Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem

Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem’ for Canadian society, one that financial services professionals now must solve. Thanks to advances in health care and wide access to health care services, Canadian life expectancy continues to rise. Life expectancy at birth is now 82.16 and life expectancy at age 65 is now 86.15. That feat of longevity now creates a new slew of risks for retirees, namely that they will outlive their retirement savings, especially if they face high health care costs late in life. Those risks are compounded for the 52 per cent of Canadian workers who do not have access to any kind of employer-sponsored pension plan. Canadians now need to plan to live off their savings for decades, and many of them need to plan to do that alone. Retirees face as they live longer and highlighted how consistent retirement income and clear decumulation strategies can help manage those uncertainties. The importance of the advisor in this period, noting that decumulation can be far more complex and challenging than the accumulation phase that precedes retirement. “I think retirees are facing several key uncertainties. They don't know exactly how long they'll live, what future market returns are going to look like, or even how inflation will affect their purchasing power over time. And taken together, these risks can have a significant impact on retirement security, What we're seeing is that longevity risk has increasingly shifted from the institution to the individual. And retirement planning today requires a much greater focus on generating dependable income and managing risk while over what could be a very long time. Remember not all advisor offer the same services and solutions. Ask questions and find solutions that meet you needs.

When Standing Up Makes You Sick

When Standing Up Makes You Sick Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It was like opening a time capsule when I met up with my college roommate after 35 years. We laughed about our good times together and recalled all the confidence we had about our futures at age twenty. Then the conversation turned to our children, and she told me about her daughter's long struggle to obtain a diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS. Once that diagnosis became clear, it is easy to point to a distinguishing symptom. For people with POTS, standing upright triggers a debilitating racing of the heart. But for the 2-3 million people in North America estimated to have the condition, figuring it out is no easy job. Experts are not sure why, but it’s a condition that tends to strike young women, aged 15-35, most often from comfortable, and white, families. This fits my roommate’s situation. It may be that POTS could be found in other segments of society, but neither patients nor doctors are making the connection. The root cause of POTS lies in the body’s remarkable automatic control system – the autonomic nervous system – which manages heart rate, blood pressure, circulation, digestion, and temperature control. When we stand, gravity pulls blood toward our legs. A healthy nervous system immediately responds. Blood vessels tighten, the heart adjusts, and enough blood continues to reach the brain. In someone with POTS, that response does not work properly. The body struggles to maintain circulation when upright, and the heart often speeds up dramatically to compensate. The result can be dizziness, fatigue, weakness, exercise intolerance, difficulty concentrating, and a pounding heartbeat. Some sufferers feel better when they lie down – but not all. When the autonomic nervous system is out of whack, all bets are off. Historically, and to date, many patients have struggled to find an explanation. Because routine heart tests and blood work may appear normal, some are told their symptoms are due to stress or anxiety. During the American Civil War, physician Jacob Mendes Da Costa described soldiers who suffered from racing hearts, fatigue, chest discomfort, and poor exercise tolerance. The condition became known as “soldier’s heart.” Although it was not the same diagnosis as POTS, researchers believe these individuals may have had problems involving the autonomic nervous system. Over the decades, doctors continued to encounter patients who became ill when upright. But it was not until the 1990s that researchers formally described and named POTS. Scientists now understand that POTS is not one single disease. Different patients may have different underlying causes. In some, nerves that regulate blood vessels may not function properly. In others, there may be abnormalities involving the immune system, blood volume, or the body’s response to infection. The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented attention to POTS. Some people recovering from COVID developed persistent symptoms including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and exercise intolerance. Researchers began investigating whether viral infections could trigger autonomic disorders in susceptible individuals. Although POTS is often associated with younger people, it can occur at any age. In older adults, symptoms may be mistaken for medication effects, dehydration, heart problems, or the normal challenges of aging. For my roommate and her daughter, and similar to many other families, it was a long and frustrating journey to the diagnosis of POTS. Ultimately, it took a team of specialists at the Mayo Clinic to design and initiate a four-week intensive program of physical, mental, and behavioural changes to daily routines that enabled them to return to normal life. With better knowledge about what’s going on, there comes an appreciation for the extraordinary things the human body does, even when just standing up.

Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Around more than a few coffee tables lately, the conversation has started to change. People are no longer asking why everything became so expensive. They already know the answer isn't simple. The question now is this. Are we about to go through another round of rising prices? I'd like to know what you think. Do you think another wave of inflation is coming, or is the worst behind us? This question is significant because Canada is not isolated from global events. We may have our economy, but we are connected to almost every major event taking place around the world. A drought in Europe. Flooding in Asia. Wildfires in North America. Conflict in the Middle East. Shipping delays across the oceans. On their own they sound like separate news stories. Together they could affect every Canadian family. We cannot stop those events. But we certainly feel them. When fuel prices rise, trucking companies pay more to move goods. Farmers pay more to run equipment. Manufacturers pay more to produce products. Grocery stores pay more to stock their shelves. Those extra costs don't simply disappear. Eventually they land in one place. Our shopping carts. That is why inflation is more than an economic headline. It becomes a kitchen table issue. It affects seniors living on fixed incomes, young families trying to stretch every dollar, small businesses watching every expense, and anyone hoping to save for retirement. Another aspect of this discussion warrants further examination. Over the past while, many Canadians have made a conscious decision to buy Canadian whenever they can. Some have done it out of pride. Others want to support local farmers, manufacturers and small businesses. Many simply believe that spending their money should contribute to job creation at home. I understand that thinking. In many ways, I share it. But it also raises a fair question. Does buying Canadian always save us money? The honest answer is no. Some Canadian-made products cost about the same as imported ones. Others cost more. Higher wages, smaller production runs, transportation costs, regulations, and production expenses can all influence the final price. This does not mean that purchasing Canadian products is the cause of inflation. The evidence simply does not support that conclusion. What it does mean is that some Canadians are choosing to spend slightly more because they believe there is value beyond the price tag. Maybe they are helping to keep a neighbour employed. Maybe they are supporting a local farmer. Maybe they are investing in a Canadian company that will still be here years from now. That is not inflation. That is a personal choice about where our dollars go. The bigger question is whether those choices, repeated by millions of Canadians over many years, help build a stronger economy with more jobs, better wages, and businesses that are less dependent on foreign suppliers. If they do, perhaps paying slightly more today becomes an investment instead of just another expense. At the same time, inflation itself At the same time, larger forces, beyond the control of any individual shopper, largely drive inflation itself. by forces much bigger than any one shopper. World energy prices, poor harvests, global supply chains, international conflicts, and interest rates all play major roles. Canada is not immune. What happens on another continent often reaches our grocery stores, gas stations and family budgets within weeks or months. That is the world we live in. So perhaps the real conversation isn't simply about why prices keep rising. Maybe it is about what kind of country we want to build. Do we always chase the lowest price, even if it means buying products made somewhere else? Or are we willing, when we can afford it, to support Canadian workers, Canadian farmers, and Canadian businesses, knowing that sometimes it may cost slightly more? There is no single answer. A senior living on a pension may have no choice but to buy the least expensive item on the shelf. A young family raising children may be in the same position. Another Canadian may decide the extra dollar is worth it because they believe it strengthens the country. Every one of those choices deserves respect. So I'll leave you with one question this week. If buying Canadian means paying a little more today but helps create jobs, strengthen communities, and build a more self-reliant Canada tomorrow, is that an investment worth making? I'd like to hear what you think. Because this isn't just a conversation about inflation. It's a conversation about the kind of Canada we want to leave to the next generation.

Yes, It's Possible to Recover From a Bad Interview (Example of a Recovery Letter Included)

