WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, CHOOSE COMPASSION

WHEN YOU SEE SOMEONE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, CHOOSE COMPASSION By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support A situation many of us encounter more and more across Durham Region is a person sitting outside a store, sleeping in a doorway, carrying their belongings in bags, or asking for help at an intersection. I often get asked by community members, How Can I Help?? The best place to begin is simple. I always suggest leading with an acknowledgement. The nicest thing you can do is treat any individual with dignity. A smile, eye contact, or a quiet “Hello, how are you doing?” may seem like a small gesture, but it can be meaningful to someone who is regularly ignored. People experiencing homelessness often describe feeling invisible. Being recognized as a fellow human being can make a huge difference. If you would like to offer assistance, ask the person what they need rather than assuming. Asking if there is anything you can do that would be helpful is a great place to start. Their answer may be something as basic as water, a meal, warm socks, hygiene products, transit fare, or a cup of coffee. Sometimes, they may simply want someone to listen. Offering money is a personal decision. If you are uncomfortable giving cash, consider providing a gift card to a nearby restaurant, grocery store, pharmacy, or coffee shop. During the winter, gloves, hats, hand warmers, and dry socks can be especially helpful. In hot weather, bottled water, sunscreen or SPF lip balm are items that are always appreciated. Whatever you decide to offer, please give it without conditions or judgment. Homelessness is rarely the result of one decision or circumstance. It can follow job loss, rising rents, family breakdown, domestic violence, mental-health challenges, illness, disability, trauma, or the lack of affordable and supportive housing. Some people experiencing homelessness are also working or receiving income support, but still cannot find a place they can afford. Keep that in mind when chatting. I’ve had lawyers, teachers, landscapers and business people walk through our doors at DARS. The first time I was shocked. Now, sadly it doesn’t faze me. If someone appears seriously ill, injured, unconscious, inadequately dressed for dangerous weather, or at immediate risk of harming themselves or others, call 911. Clearly explain that you are concerned about the person’s health and safety and request a compassionate response. If the situation is not an emergency, call Durham Region’s Street Outreach Team at 311 extension 5510. They can help connect someone with local shelters, outreach, food, mental-health, and housing services. When appropriate, asking whether the person experiencing homelessness wants assistance and involving them in decisions that affect them is always a best practice. People experiencing homelessness still have the right to make choices about their own lives, even if it’s not a choice we would make for ourselves. Community organizations such as DARS and outreach teams can provide essential support, but homelessness cannot be solved through these services alone. Communities also need affordable housing, supportive housing, accessible health care, income security, and long-term services that help. Write your local politicians; all levels. Let them know you are concerned. If you are comfortable speaking directly to the person whenever it is safe to do so. It can mean the difference from a person feeling ignored or invisible. When you see someone experiencing homelessness, you do not need to solve every problem. You do not need to have the perfect words or a large amount of money. You can simply choose not to look away. Homelessness is a circumstance—it is not a person’s identity. Behind every visible sign of homelessness is an individual with a name, a history, relationships, hopes, and the same basic need for dignity that all of us share. Sometimes the most important thing we can offer is recognition: “I see you. You matter. How can I help?”

CANADA CAN’T NEGOTIATE WORTH A DAM

CANADA CAN’T NEGOTIATE WORTH A DAM By Joe Ingino People, people, people. WAKE UP. What is wrong with Canada? We are being over taken from within due to our relaxed immigration policies. Any and every country fighting a civil war either ask for us to send them money or take in the refugees. This has to stop. Do we not have any true leadership. Wait, Joe. Wake up. What are you talking about. WE DON’T. Look at the current Liberal party. We have a leader that appears to be just blowing with the winds of popularity. Canada keeps loosing opportunities and now under extreme trade attack. If we can’t negotiate with our neighbours how are we to negotiate in the global theater. So if not the Liberals. Who? Look at the current situation with Trump. What Canada is doing is not negotiations. What Canada is doing is playing right in to Trump corporate agenda. Just this week Trump got tough. Did he not only impose reasonable tariffs but also changed the name of one of our lakes. Talk about character. Talk about making a point. Yet, we in Canada keep missing it. Trump wants us to react so then he can justify further actions. Canada stop playing into their strategy. In my opinion. I would not challenge the Americans. They want to impost tariffs. Fine. Let them. Do not retaliate. This is what they want us to do. Historically, consumers, energy sectors, and integrated manufacturing supply chains in both countries have benefited most from Canada-U.S. trade under long-standing agreements like the 1965 Auto Pact and the current CUSMA framework. However, the bilateral trade relationship is currently undergoing severe disruption due to an active trade war and the collapse of recent trade negotiations. Historical Beneficiaries of Canada-U.S. TradeEnergy Consumers and Providers: The massive transboundary trade in crude oil, natural gas, and clean electricity (totaling over CAD$216 billion) has reliably supplied U.S. markets like New England and New York while driving jobs and energy security in Canada.Automotive and Manufacturing Sectors: Decades of supply-chain integration meant auto parts crossed the border multiple times before final assembly, lowering production costs for major automakers and creating shared industrial hubs in Ontario and Midwestern U.S. states. Border States and Regions: Northern U.S. states (such as Montana, North Dakota, Maine, and Vermont) and Canadian provinces have historically derived the majority of their international commerce and local economic activity from cross-border trade. Current Shifts and Pressures (2026)As of late August 2026, broad mutual benefits have stalled amid escalating tariffs: The Trade Conflict: Following the breakdown of trade talks, the U.S. administration enacted 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports (including auto parts, forestry, and furniture), and Canada announced dollar-for-dollar retaliatory counter-tariffs reaching up to 50% on key American goods. Disrupted Industries: Integrated sectors like automotive manufacturing (impacting facilities like Ford in Oakville and GM in Oshawa) are facing severe economic pressures rather than systemic benefits under the current tariff regime. Targeted Political Pressure: Canada's retaliatory countermeasures have been strategically structured to exert political pressure on specific U.S. states and economic sectors while attempting to minimize internal collateral damage. On August 25th, Canada announced its counter-tariff plan in response to the latest round of US tariffs. Canada’s counter-tariffs impact over 700 different items and will take effect on September 8th, 2026. Canada also announced changes to several of its tariff-relief programs. The United States’ 50% tariffs on a broad range of Canadian goods, took effect August 22, 2026. Impacted products include dairy, alcohol, and a wide range of items across numerous industries from electronics and building materials to apparel and agricultural goods. Notably, the tariffs apply even to CUSMA-compliant goods and have no expiry date. Prime Minister Mark Carney halted trade talks with the U.S. and recalled negotiators to Ottawa, stating that last-minute U.S. demands were unfair and uneconomic. Ottawa announced dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs targeting U.S. steel, dairy, electronics, and appliances, scheduled to go into force the Tuesday after Labour Day. There is no strategy just actions that lead no place. How much must we loose?

