appears to recognize that the industry is changing. The province is reviewing the laws that govern private security. The Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General's 2024 to 2025 Annual Report on the Private Security and Investigative Services Branch also shows that public complaints increased over the previous year. That does not automatically mean performance is getting worse, but it does raise fair questions. How many complaints involve force? How many are justified? How many licenses are suspended? How many companies are inspected each year? Those answers matter because good public policy should be based on facts, not assumptions. The next time you leave a grocery store, hospital or shopping mall and see a security guard standing by the door, don't just see the uniform. See the responsibility that comes with it. The question isn't whether private security is here to stay. It is. The real question is whether Ontario is doing enough to make sure every person wearing that uniform has the training, support and oversight needed to do one of the toughest public facing jobs there is. That is not just a government question. It is a coffee table question.

Mr. X: The Law Doesn't Make Exceptions at the Slaughterhouse

Mr. X: The Law Doesn't Make Exceptions at the Slaughterhouse By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Last week, I wrote about allegations of illegal slaughterhouses operating within our communities. The response was overwhelming. Some people asked why we have so many rules governing the slaughter of livestock in the first place. The answer is remarkably simple. Those laws exist because history has taught us what happens when they do not. Ontario's meat inspection system was not created to make life difficult for farmers, butchers, or abattoir operators. It was created because animals deserve humane treatment, consumers deserve safe food, and legitimate businesses deserve a level playing field. Every licensed abattoir in Ontario understands what it takes to operate legally. Facilities must meet stringent construction and sanitation standards. Animals must be handled humanely. Meat intended for sale is subject to inspection before and after slaughter. Refrigeration, waste disposal, water supply, employee hygiene, pest control, record-keeping, traceability, and ongoing oversight are all part of the system. None of this is accidental. Every requirement was put in place because, somewhere, someone became sick, an animal was mistreated, or a public health failure demonstrated why stronger safeguards were needed. When Ontarians purchase meat, they rarely think about the inspection system behind it. They simply assume the meat they are feeding their children has been processed under rules designed to protect them. That confidence should never be taken for granted. When animals are slaughtered outside the regulated system and meat enters the marketplace without the required inspections, the very safeguards designed to protect the public may be bypassed. That is why provincial licensing and inspection requirements matter so much.There is another side to this issue that deserves equal attention. Every legitimate abattoir owner has invested hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of dollars to comply with Ontario's standards. They have built proper facilities, obtained licences, welcomed inspectors, maintained records, paid taxes, and accepted the costs of doing business legally. Why should they have to compete against anyone who ignores those same obligations? The rule of law only works when it applies equally. This issue is also larger than agriculture. It involves municipal zoning, provincial food safety, public health, environmental protection, animal welfare, building standards, wastewater management, and consumer confidence. Each level of government has a role because each is protecting a different aspect of the public interest. When one part of that system is ignored, the consequences can extend well beyond a single property. As a former mayor, I learned that laws only command public respect when they are enforced consistently. Citizens quickly lose confidence when they believe some people are expected to follow the rules while others are not. This is not about culture, religion, politics, or personal beliefs. It is about one standard that applies to everyone. If you intend to slaughter livestock for meat that will be sold or distributed, Ontario has established a legal process. Follow it. Obtain the required approvals. Meet the inspection standards. Protect the animals. Protect consumers.Respect your neighbours. Compete fairly with the businesses that have invested in doing things the right way. The overwhelming majority of Ontario farmers and meat processors do exactly that every single day. They deserve our respect. They also deserve to know that governments will enforce the same rules for everyone else. Because public confidence in our food system depends on one simple principle: The law must mean the same thing for everyone.

THE DAY AFTER CANADA DAY!!!

THE DAY AFTER CANADA DAY!!! By Joe Ingino We all survived another Canada Day. As we look at the celebration, one can’t help but note that we live in one of the best countries in the world. A country that is not easy to live in, but one that is full of opportunity and freedoms. I say this because, in Canada, we work hard. Our economy is always challenging our efforts. No matter how hard we work, it always appears that we need more. We all have to be thankful that, at the very least, we have the opportunity and ability to call for change. Unfortunately, our country is ill. We have a political system that is not working. It has nothing to do with freedom or choice. In the Canadian model, the choices we are given are one and the same. No matter who you pick, the outcome appears to be the same. Our political tides ebb and flow, giving us hope for real change and for the possibility of a better life. Unfortunately, that theorem has proven to be fictitious and untrue. From the PCs to the Liberals, they have proven to be one and the same. The NDP, through its own failures, has proven that the comrade mentality has run itself into the ground. Then what is left? Policy. Every government that takes office attempts to please as many voters as possible without fully comprehending the consequences of its implementation. Look at the hot topic of immigration. Twenty years ago, the thought was that Canada is vast and rich, and that Canada needed more people in order to prosper economically. A plausible theory that has proven to be counterproductive to Canada's economic prosperity. The opening of, or relaxing of, immigration... Wow, what a great idea... bring in skilled people from all over the world. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The majority of immigration comes from third-world refugee countries—people who, for whatever reason, are not welcomed or wanted in their homelands. Then we have countries that dump large portions of their populations in order to infiltrate the Canadian way of life. Through our relaxed and welcoming policies, Canadians are forced to accept and adapt to other nations' cultures, customs, and traditions. Meanwhile, Canada's heritage, history, and traditions are being compromised. This is, in part, eroding the high quality of life we have all learned to admire and strive to maintain. Today, we are facing a cauldron of challenges from every side of Canadian society. On the one hand, foreign cultures are demanding acceptance and special privileges under Canadian law. They are putting serious pressure on the government, under the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to implement special clauses allowing the practice of foreign cultures and customs. This is changing Canada's customs and traditions. The influx of immigrants is also putting a strain on jobs and the economy, not to mention the housing market. The greater the demand, the higher the prices. In Canada, we are not driven by fair market value. We are driven by raw supply and demand. To further add insult to injury, Canada is a runaway train when it comes to regulating the cost of living. The basic mentality seems to be: "No one is complaining. Keep raising prices." Look at the price of gasoline. It goes up and down with little challenge. Every time the government claims there has been a price drop, it seems to double that increase the following week. This affects every corner of the economy. Today, we have a housing shortage. The number of people living on the streets has skyrocketed. Will a change in government make a difference? In my opinion, no. The answer lies in shutting down immigration and regrouping.