Yes, It's Possible to Recover From a Bad Interview (Example of a Recovery Letter Included) By Nick Kossovan All of us have been there. The heavy silence in the elevator on the way down, the sudden, agonizing clarity about what you wish you had said, and the burning realization that you just blew a job opportunity. A bad interview feels final, like a door slammed shut and deadbolted. Most job seekers throw in the towel. They chalk it up to nerves, decide it wasn't meant to be, or blame their interviewer for not knowing how to conduct an interview, all while convinced they won't get the job. The corporate world is filled with flawed human beings—me included—who, having also been in the hot seat, understand that interview pressure can make even the most seasoned professional lose their composure. The good news, and I speak from experience, is that you can recover from a bad interview. Most people view an interview as an objective test of what you can do and whether you'll be a cultural fit. For most job seekers, an interview is a high-stress conversation where nerves can make a brilliant career look amateurish in five minutes. When you freeze, ramble, or blow a simple question, the hiring manager isn't just concerned about your skills; they're concerned you're a risky hire. Course-correcting requires shifting their focus before they send you a generic rejection email. This is where a well-crafted recovery letter— not to be confused with a thank-you note—comes in. It isn’t about begging for a do-over; it’s about demonstrating professionalism by owning up to a bad interview, controlling the narrative, and reminding the employer why you belonged on their shortlist. Begin by acknowledging the elephant in the room. Trying to gaslight an interviewer into believing a subpar performance was a success is amateurish. Experienced hiring managers have a keen radar for double-talk; when an interview goes off the rails, they know it. Owning up to the fact that nerves got the better of you isn't a weakness; it’s self-awareness. It shifts the focus from a temporary emotional hijack back to why you'd be a great hire. Strategic execution requires the grit to assess your performance without sugarcoating. Did you ramble when asked about operational metrics? Did you fail to connect your past achievements to their current financial pain points? Once you identify where you stumbled, the recovery letter becomes your ultimate tool for damage control. It gives you a second chance to make the case you didn't make in the interview and to explain why you'd be a great hire. Your recovery letter must be sent quickly—ideally the same day, or no later than 9:00 AM the next day—before the hiring team finalizes their decision to move on. Keep it short and professional. Most importantly, no self-pity! Employers don't hire sob stories, nor are they in the business of handing out chances. They hire people who get results. Admit you blew it because of nerves, then pivot quickly to why you're the person for the job. It isn't over until you give up or get a firm "No." Here's how to write a recovery letter without grovelling or compromising your self-respect: Subject: Following up on the Operations Manager role – [Your Name] Dear [Interviewer Name], Thank you for your time yesterday. I enjoyed discussing [Company]’s immediate priorities, particularly your focus on tightening project delivery timelines and reducing vendor overruns from Q4 2026 onward. Reflecting on our conversation, I realize my answers didn't fully convey the depth of my track record or what I bring to the role. Quite frankly, I let my nerves get the better of me, and as a result, I didn't frame my experience as clearly as I should have. When you raised the issue of budget slippage during complex deployments, I didn’t mention that at [Previous Company], I overhauled our vendor management protocols—slashing project delay costs by 22% in less than eight months. That is the operational control I intend to bring to [Company] to protect—and grow—your margins. My interest in the Operations Manager position remains strong. I am confident I have what it takes to address the operational bottlenecks we discussed. Thank you again for the conversation. Regards, (Your Name] [Phone Number] [LinkedIn Profile URL] Keep in mind that a recovery letter isn't a silver bullet; it's an attempt to stay in the game. You're competing against candidates who may have seemed more polished and more confident. However, the letter's power lies in treating the interviewer as a peer, not a judge. It skips the laundry list of excuses, states a simple human fact—nerves happen—and offers a selling point, or several if you so choose, that you didn't mention during the interview. While giving up after a bad interview protects your ego, it also leaves you unemployed. Nobody's coming to save your candidacy; that's entirely your responsibility. Sending a recovery letter takes guts. It shows you don't fold under pressure and that you own your mistakes, traits that every astute hiring manager respects. When you feel you haven't interviewed to your full potential, send a recovery letter. It could be the difference between being written off and being hired.

Predictability

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life Predictability By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Predictability, when it comes to home invasion and break-ins, that is the word that comes to mind! After witnessing the same unfortunate outcome as I have, you see a pattern, an “M.O. short for “method of operation”. After, 40 years of arriving at one’s home to hear of the unfortunate past event, you develop a so called “Spidey sense” I see your homes weakness the same way as, what our not so friend “Sly” does and literally, his front door of opportunity! Why spend extra time lurking around the back, wasting precious time, obviously no one is home and the front door is closer to the stairs that lead to the master bedroom providing a very lucrative reward. So, looking at the front door what do we have, big breakable glass on the door, perfect to see out and provide extra light in your foyer also perfect to see in and easy to smash, simply walk through or reach in to unlock the door. 5 seconds. Or what about that skinny window beside the door, one hit, reach through and unlock the door. “That was easy” heck? why all the fuss, 2 kicks and I’m in, that dead bolt is held in place with no more than ¼ inch of grainy pine! And most likely will make the least amount of noise. So, this is all that it takes and now we need to break this down to provide the best line of defence simply to “One up” Sly, we need to “target harden” easy points of entry: How do you rob a thief? you take away their time! Let’s start with the visual. If you leave junk mail hanging around, you create a vacant home appearance. If you are away then ask a neighbour to keep it clear, in the winter, keep the driveway plowed or at least have a neighbour park in your space, at the very least drive up and down to make an impression that you are in and out. “It takes a community to thwart a thief” If you have a door glass, get some stick-on frosting (Home Depot) you will keep the light but also provide privacy the same goes for the window beside the door. Hang a heavy dog leash from a hook in an obvious location, near the door. Sly hates dogs, they make lots of noise and bite, he’s not smart enough to realize that it just a prop! Install a flip latch on the inside of the door, the product I like a lot is called “Door Guardian” you can find on Amazon or your local builders supply, this is an easy DIY Get yourself some 3” flat head screws and replace the existing ¾” hinge screws with some real holding power, these will penetrate the structural part of the door frame, same goes for the deadbolt strike plate. Get your self a video doorbell, Sly, most likely won’t come in if he thinks you are home, this allows you to answer and see who is at your door even if you are away. All the above are very simple and DIY, now if you want an enhanced level of security then take a look at what Metalex has to offer, products like “Rockglass” that will withstand a sledgehammer and Safe T Screen, a Screen door on steroids. Fresh air in, bad guys out! Next week we will cover the second point of entry. Not on my watch Sly! until then, Stay safe!

Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario

Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE A Blueprint for Transforming Regional Municipalities into Regional Service Boards Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario A Blueprint for Transforming Regional Municipalities into Regional Service Boards A Municipal Governance Discussion Paper By John Mutton Executive Summary Ontario's two-tier municipal system has served the Province for decades by delivering services across municipal boundaries. However, regional governments have gradually evolved beyond their original purpose. In many cases they now function as an additional layer of government, creating duplication, increasing administrative costs, and reducing accountability. Rather than eliminating regional governments, Ontario should modernize them. Regional municipalities should become Regional Service Boards responsible solely for delivering provincially mandated services in the most efficient manner possible. Every regional municipality should undertake a comprehensive Core Services Review to determine which services are required by legislation, which should be returned to local municipalities, and which should be eliminated altogether. The result would be a leaner, more accountable, and financially sustainable municipal governance model. Why Reform Is Needed • Duplicate services increase costs. • Taxpayers often pay twice for similar functions. • Accountability is blurred. • Governance has become more complex than necessary. Regional Service Board Model • Deliver only legislated regional services. • Eliminate or transfer non-mandated services. • Replace regional councillors with a board of mayors using weighted voting. • Provide transparent service-based budgeting. • Permit municipalities, where legislation allows, to purchase enhanced service levels using local funding. Examples of enhanced services include accelerated road maintenance, enhanced transit, expanded public works programs, and additional policing initiatives where authorized by provincial legislation. Implementation Phase 1 – Provincial Core Services Review. Phase 2 – Transfer or eliminate non-mandated services. Phase 3 – Transition to a Mayor-only weighted governance model. Phase 4 – Implement service-based budgeting and enhanced service agreements. Phase 5 – Annual performance reporting. Conclusion Ontario has an opportunity to modernize municipal government by transforming regional governments into efficient Regional Service Boards focused on mandated services while providing municipalities with greater flexibility and accountability.