TRUST HAS BECOME THE ULTIMATE GATEKEEPER IN HIRING

Trust Has Become the Ultimate Gatekeeper in Hiring By Nick Kossovan Increasingly, hiring managers and recruiters are dealing with a persistent headache. Applicants breeze through virtual screenings on the strength of a stellar resume, only to unravel during a face-to-face interview. While that at least spares the company a bad hire, remote recruitment offers no such safety net. When hiring remote employees, I have seen employers hire and onboard candidates they've never actually met in person, only to discover shortly afterward that they are unable to write basic code, draft a coherent strategic plan, handle elementary tasks, or navigate workplace dynamics. Simply put, many job seekers fail to live up to their claims. Candidates lying isn't new. Job seekers have been exaggerating and outright lying since the first job interview in human history. Long before AI, I caught many applicants exaggerating their skills—everyone claims to be an expert with Excel—and fabricating achievements. But generative tools have dramatically escalated the problem. It's shockingly easy for proxy candidates or deepfake video feeds scripted by off-screen LLMs to impersonate applicants in real time. This is no longer just a matter of a few isolated incidents of applicants "behaving unethically"; it's a systemic crisis forcing employers to overhaul their hiring process, especially in candidate vetting. Every hiring decision boils down to a single core element: trust. Without that foundation of trust, there's no "Yes, you're hired!" Hiring decision-makers need to feel confident that you're who you say you are and that you're capable of handling the job. Hiring is fundamentally an act of buying a candidate's labour; hence, the adage "buyer beware" has become inescapably pertinent, making "trust" no longer a soft metric but a primary risk filter. Consequently, the extra scrutiny has lengthened the timeline from application to hiring decision, prompting job seekers to complain about drawn-out processes, an indication of how little they understand about the risks associated with hiring. The numbers back up job seekers' widespread dishonesty. According to GCheck's 2026 Trust Hiring Report, 93% of 1,500 surveyed job seekers admitted to embellishing or lying during the hiring process, ranging from minor exaggerations of skills to outright fabrications of work history. 60% believed they wouldn't have been hired if they had been completely honest. The widespread practice of resume and interview cheating is the result of a perfect storm: a tightening job market with fewer open roles, a surging pool of increasingly desperate candidates, and unprecedented access to generative AI tools that instantly fabricate "too good to be true" resumes and cover letters perfectly tailored to any job posting. Maybe it's just me, but nowadays I rarely hear hiring managers brag, "I can spot an AI-generated resume or cover letter from a mile away." Desperate job seekers prompt AI to invent unearned skills, while proxy stand-ins conduct remote interviews on their behalf. To cheat in real time, job seekers are using covert earpieces or AI teleprompters to bluff their way through technical tests. However, the legal hammer is coming down. The Toronto employment law firm Piccolo Heath LLP notes that employers increasingly treat resume fabrications as a fundamental breach of contract, leading to swift, just-cause terminations. When companies are burned by "too good to be true" hires, they deliberately introduce friction into their hiring process, including assignments, multi-round live technical assessments, strict camera-on policies with identity verification, and exhaustive background checks. Employers are also actively looking for red flags: resume details that conflict with LinkedIn profiles, unexplained audiovisual delays, robotic responses, frantic typing immediately after a question is asked, and aggressive demands for remote-only arrangements to avoid in-person accountability. Complaining about lengthy hiring processes is pointless. Employers have every right to protect themselves against opportunistic dishonesty. It's the job seeker's responsibility to prove they're who they claim to be. With employer skepticism at an all-time high, actively earning trust gives you a distinct competitive advantage. This advantage can be achieved through five fundamental strategies: 1. Initiate direct human contact: Skip applying online, which is like playing the lottery. Instead, reach out to recruiters and hiring managers directly, even if it means picking up the phone. A clear human voice sets you apart from the avalanche of automated spray-and-pray applications. 2. Build visible industry proof: Active engagement in your field creates an irrefutable public record. Publishing original insights, speaking on panels, or contributing to industry bodies leaves a footprint no AI prompt can fake. 3. Provide documentation of past productivity: Don't just claim you can deliver results; show tangible proof. Share work samples, post-campaign analyses, or performance reports to demonstrate that you deliver. 4. Offer professional references upfront: Before being asked, provide contact details for past managers and peers. Verifiable references dissolve a hiring manager's skepticism faster than an impressive interview answer. 5. Demonstrate real-time problem-solving: Offer to conduct an unscripted whiteboarding session or a live diagnostic exercise. By walking an interviewer through a problem live, you prove your expertise is real, not fed to you via an earpiece or a second monitor. Employers aren't intensifying their hiring processes to frustrate job seekers; they're protecting themselves against fraudulent job applicants and fraudsters. With distrust becoming the default assumption in hiring, proving your trustworthiness can be your biggest competitive advantage.

For Love Or Money

For Love Or Money By Wayne and Tamara I’ve been married twice and think I was a good husband. Shortly after my son was born, my first wife started staying out until the wee hours. I cared for our two young children while she prowled for men. She became hostile anytime I objected, and screamed at me in front of our children. At the urging of her family, I divorced her and now have my children most of the time. My second marriage ended when I found my wife having relations with the frozen food deliveryman. The truth is neither of my wives loved me. They liked my earning potential, but they did not love me. In any case, reading websites promoting affair-repairing services, I wondered why infidelity was such a deal-breaker for me. Was I simply a less evolved, less forgiving type? I know in my day-to-day existence I am not a grudge holder. I couldn’t put my finger on why, after finding my wives were cheaters, I had no desire to reconcile. You articulate the reasons very well: the desire to be loved to the exclusion of all others, and an aversion to having to remain ever vigilant in the future. Your view makes so much sense to me. Gil Gil, emotion used to be considered the poor cousin of reason, but contemporary neuroscientists now see our emotions as part of how we reason. Our emotions evolved over eons for a purpose. Just as revulsion at the sight of maggots tells us not to eat the meat, so the soul sickness we feel at discovering infidelity is intended to protect us. Your follow-up letter, below, may reveal the source of your problems. Wayne & Tamara Rest Of The Story After my second divorce and a period where I wanted to be alone and take care of my kids, I went on a date. I really like this woman, and we became close. I was honest about my kids being a big priority, and she seemed fine with that. After four months and hearing she loved me and was so happy, she came to me one night and broke up, citing her trepidation about being in a relationship with a guy with young children. I was saddened but thanked her for her honesty. Two days later I called to return the books she loaned me. She was not home so I left a message I would leave them on the porch, wrapped up. When I got to her house, she was home and invited me in for coffee. She then asked for a hug and tried to kiss me. I excused myself and said goodbye. Two weeks later she began emailing, saying how hard this was and how her heart was breaking. The last email included her photo in a revealing, see-through dress. After one email from her describing how compatible we were, I asked if she wanted to still be a couple, as I had strong feelings for her. She said no, due to my obligations to my kids. Why on earth does she keep emailing me? Gil Gil, this woman is offering you a choice. “You can have what I’m offering in the photo, or you can have your children. But you can’t have both.” Women who exude sexuality may offer excitement, but excitement is not fidelity or love. When a woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants from you, believe she will use it on other men as well. Ask yourself if that is not the story of your two marriages. Sex may be your Achilles’ heel. If you confuse unvarnished sexuality with the sexuality which flows from love, or if you unconsciously use money to generate female interest, that may explain your problem with women. You want to know why this happened to you before, and it appears you are in the midst of doing it again. Wayne & Tamara

How Probate Fees Work in Ontario

How Probate Fees Work in Ontario ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Probate fees in Ontario are based on the total value of an estate. When someone passes away, their assets may need to go through probate, which is a court process confirming the validity of a will. In Ontario, probate fees—officially called the Estate Administration Tax—are calculated based on the value of the probable estate. As of 2026, there is no Estate Administration Tax on the first $50,000 of estate value. Above $50,000, the tax is approximately 1.5%, or $15 for every $1,000 of estate value. For example, if an estate is worth $500,000, the probate fee is $6,750. Planning ahead can help reduce these fees, ensuring more of the estate goes directly to your beneficiaries rather than taxes. Key Takeaways Probate fees in Ontario apply to assets that pass through your estate, including Ontario real estate, bank accounts, and investments. Probate fees are based on the fair market value of your estate at the time of death. Estate planning strategies such as trusts, joint ownership, and certain investment accounts with named beneficiaries can help reduce or avoid probate fees. If the named executor cannot act, the court may appoint a succeeding estate trustee to administer the estate. Probate delays can slow the distribution of assets and create financial strain for beneficiaries. Working with an experienced lawyer and estate planning professionals can help reduce unnecessary probate costs and legal complications. Planning ahead helps ensure your assets are transferred efficiently while minimizing delays, expenses, and administrative hurdles. A good plan starts with good comminating with your family and professional; advisors.