Canada’s Nuclear Industry Is Losing Strategic Direction

Canada’s Nuclear Industry Is Losing Strategic Direction by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is entering a period in which nuclear energy will be essential to electricity security, industrial growth and national sovereignty. Yet the country risks expanding nuclear generation without adequately protecting the technology, manufacturing capacity, fuel cycle and intellectual property that made Canada a leading nuclear nation. Canada possesses major uranium resources, a respected regulatory system, an experienced workforce and the internationally proven CANDU reactor. These are strategic national assets. However, public policy increasingly favours foreign-controlled reactor designs without sufficient consideration of the long-term consequences for Canadian ownership, domestic production and security of supply. Ontario’s choices are particularly important. The province is the centre of Canada’s nuclear industry, and its CANDU stations at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering have supplied dependable electricity for decades. They also created a sophisticated Canadian network of engineers, manufacturers, fuel producers and specialized contractors. Despite this history, Ontario has placed the American-Japanese GE Hitachi BWRX-300 at the centre of its new nuclear program. Ontario Power Generation intends to build four small modular reactors at Darlington. The BWRX-300 may prove to be a capable reactor. The issue is not that Ontario should reject foreign technology. International cooperation is normal and necessary in the nuclear sector. The concern is that Ontario appears unusually receptive to foreign technology without demonstrating that it has fully examined the consequences for Canadian nuclear sovereignty. A nuclear reactor is not an ordinary equipment purchase. It creates a relationship lasting 60 years or more and involving intellectual property, software, fuel, replacement components, specialized maintenance and continuing technical support. Ontario should therefore disclose more than the value of contracts awarded to provincial companies. It should explain who controls the reactor design, where the most valuable systems will be manufactured, what licensing obligations will apply and whether Canadian firms will obtain lasting rights to manufacture and export important components. There is a major difference between Canadian companies participating in a foreign-controlled supply chain and Canada controlling the technology itself. Fuel security must also be considered. CANDU reactors operate with natural uranium and benefit from an established Canadian fuel cycle. The BWRX-300 requires enriched uranium, introducing dependence on foreign enrichment capacity and international supply arrangements. Canada has abundant uranium, but it does not currently possess commercial enrichment capability. It is difficult to describe a strategy as fully sovereign when Canadian uranium may have to leave the country for enrichment before returning as reactor fuel. Ontario must also explain how its enthusiasm for foreign SMRs will affect the future of CANDU technology. If Canada’s largest nuclear province does not support a new generation of CANDU reactors, international customers may reasonably question why they should do so. A reactor technology cannot remain internationally competitive without a committed domestic reference customer. Ontario should therefore evaluate the next-generation CANDU alongside foreign SMRs, not treat Canadian technology as a secondary option to be preserved by the federal government or another province. The location of the first SMR fleet also raises an important strategic question. Why is it being built at Darlington rather than at a new site supporting development of Northern Ontario and the Ring of Fire? Darlington offers clear practical advantages. It is an established nuclear site with trained personnel, existing transmission infrastructure, emergency-planning systems and community familiarity with nuclear operations. These factors reduce the risk of constructing a first-of-a-kind reactor. For that reason, building the first BWRX-300 at Darlington is understandable from a project-management perspective. However, Ontario’s nuclear strategy should extend beyond the easiest existing site. The Ring of Fire contains major deposits of critical minerals needed for batteries, advanced manufacturing, defence systems and modern energy technologies. Developing these resources will require reliable electricity, roads, communications and significant new infrastructure. A small modular reactor could eventually provide dependable, low-carbon power for mines, mineral-processing facilities and northern communities. It could help transform the Ring of Fire from a remote extraction zone into a broader Canadian industrial region. Without adequate local energy, minerals may be extracted and shipped elsewhere for processing, leaving Ontario and Canada with only a fraction of the potential economic benefit. A northern nuclear project could support mineral refining, battery-material production, transportation infrastructure, housing and public services. It could also create opportunities for Indigenous ownership, skilled employment and long-term regional development. This does not mean that the first Darlington reactor should simply be relocated. A new northern nuclear site would require extensive environmental assessment, regulatory approval, transportation infrastructure and genuine consultation and partnership with affected First Nations. The electricity demand of future mines and processing facilities would also need to be established. A northern project therefore may not be ready on the same timetable as Darlington. However, Ontario should already be conducting a formal feasibility study for SMR development connected to the Ring of Fire. That study should examine possible sites, projected industrial electricity demand, transmission requirements, transportation access, environmental impacts and Indigenous equity participation. The objective should not be merely to provide electricity to one mine. It should be to create the energy foundation for a northern industrial corridor. Canada must avoid repeating the same strategic mistake in both mining and nuclear energy: exporting raw materials while importing the highest-value technologies and finished products. It makes little sense for Canada to export uranium, rely on foreign enrichment and purchase foreign reactor technology while also exporting critical minerals for processing abroad. Such an approach would leave the country at the lower end of two strategic supply chains. Nuclear energy, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing should be treated as parts of one national industrial strategy. Governments should establish meaningful Canadian-content requirements for publicly supported nuclear projects. These requirements should apply not only to construction labour but also to engineering, software, control systems, fuel services and long-term component manufacturing. Foreign-designed projects should include technology-transfer provisions and plans to establish Canadian production of critical systems. Strategically important Canadian nuclear suppliers should also be protected from acquisitions that could move intellectual property, production or decision-making outside the country. At the same time, Canada must maintain a viable domestic future for CANDU technology. Ontario need not choose exclusively between CANDU reactors and SMRs. Different technologies may serve different purposes. Large CANDU reactors could provide dependable baseload generation using Canadian natural uranium, while SMRs could serve smaller grids, industrial developments and remote regions. The central requirement is that foreign technology complement Canadian capability rather than gradually replace it. Darlington may be the practical site for the first BWRX-300, but it should not define the limits of Ontario’s nuclear vision. Future reactors should be considered not only where construction is easiest, but where they can advance national priorities. That includes opening Northern Ontario, developing the Ring of Fire, processing critical minerals in Canada and creating durable partnerships with Indigenous communities. Nuclear energy is more than an electricity source. It is an instrument of industrial policy, regional development, energy security and national independence. Canada must decide whether it intends to remain a sovereign nuclear nation or become primarily a supplier of uranium, public financing and construction sites for technologies controlled elsewhere. That decision is being made now, and Ontario is at its centre.