The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right

Dead and Gone… The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print When Wrong Sounds Right For a while, one of the easiest ways to make artificial intelligence look ridiculous was to ask it about a strawberry. Specifically, how many times does the letter R appear in the word strawberry? The answer is three, something most of us can establish without advanced mathematics or a graduate degree. ChatGPT, however, became famous for sometimes answering two and then, in the especially entertaining versions shared online, explaining why two was correct. This went on long enough that on April 28 of this year, the official ChatGPT account on X posted "at long last" alongside a demonstration showing that ChatGPT could finally get the strawberry question right. The internet responded exactly as you would expect. Somebody changed the fruit. Users tried cranberry, and screenshots appeared showing ChatGPT confidently getting that wrong instead. A TechRadar writer tried it independently and also received the wrong answer. I find this funny. There is something wonderfully humbling about technology capable of writing computer code being defeated by the produce section. The problem is that most of the questions we are beginning to ask these machines aren't about berries. Earlier this year, two Tennessee lawyers learned that distinction rather expensively. In Whiting v. City of Athens, a U.S. appeals court found more than two dozen fake citations and factual misrepresentations in briefs submitted to the court. Some cases didn't exist. Others existed but didn't say what the lawyers claimed they said. Each lawyer was ordered to pay a $15,000 punitive sanction, along with legal fees and double costs. The court did not determine that artificial intelligence had created the bad citations. In fact, its larger point was more useful than that. It didn't really matter whether the information came from AI, another lawyer or somewhere else. The lawyers were responsible for checking it before putting it in front of the court. That is a long way from miscounting the R's in cranberry. The same problem becomes easier to understand when it leaves the courtroom and lands somewhere much more familiar: trying to get a straight answer from an airline. In November 2022, Jake Moffatt was travelling after the death of their grandmother and went to Air Canada's website looking for information about bereavement fares. The airline's chatbot said a ticket could be purchased first and the reduced bereavement rate requested afterward, as long as the application was made within 90 days of the ticket being issued. Moffatt relied on that information, travelled and later asked Air Canada for the refund. Air Canada said no. Its actual policy said the opposite. Bereavement fares could not be applied retroactively after the trip. Moffatt eventually took the dispute to British Columbia's Civil Resolution Tribunal, where Air Canada argued, in effect, that it should not be responsible for inaccurate information provided by its chatbot. Tribunal member Christopher Rivers called that a "remarkable submission." The chatbot was part of Air Canada's website. The company was responsible for the information it provided there. Moffatt was awarded $650.88 in damages, plus interest and tribunal fees. That case gets closer to what bothers me about all of this. The machine doesn't have to sound confused when it is confused. There is no hesitation, no scratching of the head and no "I might be wrong about this." A completely invented answer can arrive in the same calm, polished language as one that is absolutely correct. Calling that a lie is technically unfair. A lie requires somebody to know the truth and deliberately say something else. ChatGPT isn't sitting somewhere thinking, "I'm going to have some fun with Gary today." But from the other side of the screen, the distinction can become surprisingly academic. If I believe the answer and act on it, the damage doesn't particularly care whether the machine intended to deceive me. None of this has made me stop using AI. Quite the opposite. I use it because it can be extraordinarily useful, and I suspect most of us are going to use much more of it in the years ahead. What it has changed is the weight I give the answer itself. For most of my life, confidence has been one of the little signals we use to decide whether somebody knows what they're talking about. We listen for hesitation, notice uncertainty and become suspicious when somebody starts qualifying every second sentence. AI changes that equation because the confidence can be manufactured along with the answer. Sometimes it will be right and sometimes it will be wrong, but I no longer confuse how confidently something is written with how likely it is to be true.

Clothing Is Not Consent

Clothing Is Not Consent There is a certain kind of conversation you only have on a doorstep. No microphone, no agenda, no gallery watching. Just two people and whatever they actually believe. I was canvassing in Pickering, talking about the things residents raise most often when you give them the chance — safe streets, safe parks, human trafficking in Durham, and whether a woman can walk home at night without doing the arithmetic every woman learns to do. A man I was speaking with looked me in the eye and told me that women and girls bring rape upon themselves by the way they dress. That men have a right to act on those weaknesses. I have been called a great many things in the last four years, and I have learned to keep my composure through most of it. I did not keep it well that afternoon. I stood on a sidewalk in the city I have spent my adult life serving, and I felt something closer to grief than anger. So let me be clear, in the plainest words I own. No girl brings rape upon herself. No woman asks for it. A woman does not surrender her safety, her dignity, or her bodily autonomy because of what she chose to wear that morning. Clothing is not consent. Appearance is not permission. And rape is the responsibility of the rapist — full stop, no footnote, no context that softens it. I want to be careful here, because this is where these conversations usually go wrong. I am not talking about one man at one door. If it were one man, it would be a story and not a column. I am talking about an idea — an old, tired, cowardly idea that has outlived every civilization that ever indulged it, and that still finds a hearing in living rooms in this country. The idea that a man's impulses are a force of nature and a woman's clothing is the thing that provokes them. The idea that self-control is optional equipment. It is not optional. It is the price of admission to a free society. We do not build our laws, our streets, or our cities around the appetites of whoever refuses to govern himself. We build them around the rights of the people he would otherwise harm. And notice what that idea really asks of us. It asks us to lower our expectations of men. I decline. I have more respect for the men of this city than that — for the fathers who walk their daughters to the rink, for the sons who call their mothers, for the men who would put themselves between a stranger and harm without being asked twice. Those men are the rule here, not the exception, and they are insulted by the excuse-making more than anyone. Tell a good man that his character is a weakness he cannot help, and watch how quickly he corrects you. No belief, no culture, no tradition, and no supposed weakness in men excuses sexual violence. I say that knowing exactly how the sentence will be read by people who make a living reading sentences unkindly. I am not indicting anyone's faith or anyone's homeland. I am holding every man in this city to the same standard, which is precisely what equality means. A rule that bends for some men is not a rule at all — and the women it fails to protect are always the women with the least power to complain.Here is the part where a column like this usually asks government to do something, so let me tell you what a city actually can and cannot do. A city cannot legislate a man's character. What a city can do is refuse to be a comfortable place for the alternative. Lighting on the paths where our kids walk. Cameras and patrols where they are needed, not where they photograph well. Front-line training so the staff who deal with trafficking know exactly what they are looking at. Partnership with Durham Regional Police instead of turf war. Support for the shelters and the crisis lines that catch women when everything else has failed them. And a Council that will say the words out loud instead of routing them to a subcommittee.That last one matters more than people think. Silence is a policy. When leaders will not name a thing, residents conclude the thing is negotiable. It is not negotiable. And no woman in Pickering should have to wonder where her Mayor stands on whether she asked for it. I have knocked on thousands of doors in this city. The overwhelming majority open onto decent people. But I will not pretend I did not hear what I heard, and I will not soften it for the comfort of the record. Our daughters are not responsible for other people's self-control. They never were. Clothing is not consent. No man has the right. If we can still say that plainly in Pickering — and mean it, and hold to it — then we are the kind of city worth handing to our daughters. Lisa Robinson is a Pickering City Councillor and a candidate for Mayor. If you or someone you love needs help, 211 or 905-668-9200 - 24-hour Crisis and Support Line is available 24 hours a day.

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution?

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution? ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist You are the contract owner and the only one who can make any changes ? No you are not. The lending institution is the contract owner. It can make changes to the terms and conditions at any time. You choose your insurance amount? Lending institution. This amount can therefore remain fixed even if the balance of the loan decreases. Typically, the insurance amount decreases in line with the outstanding mortgage balance. Known as decreasing term coverage. Premiums are guaranteed for the duration of the coverage. Premiums may stay the same however as coverage decreases this means your premiums are going up. Rates are established based on your age, sex, and smoking status. This is correct however very few medical questions are asked so all medical information will be required at time of claim. Premiums are not necessarily guaranteed and can increase according to the group claim rate under the group insurance contract. Some institutions can even increase the loan interest rate to include the cost of insurance, which represents an additional cost. This is correct The contract can remain in force after the loan has been paid. No this will not happen. You can convert part or all of this term insurance into permanent insurance? No you cannot convert these plans. The contract ends when the mortgage loan balance has been paid. The coverage remains unchanged even if you change lending institutions. No you will lose your coverage when mortgage is paid off or you move to a new institution overage can be applied to insure other loans when needed? No this is not possible. The insurance is cancelled if you change lending institutions. You must requalify for new life insurance. Yes correct You choose your beneficiaries. No usually, the lending institution designates itself as the beneficiary Beneficiaries have the freedom and flexibility to use the insurance amount as they see fit. Only the balance of the loan will be reimbursed You can add a rider for critical illness or total disability, with benefits paid directly to the insured person, to address different needs. The benefit is paid directly to the lending institution When applying for mortgage coverage ensure you ask these questions and ensure you have documentation to confirm all coverages are provided bases on your need.

Traditions

Traditions By Wayne and Tamara I have just one sister and am close to her three children, who are now married with children. They are in their late 20s and 30s. I live in southern Spain, not near them, so often I send birthday or holiday gifts by mail. The problem is I never hear a thank you. Not only do I feel it is extremely bad-mannered, I don't even know if they received the gift! Whenever possible I give their gifts when I see them, even if the holiday is not for a month or so, so I can enjoy the moment of giving. Not having children myself, perhaps I am old-fashioned and don't understand this generation may feel a sense of entitlement from growing up so comfortably. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel a responsibility as a family member to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Once after taking the entire family to a Christmas theatre production, two of them left without even saying goodbye, let alone thank you! My husband, who is European, is always taken back that he can walk into my sister's house for a family get-together and the kids don't bother to say hi. This pertains to their spouses as well. I've mentioned this to my sister but either she doesn't pass it on, or if she has, it hasn't made a difference. She says they are adults and she can't tell them what to do any longer. I did convince her to talk to one daughter-in-law about calling my father with condolences when my mother died. Even my sister was offended she hadn't called in three days because bad feelings were being formed. I was sure the girl didn't realize what she was doing, and in the end that was it. May I note that they are all well-educated professionals, but obviously missing the social part. Without being a pushy aunt, how do I let these "kids," who I love dearly, know how unacceptable this is. Or maybe I shouldn't be so appalled? Kathleen Kathleen, why is failing to acknowledge a gift wrong? The superficial answer is, because it’s bad manners. The deeper answer is, because it makes a giver less apt to give. Giving strengthens relationships. As John Donne said, we are not scattered leaves. When I give to others and others give to me, we are all stronger. But when gifts are unacknowledged, the giver feels less valued. It is as if their offering was cast in a lake. The only time a gift shouldn’t be acknowledged is when the giver gives to gain leverage or advantage over the recipient. Then the gift is a manipulation and should be refused or returned. In a classic experiment, one researcher bought subjects a Coke. Once they accepted, he hit them up to buy raffle tickets. Feeling obligated, most people bought two tickets, five times the price of the Coke! Members of your family act as if they don’t value your presents or your presence. It’s too bad, but it’s not your job to make them better people. Even more to the point, it’s not within your power. There are certain rewards in being bad and certain pains in being good. But each of us picks what we want: the pains and pleasures of being good or the pains and pleasures of being bad. What you get from gift-giving is the good feeling Ebenezer Scrooge got knowing that Tiny Tim lived and that he was “as good a man, as the good old city knew.” When you visit your family, give as you normally have. When you are away, send them a card saying you’ve made a donation in their name to some person, group, or charity you haven’t previously given to. When you stop sending gifts, will they call and say, “Where are our presents?” Not likely. But if they do, you will have the teachable moment you hoped for. Wayne & Tamara

Organ Donors Needed

Organ Donors Needed But Do Your Homework Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones What’s the emotion that comes with the moment of giving consent to be an organ donor? It might be a mix of deep generosity and dreadful fear. You check the box and hope for the best. If the time comes, your organs may give someone else a second chance at life. But organ donation is a very complicated business, and as recent headlines show, many of us have no idea that there is a lot more involved than simply checking a box. Doctors have become adept at keeping the human body functioning when a person is near death. At the same time, transplant specialists have become adept at putting functioning organs into somebody else's body. This has resulted in challenging questions at the heart of organ donation. When is a person considered “dead”? Who decides? And what safeguards are in place to ensure organs are not being taken too soon? A recent report in the BMJ shared a disturbing case. In Kentucky, Anthony “TJ” Hoover II had been declared dead after a drug overdose and was being prepared for organ donation in 2021. Staff noticed that he was moving, “thrashing and crying.” The organ retrieval did not proceed and Hoover survived. The organ procurement organization involved has disputed allegations that it pressured staff to continue. Another case, in New Mexico, involved 38-year-old Danella Gallegos, who had been in a coma. Her family agreed to organ donation after being told she was unlikely to recover. As preparations were made for the procedure, her family noticed tears and movement. A doctor asked her to blink. She did. The operation was stopped, and Gallegos eventually made a full recovery. The organ-donation organization has disputed allegations that its coordinators interfered with medical decisions. These are horrifying cases. They are also rare, and they should not be used to undermine one of modern medicine's greatest achievements. By my estimate, roughly one million North Americans are living today because somebody donated an organ. But instances of grave mistakes should give rise to questions. We tend to think of organ donation as a personal decision. “I decide what happens to my body after death.” But that decision now enters systems involving doctors, hospitals, organ-donation organizations, transplant teams, lawyers, governments and, often, our families. Determining death has become more complex. A person may be declared dead because there is irreversible loss of brain function. Or life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn after a decision that further treatment is no longer appropriate, followed by determination of death when circulation stops. The details differ between jurisdictions. The laws differ. The safeguards differ. And this is where the organizations involved owe people more information than they usually have in hand when making decisions. Let’s suppose you sign an organ donor card. Don’t think this is the only important decision. There are a lot of factors to consider depending on where you live, the guidance you have given in your will or advance care directive, how your medical team functions, and the practices of your local organ donor organization. What’s one of the biggest obstacles to donation among willing donors? It’s their own family members. When your wishes collide with your family’s wishes, and you cannot argue your case, guess who wins? A decision to donate used to be a highly personal matter. But dying in the modern medical system is anything but. If you want your wishes honoured, do your homework about the laws and organizations involved. Then make your wishes known – and do it while you are healthy and able.

10 Job Search-Related Questions I'm Asked Most Often (Part 2 of 2)

10 Job Search-Related Questions I'm Asked Most Often (Part 2 of 2) By Nick Kossovan In Part 1, I answered five of the ten most common job search questions readers ask me. I discussed how to get noticed, why finding your tribe is better than applying online, how entitlement turns off employers, and why a cover letter is essential. This final installment focuses on real-world execution. Here are my pragmatic answers to the remaining five of the 10 most common questions from readers wondering why recruiters and hiring managers are ignoring them. 6. "I keep updating my resume and LinkedIn profile, but I'm still not getting interviews. What else can I do?" No amount of tweaking your resume and LinkedIn profile will get you interviews unless you refine your value proposition and audit your digital footprint. First, ensure every statement on your resume and LinkedIn profile answers: How does this save or make money? If your accomplishments aren't directly tied to bottom-line impact, rewrite them until they are. Second, check your digital footprint. Google your name, audit your social media and forum comments, and review your online presence. Address damaging posts, risky comments, or a total lack of online visibility, which can be equally damaging, by: · Deleting inflammatory, political, or unprofessional posts. · Publishing high-value LinkedIn posts twice daily that analyze current trends in your industry and profession. · Asking former colleagues for LinkedIn recommendations highlighting your work ethic. · Investing in a privacy or data-removal service such as DeleteMe, Incogni, or Optery. 7. "Is there such a thing as an ATS-friendly resume? No. The persistent belief in an "ATS-friendly" resume is a self-serving myth perpetuated by predatory resume writers and self-proclaimed career coaches who sell resume templates to desperate job seekers. Essentially, an ATS (Applicant Tracking System) is a digital filing cabinet. Here's how ATSs are set up and used: · Information filing: When you submit your resume, the ATS reads it and organizes your information into digital folders. · Customization rules: Every company uses its ATS differently. Company A might program its ATS to hide anyone with less than 10 years of experience, while Company B might program its ATS to rank applicants by how often certain keywords appear. · Human decision: Real people—recruiters and hiring managers—review the sorted files, scan your resume, and decide if you're worth interviewing. Regarding instant auto-rejections, those aren't algorithmic cruelty; they're knockout questions. A rapid rejection email means you said "no" to a baseline requirement, such as work status, travel, or a required licence. Learn how ATS software works on Jobscan.co. Don't waste time trying to outsmart a basic database. Connecting with hiring decision-makers is a far better strategy than uploading your resume into an overflowing ATS. 8. "I'm an introvert who hates small talk. How can I network without feeling fake?" Labelling yourself an "introvert" is a self-imposed limiting belief. Business is a contact sport. Avoiding human interaction by hiding behind a psychological label guarantees career stagnation. Reframe your interactions so they feel like a reverse transaction. When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself: How can I help this person? Instead of pitching yourself, uncover where you can add value by asking low-pressure questions such as · "What's keeping you busy these days?" · "What are you working on right now that you're excited about?"· "What's the trickiest thing on your radar right now?" · "What's sucing up all your time right now?" · "What's the biggest topic everyone in your field is arguing about right now?" 9. "What does having a personal brand mean? How important is it to have one?" When hiring, the easiest "Yes!"s are when you know and understand the person. Your personal brand is what people know and assume about your credibility, reliability, and track record. In today's hyper-connected world, word of mouth spreads instantly, and reference checks are used to verify your reputation. Additionally, you need to consider your visibility. Exceptional skills and experience are useless if nobody knows you exist. Doing great work in isolation is like screaming your qualifications into a pillow. Never underestimate this truth: Networking and visibility are how you bridge the gap between being accomplished and being hired. Trust is the ultimate currency, but it only pays off if people know you exist. You can't fake a personal brand, nor can you build one in the shadows. You establish it by staying visible in professional communities, delivering above-average results, sharing your expertise, and proving you get sh*t done. 10. "Employers have become extremely picky about hiring. What the f*ck do they want?" Employers aim to reduce hiring risks. Bad hires entail financial and morale costs, including wasted salary and training, as well as the need to start over. Generative AI has amplified hiring risk, with fraudsters flooding the job market with fake candidates and applicants inflating their qualifications. Today, most job seekers submit polished, slick resumes and cover letters filled with inflated claims that collapse during an interview. Understandably, employers are hesitant to hire someone who talks a good game but fails in practice; hiring managers and recruiters no longer believe "hype." Employers are looking for candidates who can demonstrate their competence and how they will increase profitability, not smooth talkers.