What Do You Think? AI Policing Over Humans!!!

What Do You Think? AI Policing Over Humans!!! By Joe Ingino The world is changing, and so is the way policing is dispatched and executed. We started with simple cameras overlooking our streets. We were told they were installed for our safety. Then came red-light cameras pointing in every direction—once again, supposedly for our safety. As technology evolved, these same safety cameras developed sophisticated facial-recognition capabilities. The information they collect can potentially be sent to a server and stored, creating an unofficial way to catalogue everyone’s movements without people even knowing it. This is high-tech surveillance.The public objected, and governments cut back on some camera programs while keeping many of the cameras in place as a supposed necessity. More recently, drones have made headlines. The idea is that they can arrive at crime scenes faster than a police officer or provide immediate aerial support.With increasing populations and greater urban density, drones could eventually become first responders. Currently, drones are being used as part of pilot programs to assist first responders. There have even been reports of drones helping police make at least one arrest in Durham Region. Now, let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine the world 20 years from today. The population may reach an all-time high. As it stands, the 911 system is already overburdened. With the introduction of artificial intelligence, an AI attendant could eventually answer your emergency call. That AI attendant could dispatch a drone to conduct video and audio analysis before sending a human police officer. The drone would have the ability to record the scene, compare faces against criminal databases and catalogue civilians as possible perpetrators, victims or witnesses. It could transmit live video of the surrounding area and identify people appearing in the footage, giving responding officers as much information as possible.Within 20 years, these drones could potentially be armed and used during hostage situations or violent domestic disputes. Using AI, a drone could assess a situation and decide whether to neutralize a threat with a Taser—or even lethal force. All in the name of public safety. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but policing in the future could be performed largely by sophisticated machines, with very little need for human involvement.Imagine an Orwellian future. A citizen calls 911. An automated system sends a drone to gather intelligence. Once the drone completes its assessment, a patrol vehicle is dispatched carrying two humanoid robots.Consider one of the biggest challenges police officers face today. Officers may arrive at a call and confront someone who is extremely aggressive, intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. The individual may become violent, and it can sometimes take four officers to bring that person under control. Now imagine the same scenario involving a humanoid robot. The condition of the assailant would not matter. The humanoid could be designed to understand body mechanics and constructed from titanium or another extremely strong material. No ordinary person would stand much of a chance.Before someone could throw a punch, the humanoid could have that person in handcuffs and on the way to jail.Do you think this sounds too futuristic?Consider the development of cellular technology. I remember people talking during my youth about telephones without cords that would be no larger than a pack of cigarettes.It sounded like crazy talk.Look at us today.Drone technology is already being used in wars—wars in which people are actually being killed.Humanoid robots are being developed and deployed for military purposes, including entering minefields while carrying specialized technology.Modern warfare is experimenting with ultrasonic weapons and electromagnetic propulsion and projection capabilities. Aircraft can now be flown remotely without pilots on board. These aircraft may travel at speeds that the human body could not tolerate. They can remain in the air for longer periods without the need for rest while providing live information to operators thousands of miles away. The United States Navy does not have only one unmanned ship. It is developing and operating a fleet of autonomous and uncrewed surface vessels. Prominent examples include the Sea Hunter, Seahawk, Ranger, Mariner, Nomad, USX-1 Defiant and GARC, the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft. The Sea Hunter is an autonomous surface vessel originally developed for a DARPA anti-submarine tracking program. The Seahawk is an upgraded, medium-displacement autonomous prototype used to test operational concepts in the Pacific. The Ranger and Mariner are high-endurance vessels involved in the Ghost Fleet Overlord testing program. At present, no country appears to use a completely automated police force in which law enforcement, arrests and critical decisions are handled entirely by robots or artificial intelligence without human oversight. Countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates have deployed automated policing tools, but human officers remain in control. The future is here.The reality is that the world is changing. In the name of safety and convenience, we are gradually surrendering more control, privacy and responsibility to machines.The next civil war may not be between two groups of people.It could be humans versus machines. Futuristic? What do you think?