If We Want to Buy Canadian, Let Canadians Build Canadian

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin If We Want to Buy Canadian, Let Canadians Build Canadian   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Here's something to argue about over your coffee. If somebody opens a bakery and creates four jobs, why don't we think of that person as an investor? We celebrate when a corporation announces 500 new Canadian jobs. We should. But fifty little businesses creating ten jobs each just created the same 500 jobs. Nobody holds a press conference for them. The young woman baking cakes from home who dreams about opening a bakery is an investor. So is the guy buying a food truck, the woman sewing clothes for a flea market or the mechanic considering a small garage. They are risking their money and their time. Canada needs them. Small businesses represented 98.2 percent of Canadian employer businesses in 2024. They employed about 5.8 million people, almost 47 percent of Canada's private sector workforce. That's millions of paychecks. Yet before the first customer walks through the door, the bills start arriving. Rent. Insurance. Equipment. Permits. Licences. Taxes. Utilities. Of course we need rules. Nobody wants unsafe food or dangerous workplaces. But how much regulation protects Canadians, and how much simply protects paperwork? The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated businesses spent $51.5 billion complying with government regulation in 2024. It estimated almost $18 billion represented red tape that could be removed without harming the public interest. Maybe small businesses don't need another government program. Maybe it needs less government. Fewer forms. Lower taxes. Simpler rules. Keep the regulations that protect people. Get rid of the ones that accomplish little except creating another form. We're not asking the government to run the bakery. We're asking the government to give the baker a fighting chance to open it. Canada needs government workers. We need nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters and people delivering public services. But government employment cannot replace private economic growth. Public services require tax revenue. Canada needs a private economy strong enough to help pay for the services we expect. We need factories, manufacturing, oil and gas, exports and international investment. But those things alone don't create a local economy. A billion dollar investment doesn't necessarily reopen an empty downtown storefront. Local economies grow differently. Someone opens a business and hires three people. Those workers spend money nearby. The restaurant calls a local plumber. The plumber buys parts from another local business. Nobody announces it. Money simply starts moving around town. And here is the contradiction governments need to answer. Canada says it desperately needs jobs, investment and affordable communities. Then somebody tries to create three jobs using their own money, and we make it expensive and complicated for them to do it. How does that make sense? We're also spending enormous energy building housing. We need homes. But a community isn't fifty new houses. It's fifty houses surrounded by jobs, stores, restaurants, garages and bakeries. Without that, we haven't built a community. We've built a subdivision. This matters to younger Canadians. Your first business might be one oven. One sewing machine. One toolbox. One market table. One food truck. One good idea. Government doesn't have to hold that person's hand. But it doesn't need to have its hand constantly in their pocket either. Look seriously at lower taxes for genuinely small businesses. Make municipal fees reasonable. Make permits understandable. Give people room to grow. We keep hearing two words lately. Buy Canadian. Fine. But buy Canadian from whom? If the bakery never opens, the manufacturer cannot afford to expand and the young entrepreneur gives up before getting through the paperwork, there won't be much Canadian left to buy. Maybe Canada's next great business isn't sitting in a corporate boardroom. Maybe it's sitting at a kitchen table tonight. Someone has a coffee beside them, a calculator on the table and an idea that could someday employ five people. They're deciding whether Canada is still a good place to take that chance. So when politicians tell us Canada needs more jobs, investment and stronger communities, perhaps we should ask them one question: When a Canadian is ready to risk their own money and create those jobs, are we giving them a reason to say yes?

"Time is money"

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life "Time is money" By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Last week the topic was on “How do you rob a thief” Well this all comes down to efficiency and how quickly a task can be done to provide a monitory reward, leading to a phrase "Time is money" in "Advice to a Young Tradesman", an essay by Benjamin Franklin that appeared in George Fisher's 1748 book, The American Instructor: or Young Man's Best Companion. My ultimate goal, your security advisor, and you the homeowner, is to ensure that we don’t provide any monetary rewards, take away the time needed to remove your stuff and peace of mind. In our last episode, our unwelcome guest just spent the last 4 minutes attempting to break in through the front entrance with no reward, Sly is still determined and figures that he may have better luck at the side, you gave him access with the unlocked gate. padlock would make him climb over the fence, but he’s in and with the side door tucked in behind the garage and a tall fence with trees to give him cover Sly feel safe in the shadow. Last week's episode all it took is for Sly to grab a convenient garbage can to get him up to the large window beside the door and it wasn’t latched or it will be easily prided open. So, what can be done? Remember, if you take away the time needed to gain entry, you can almost certainly avoid the crime. 1.) all gate latches have a means of using a pad lock and this is a simple first defense. 2.) fortify the door the same way that we locked down the front with 3” long screws on the hinges and dead bolt, guardian flip latches, I prefer a minimum of two, 6” down from the top and the same up from the bottom. If you have a window on the door then a mesh grille on the inside that will discourage an attempt that will prevent a broken window taking away the ability to unlock the dead bolt, you can also purchase polycarbonate sheet that overlaps the glass by 2” on the sides, top and bottom drill holes every 4 to 6” and screw it down to the outside of the door, this will make the glass unbreakable. On the window beside the door, make sure that you don’t leave tools and items that can give a leg up. Obviously, make sure the window latch is in the locked position and a simple set of bars over the window will create the necessary barrier that will reduce the large opening into a space that can’t be breached, if you don’t like to look of bars then Security screens will do the job keeping out bugs to burglars, very discrete! Now, if you have other windows along the side then you should use the same efforts to keep them secure as well! Physical barriers need to be your first line of defense; in addition, I like the visual ones! By that, I’m talking about props like a dog bowl, dog leash, maybe a rawhide bone all chewed up and gnarly, anything that will make Sly imagine that “Rex” the 150 lb. bull mastiff is silently waiting behind the door, ready to attack. We have now used up the bulk of time that Sly is willing to use but if he is going to foolishly carry on then next week, we will discuss the rear. Hey Sly, you might be better off getting a job! Not on my watch, Sly, Till next week.

It Is Official

It Is Official By Joe Ingino Well, it is official. The 2026 candidate registration deadline has come and gone. The names registered are your 2026 candidates and choices. Now let’s look at the very important word, “choice.” As perception leads us to all kinds of interesting interpretations. Choice — Core Meanings of Choice (As a Noun) The act of picking: Making a decision between different paths or items. An option: A specific thing available to be picked. Freedom: The right or power to decide for yourself. Interesting definitions... Now let’s look at the roster of candidates across the region. Do we really have a choice? Or is our choice dictated by the limited information candidates put out in such a short time? Or are we to believe that our choice, as per the definition — the right or power to decide for yourself — will be determined by the number of signs we see on roadways in the upcoming month? How are we going to choose? If history has taught us anything, it is that most citizens, when they go to the polls, tend to vote based on name recognition. This, in part, is why we have such a low number of new candidates winning elections. Part of the problem is the electoral process itself. There are too many names to choose from, and it becomes overwhelming. When people become confused, they often turn to names they recognize — names that at times may not be worthy of representing you. Names that, in many cases, have not worked in your best interest. For example: taxation. Why do taxes continue to increase with no real accountability other than excuses as to why they need to go up? Looking at Oshawa, for example, we have three elected council members running for the open mayor’s position. Are Tito-Dante, Derek Giberson, and Jim Lee worthy of the position? The answer is obvious... NO. I say this with such certainty because they all allowed property taxes to increase every year they sat in office. Has the quality of life improved for the citizens of the City? NO. Have they done anything to fix the problems associated with the poor condition of the city core? NO. Then, if there are so many NO’s, should your consideration be based on the same record of their efforts? NO, NO, NO to any one of the above, as they have failed us on the most important core values we cherish. Then, if they are not the choice... who is? Well, let’s look at what is left. We have six candidates to choose from. Two of them are too young to run for the mayor’s office. Two should not be running because they don’t even return phone calls. And two of them have potential but need a lot of work. Running for mayor is not just another job. It is not like running a business. The mayor’s position is much like a giant Rubik’s cube that is constantly changing. The pieces never match, and the pressure from staff, fellow council members, and the general public requires a special set of skills. Look at the current mayor.He does not return calls, he has given up on working with the community, and he pretty much leaves the city to survive on the crumbs we receive from the feds and the Province. That is not leadership. I have always questioned how our current mayor and the three councillors who now sit as mayoral candidates can sleep at night knowing people are living on the streets and some are passing away. No moral integrity, in my opinion. Now they want a pay raise to do more of nothing. Not on my watch. Remember to ask the questions. New candidates should, at the very least, know the basics. Do not fall for empty promises or words like resilience, working together, cooperation, and the likes. When you talk to a candidate, ask the HOW’s. How are you going to freeze my taxes, if not lowering them? If they start with, “Well, we can’t lower them,” say NO to them. If they go on a speech about re-evaluating budgets and cutting expenditures, say NO to them. Now you have the choice to say NO. Don’t vote for an incumbent, then wait to have your taxes go up. The candidate you select should give you solid plans for action. They should be telling you that under their administration, a tax freeze will be the first thing to pass. That all department heads will have to adjust to zero budget increases. That all expenses will be frozen until fully audited. That all outstanding legal matters, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, will be settled and all outstanding contracts reviewed. A candidate should not promise — but deliver — a course of action that benefits you. The candidate you should consider should bring to the table real solutions to problems that have been lingering for decades. Now is the time to vote for real leaders. Keep reading your community newspaper, as soon we will be releasing a list of our endorsed candidates. Now is the time to make your voice heard.

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On August 19, 1942, before dawn had fully broken over the English Channel, thousands of Canadian soldiers approached the French port of Dieppe. Their mission, known as Operation Jubilee, was intended to test German coastal defences, gather intelligence, destroy military installations and demonstrate that the Allies could strike occupied Europe. What followed became one of the darkest and most costly days in Canadian military history. Nearly 5,000 Canadians took part in the raid. Within a matter of hours, 916 Canadians were dead, almost 2,000 were prisoners of war, and many more were wounded. Units that had trained for months were shattered on the beaches beneath cliffs, concrete fortifications, artillery and machine-gun positions. Eighty-four years later, the memory of Dieppe deserves more than a ceremonial acknowledgement. It deserves reflection. Canada remembers Dieppe not because it was a great military victory. It was not. Canada remembers because national memory must include sacrifice, courage, failure, responsibility and the human cost of decisions made in war. The men who landed at Dieppe came from communities across Canada. Among them were soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, the Essex Scottish Regiment, Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the South Saskatchewan Regiment, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada and the Calgary Regiment. They were Canadians from different provinces, backgrounds and languages, brought together by service and their objective was extraordinarily difficult. German forces had transformed Dieppe and the surrounding coastline into a heavily defended position. The beaches were exposed. High cliffs dominated the approaches. Concrete bunkers protected machine guns and artillery. Tanks struggled to move across the loose stones of the beach and could not easily penetrate the town. Surprise, essential to the operation, was compromised but Canadian soldiers nevertheless pressed forward. Some units were pinned down almost immediately after landing. Others fought their way inland under devastating fire. Men attempted to rescue wounded comrades while themselves exposed to enemy positions. Commanders tried to reorganize surviving troops in the confusion of smoke, explosions and communications failures. By late morning, withdrawal had become unavoidable. The beaches that only hours earlier had carried the hopes of an ambitious Allied operation had become scenes of terrible destruction. For decades, historians have debated Dieppe. One argument maintains that the lessons learned from the raid contributed significantly to the planning of later amphibious operations, particularly the Normandy invasion of June 1944. Allied planners understood more clearly the importance of overwhelming fire support, specialized armoured vehicles, detailed intelligence, effective communications and the need to avoid heavily fortified ports during the initial assault. There is truth in that argument. However, Canadians should also resist the temptation to turn every tragedy into a necessary stepping stone toward later victory. Military history must allow difficult questions. Was the operation properly planned? Were its objectives realistic? Was sufficient intelligence available? Was adequate naval and air support provided? Were Canadian soldiers asked to undertake a mission whose risks had not been fully appreciated? Those questions do not diminish the courage of those who fought. Quite the opposite. The distinction between the bravery of soldiers and the quality of decisions made by senior leadership is essential to an honest military tradition. Soldiers do not choose the strategic circumstances into which they are sent. They carry out the missions assigned to them. That is why Dieppe contains a lesson extending far beyond the Second World War. Whenever Canada considers sending military personnel into danger, political and military leaders assume an enormous responsibility. Objectives must be clear. Intelligence must be sound. Equipment must be adequate. Allies must be reliable, and Canadians must understand why their sons and daughters are being placed at risk. Courage at the tactical level cannot compensate indefinitely for mistakes at the strategic level. There is another part of the Dieppe story that deserves remembrance. Two years after the disastrous raid, Canadian troops returned. On September 1, 1944, soldiers of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division entered Dieppe after German forces withdrew. This time the Canadians came not as raiders fighting desperately to escape the beaches, but as liberators advancing across France. For the people of Dieppe, the connection with Canada had been sealed in blood two years earlier. The return of Canadian soldiers transformed that relationship from tragedy into liberation. Even today, memorials, cemeteries and regimental monuments in and around Dieppe testify to the enduring relationship between Canada and France. Visitors walking along the waterfront can look toward the same cliffs and beaches that confronted Canadian soldiers in 1942. The Second World War is passing from living memory into history. Younger Canadians are increasingly separated from the events by generations. That makes public remembrance more important, not less. Students should learn about Dieppe not simply as a paragraph in a textbook but as a human story. They should understand that the soldiers who landed there were often very young. Many had families waiting at home. Many had never seen combat before that morning. Some would spend years in German prisoner-of-war camps. Hundreds would never return. Behind every casualty number was a person. A mother received a telegram. A wife lost a husband. A child lost a father. A community lost a neighbour. Canada has a proud military history, but pride should never require mythology. The strongest nations are capable of remembering both victories and failures. Vimy Ridge represents determination and national achievement. Normandy represents liberation. Kapyong represents courage under overwhelming pressure. Afghanistan represents service in a very different generation of conflict. Dieppe represents something equally important: sacrifice under circumstances where bravery could not overcome the limitations of the operation itself. There is dignity in remembering such events honestly. There is also a warning. War has changed dramatically since 1942. Technology, drones, missiles, cyberwarfare and precision weapons have altered the battlefield. However, one fundamental reality has not changed. Political decisions eventually become personal realities for soldiers. A strategic concept discussed around a conference table may become, hours or months later, a young Canadian standing somewhere far from home facing mortal danger. That distance between decision and consequence must never be forgotten. As Canada marks the 84th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid, ceremonies will again honour those who served. These traditions matter. However, remembrance must be more than ritual. It should strengthen our understanding of history and deepen our sense of responsibility toward those who serve today. The generation that fought at Dieppe did not ask to become symbols. They were soldiers doing what their country had asked of them. Many never had the opportunity to grow old. They never saw the Allied victory of 1945. They never saw the Canada that emerged after the war — prosperous, democratic. We inherited that country. Our obligation is therefore simple. Remember their courage. Remember their suffering. Learn from the decisions that sent them into battle, and ensure that future generations understand what happened on those beaches on August 19, 1942. The stones of Dieppe are quiet today. The guns have been silent for more than eight decades. Memory must not become silent with them. Canada remembers Dieppe. Canada remembers those who fought. Canada remembers those who never came home. Lest we forget.

Casino Revenue Is an Advantage Not a Guarantee

Casino Revenue Is an Advantage Not a Guarantee By John Meloche Pickering has something many municipalities would love to have: a significant source of revenue that does not come directly from property taxes. During the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s 2025–2026 fiscal year, Pickering received more than $16.3 million in gaming revenue from hosting Pickering Casino Resort. Since the casino opened in July 2021, nearly $76 million had flowed to the City by May 2026. That is an extraordinary financial advantage. The question is what we do with it. Casino revenue has already helped fund recreation facilities, parks, municipal infrastructure, library improvements, fire services and other capital projects. These are legitimate investments, and Pickering should absolutely benefit from having the casino in our community. But there is an important difference between benefiting from extraordinary revenue and becoming dependent on it. Pickering’s long-term capital forecast anticipates drawing significantly on casino reserves in the years ahead. Approximately $96.7 million in casino-reserve-supported capital financing is currently forecast between 2027 and 2035. That deserves our attention. The reason is simple: we control how casino revenue is spent, but we do not control how much casino revenue arrives We are seeing a timely example right now. Workers at Pickering Casino Resort and Casino Ajax began strike action on July 31. The Pickering casino remains open, but some services and operations have been disrupted. Why should taxpayers care? Because Pickering does not receive a guaranteed annual cheque. OLG host-municipality payments are calculated using a formula based on gaming revenue generated at the casino. That means circumstances outside City Hall can affect what we receive. Today it may be a labour dispute. Tomorrow it could be an economic downturn, growing competition, changing consumer habits, further expansion of online gambling and sports betting, regulatory changes, or business decisions made by the casino operator. None of those things are under municipal control. That is why I believe extraordinary revenues should be used primarily to make a municipality financially stronger. If a business suddenly received a substantial new revenue stream that could not be guaranteed indefinitely, the prudent response would not be to immediately build permanent spending around it. You would strengthen the balance sheet. Municipal government should think similarly. Use windfall revenue to repair aging infrastructure before it becomes an emergency. Reduce expensive debt. Strengthen reserves. Make one-time capital investments that provide lasting public value. Fund projects that reduce future operating costs. Wherever possible, use those dollars to prevent future costs from landing on the property-tax bill. What we should be cautious about is creating permanent obligations that eventually have to be transferred to taxpayers if the extraordinary revenue declines. Because once spending becomes permanent, the bill does not disappear when the revenue does. Someone still has to pay it. This does not mean Pickering should stop investing. Quite the opposite. Casino revenue represents an opportunity to leave the city substantially stronger than it would otherwise have been. Ten or fifteen years from now, residents should be able to look around Pickering and clearly see what this extraordinary period of revenue accomplished: infrastructure renewed, debt reduced, reserves strengthened, facilities properly maintained and future tax increases avoided. We should also continue pursuing other responsible non-property-tax revenues — grants, sponsorships, naming rights, film revenues, tourism opportunities and better use of municipal assets. The goal should always be the same. Alternative revenue should reduce taxpayer vulnerability, not simply give government permission to spend more. Pickering Casino Resort has given our city a tremendous financial advantage. Let’s make sure we use that advantage to build resilience for the future. Casino revenue is an opportunity. We should never allow it to become an entitlement.

Dignity Must Be Built In: Why Micro Homes Need Running Water and Washrooms

Dignity Must Be Built In: Why Micro Homes Need Running Water and Washrooms By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support At Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support (DARS), we strongly support innovative housing solutions that help people move out of homelessness and into safe, stable accommodation. Micro homes can be part of that solution but only when they provide more than a place to sleep. Recently, some communities have endorsed a sleep-cabin model in which each unit has electricity, heating and air conditioning, while residents must leave their cabins and walk to a separate communal washroom. Although this model may be less expensive to construct, DARS believes that permanent or transitional micro homes should include running water and a private washroom whenever reasonably possible. Housing should restore dignity, privacy and independence. It should not simply move people from sleeping outside into a structure that still requires them to leave their living space to meet their most basic needs. A Washroom Is a Basic Necessity Most people would not consider a house complete without a toilet, sink and access to running water. People transitioning out of homelessness should not be expected to accept a lower standard simply because they have fewer housing options. Imagine having to put on a coat and boots in the middle of a winter night to use the washroom. Imagine making that walk while sick, elderly, pregnant, living with a disability or managing medication that causes frequent urination. In Ontario, rain, snow, ice and extreme cold would the trip uncomfortable, undignified and possibly dangerous. A private washroom also allows residents to attend to personal hygiene, menstruation, medical needs and continence issues without having to explain themselves or enter a shared space. Privacy Supports Stability People experiencing homelessness often spend months or years without meaningful privacy. Shelters, encampments and public spaces rarely allow individuals to control who enters their environment or who witnesses their most personal moments. When people are finally housed, privacy becomes an important part of rebuilding safety and stability. Having a private washroom provides more than convenience. It gives residents control over their daily routines and creates a sense that their home truly belongs to them. A person should not have to carry toiletries across a property, wait in line or encounter other residents every time they need to use the washroom. These arrangements may also be particularly difficult for survivors of violence or trauma, people experiencing anxiety and those who feel unsafe in shared facilities. Accessibility Must Be Considered From the Beginning A central washroom may appear practical on a site plan, but it can create significant barriers for people with mobility challenges. Snow, ice, uneven ground, poor lighting and distance can make the route unsafe or inaccessible. Even residents who arrive without mobility limitations may experience illness, injury or changes in their health. Housing should be designed to support people through those changes and not become unusable when circumstances change. Accessible design is most effective when it is built into a project from the beginning. Retrofitting plumbing and washrooms later is often more difficult and expensive. Public Health and Cleanliness Matter Running water allows residents to wash their hands, clean their living space, prepare food safely and maintain personal hygiene. These everyday activities help prevent illness and support healthier living environments. Communal washrooms can be maintained safely, but they require frequent cleaning, monitoring, repairs and a reliable supply of hygiene products. When several people depend on one facility, a plumbing failure, frozen pipe or maintenance issue can affect the entire community. Individual washrooms reduce crowding and limit the number of people relying on a single facility. They also give residents greater responsibility for and control over the cleanliness of their own space. Communal Facilities Can Create Avoidable Conflict Shared washrooms may lead to lineups, disagreements about cleanliness, concerns about personal belongings and conflict over how long someone uses the facility. Staff may then be required to manage issues that could have been prevented through better design. Residents should be supported in developing independence and not placed in an environment where they must rely on staff to unlock, monitor or maintain access to basic sanitation. If a communal washroom closes temporarily, residents still need somewhere to go. A housing community should not be left without essential facilities because one shared building is unavailable. Lower Construction Costs Can Create Higher Operating Costs It is understandable that communities want to create housing quickly and stretch limited funding as far as possible. However, removing plumbing from individual units does not eliminate the cost of sanitation. It shifts that cost into a shared building and may add expenses related to cleaning, staffing, security, maintenance, snow removal and accessibility. Decisions should be based on the full cost of operating the community not just the initial price of constructing each cabin. Building units properly at the beginning may cost more, but it can produce safer, more durable housing and reduce the need for expensive renovations later. Emergency Shelter Should Not Become the Permanent Standard DARS recognizes that heated and air-conditioned sleep cabins can provide immediate protection from extreme weather. In a genuine emergency, a basic cabin may be safer than a tent or an encampment. However, an emergency response should not quietly become a permanent housing standard. If sleep cabins are introduced as a temporary measure, there should be a clear plan, timeline and funding pathway to upgrade them or help residents move into complete housing. Temporary solutions must remain temporary. People Deserve Homes, Not Just Beds Micro homes can be small without sacrificing dignity. Thoughtful design can include a compact washroom, a sink, running water, proper ventilation and safe wastewater connections while still keeping the overall footprint modest. The goal should not be to construct the smallest or least expensive structure a person can survive in. The goal should be to create a home that supports health, dignity, independence and a successful transition out of homelessness. At DARS, we believe people experiencing homelessness deserve the same basic considerations that the rest of us expect in our own homes. Electricity, heating and air conditioning are important but so are running water, sanitation and privacy. A door that locks provides safety. A bed provides rest. But a private washroom and running water help turn a cabin into a home. If we are serious about ending homelessness, dignity cannot be treated as an optional upgrade. It must be built in from the beginning.

Turn your home equity into flexibility in retirement

’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Is a reverse mortgage something to consider? For many Canadians 55 and better, much of their wealth is tied up in their home. A reverse mortgage by is a flexible financial solution designed to help you access your home equity, without having to sell your home or change long-term plans. What is a reverse mortgage A reverse mortgage such as the CHIP Reverse Mortgage, is designed exclusively for Canadian homeowners aged 55 and better, giving you access to the savings and capital in your home. You continue to live in your home and retain full ownership. It’s your money and your house, with no required monthly mortgage payments. How it works Access up to 55% of your home equity as tax-free cash Receive funds as a lump sum or over time No required monthly mortgage payments The loan is repaid when the home is sold What people commonly use it for Supplementing retirement income Travel or lifestyle goals Supporting family financially Funding home improvements Paying off existing debt Covering healthcare or unexpected expenses Retirement is yours to define Whether it’s pursuing new interests, supporting loved ones, or simply having more flexibility day-to-day, a reverse mortgage can help you access your home equity to support what matters most.

The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before

The Fine Print We've Seen This Movie Before By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca If you grew up anywhere around Oshawa, the conversation about machines taking people's jobs has a familiar sound to it. Long before anybody was asking ChatGPT to write an email, people here were working beside machines that could weld, paint, move parts and do jobs once done by hand. By the mid-1980s, GM's Oshawa operations were becoming increasingly automated, and people worried about what that meant for the workers. They had good reason to. A machine could make the same weld over and over without getting tired. It could handle repetitive jobs and work around heat, fumes and conditions people were happy to avoid. But if the machine was doing the work, there was still the obvious question about the person who had been doing it before. That argument never really went away. What's changed is where the machines are showing up. Factory automation was easy to picture. You could see the robot on the plant floor moving steel or welding part of a car together. AI doesn't look like that. It may be sitting inside the same computer you've used for years. Someone in sales can use it to prepare for a meeting. A manager can hand it a spreadsheet and start asking questions that might once have taken an afternoon to answer. Nobody hears machinery running in the background. The work just gets done faster. That makes this round of automation different, especially for people who spent years believing machines were mainly a threat to factory jobs. Statistics Canada has estimated that roughly 60 per cent of Canadian employees could be highly exposed to AI-related changes in their work. That doesn't mean 60 per cent of jobs disappear. In many cases the technology may change the job rather than eliminate it. Oshawa has seen that before. Robots didn't bring an end to auto workers. They changed a lot of what those workers did. Somebody still had to operate the equipment, maintain it, solve problems and make decisions the machine couldn't make. When GM prepared the Oshawa plant for its 2021 restart, more than 1,200 new robots were installed. People and machines are still working in the same building. The office version of that relationship is only beginning. I've already seen it in my own work. A large part of compliance involves finding the right rule, checking the right document and making sure something hasn't been missed. There are days when the job feels less like solving a difficult problem and more like finding one sentence buried on page 47. AI can be very good at getting me to page 47. That doesn't mean I hand it a regulation and accept whatever comes back. I've spent enough time working in compliance to know that the difference between what sounds right and what's actually been checked is more or less the whole job. If something matters, I want to know where the answer came from. But if AI can get me to the right section in thirty seconds instead of twenty minutes, I'm going to use it. I suspect a lot of people will make the same calculation. The debate is often framed as humans versus machines, but workplaces are usually messier than that. Someone gets a new tool, figures out what it does well, and pretty quickly stops wanting to do the old job the old way. Some jobs will change dramatically and some will disappear. Pretending otherwise doesn't help anyone. But that isn't the same as saying everyone whose work can be touched by AI is about to be replaced by it. People in Oshawa have heard versions of that prediction before. They heard it as more robots arrived on the assembly line, and they watched the work change around them. This time the machine may not be behind a safety fence on a factory floor. It may be sitting beside us at the desk

Up In The Air

Up In The Air By Wayne and Tamara I am a 21-year-old college senior looking forward to graduation in four months, pursuing a career and possibly my first love. So here’s the question… I’ve been in love with my first boyfriend, with whom I shared my first time, since I was 15. I knew I cared about him then, but I thought it was puppy love. Although the relationship didn’t last long, we dated again sophomore year of college and began “hooking up” again five months ago. We both dated other people in the interim. I’m beginning to realize I am really in love and thinking about a future with him. The problem is we go to school four hours away from each other. I’m 21, he’s 23. We also feel we deserve to “have fun” our last semester at college. The big problem is neither of us knows where we’ll end up after graduation. Plus, I’m not sure he knows how very much in love with him I am. I’m scared he’ll find somebody else if I don’t tell him. But I’m also not sure how he’ll take it if I do. He doesn’t show his emotions much. Am I insane in thinking everything will work out if I tell him? We’ve talked about it, and he’s never felt so “comfortable” with anyone before, but I’m not sure how he feels about a future with me. I think he feels the same or we wouldn’t keep going back to each other. Either way, I don’t want to scare him away by confessing my love and my hopes for a future, but I need to tell him how I feel! Kira Kira, when we read your letter, we wondered what it was really about. Is it about nothing ventured, nothing gained? Is it about the power of first love? Or is it about something else? Though we often tell people to be brave (ask the girl for a date, go for that job you want) we don’t think that’s your main issue. Though the “first time” can leave an indelible mark, we don’t think that’s the issue either. Look, you two are hooking up and “having fun” with multiple partners. By definition, that’s not love. You say he’s comfortable with you, but we’d bet he’s comfortable with every woman he hooks up with. Comfortable enough to be having casual sex with them. Near the end of the movie Up in the Air, a young woman is shown interviewing for a job in San Francisco. This will be her second job after college. When the interviewer asks why she took her first job, a dead-end job in Omaha, she answers candidly. “I followed a boy.” That’s what your letter is about. “I graduate in four months; I don’t know what job I’ll have; I don’t know where I’ll be. Everything is unsettled and I’m scared.” You are moving on to a completely different stage of life, and of course you are scared. But this man doesn’t love you enough to say, “I’m not comfortable with you hooking up with other men.” You don’t love him enough to say, “I’m not comfortable with you hooking up with other women.” Sex with no strings attached is the opposite of a genuine relationship. But at 21 with a college degree, all the possibilities of life are open to you. Don’t think about marriage and forever with a hookup. Go on! Get your new life. Hightail it to your college placement office and schedule job interviews. Explore all the possibilities. Embrace this challenge. Above all, don’t become that young woman who has to explain a blunder in her life by saying, “I followed a boy.” Wayne & Tamara