Customer Service Is the Most Underrated Public Service

Customer Service Is the Most Underrated Public Service By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering When people think about municipal government, they usually think about roads, parks, taxes, garbage collection, or development. Rarely do they think about customer service. They should. The quality of a city’s customer service shapes how residents feel about their government more than almost anything else. A pothole is frustrating. A delayed permit is inconvenient. But what often leaves people feeling truly unheard is when they report a problem and then… nothing. No response. No update. No indication that anyone even received the message. That silence creates something far more damaging than dissatisfaction—it erodes trust. Good customer service isn’t about always having the right answer. Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes a repair has to wait. Sometimes funding simply isn’t available. Most reasonable people understand that governments, like businesses, operate within real constraints. What people struggle to accept is uncertainty. They want to know someone is listening. They want to know their concern has been recorded. They want to know who is responsible. They want to know what’s happening next. In other words, they want to be treated like valued customers. This is where technology can fundamentally change the relationship between residents and their local government. For years, many municipal processes have depended on disconnected emails, phone calls, handwritten notes, spreadsheets, and individual departments managing requests independently. Dedicated staff work incredibly hard within these systems, but the systems themselves often make it difficult to provide consistent communication and visibility. Modern technology offers a better way. Imagine reporting a broken playground, a damaged sidewalk, a fallen tree, or a malfunctioning streetlight through a simple online portal. Instead of wondering whether your message disappeared into an inbox, you immediately receive confirmation that your request has been received. You can see its status in real time through a dashboard. You know which department is responsible. You receive updates as work progresses. When the repair is completed, you’re notified automatically. The city benefits just as much as the resident. Every request becomes valuable data. Instead of relying on anecdotal complaints, municipal leaders can identify patterns. They can see which neighbourhoods generate the most service requests, which issues are recurring, where response times are slowing down, and where additional resources may be needed. Decisions become driven by evidence rather than assumptions. Transparency improves naturally because information is shared instead of hidden. Accountability improves because every request has ownership. Efficiency improves because duplicate reports are identified, priorities become clearer, and staff spend less time searching for information and more time solving problems. Most importantly, residents feel informed throughout the process. Technology should never replace the human side of public service. A friendly conversation at the service counter, a returned phone call, or a staff member taking the time to explain a situation will always matter. Great customer service is built on empathy, professionalism, and respect. Technology simply removes the friction that prevents good people from delivering great service. It allows staff to focus on helping residents instead of managing paper work. It gives elected officials and senior administrators better insight into what their communities are actually experiencing. And it gives residents confidence that their voices matter. The private sector learned this lesson years ago. Businesses discovered that customers are far more understanding when they are kept informed, even if the solution takes time. Expectations are managed through communication, not silence. Government should be no different. At the end of the day, municipalities don’t exist to process paperwork or manage databases. They exist to serve people. Every interaction is an opportunity to strengthen confidence in local government—or to weaken it. Excellent customer service isn’t a luxury or an afterthought. It’s one of the most important services any municipality provides because it influences how residents experience every other service the city delivers. When government is responsive, transparent, and accountable, trust grows. And when trust grows, communities grow stronger alongside it.

GUIDE ON SELECTING CANDIDATES

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

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.

Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival

Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is one of the most resource-rich countries on Earth. We possess vast agricultural lands, abundant fresh water, enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, world-class uranium deposits, rare earths, hydroelectric capacity and growing renewable-energy potential. Yet Canadians continue to face rising grocery bills, vulnerable supply chains, regional energy shortages and uncertainty about whether our governments understand the strategic importance of the resources beneath our feet and on our farms. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, including the expanding conflict involving Iran, have delivered a warning that Canada cannot afford to ignore. Food and energy security are no longer ordinary economic policy files. They are essential components of national security, economic sovereignty and social stability. The war in Ukraine demonstrated how quickly war can disrupt global supplies of grain, fertilizer, natural gas and oil. Ukraine had long been one of the world’s most important grain exporters, while Russia and Belarus were major suppliers of fertilizer and energy. The conflict disrupted production, damaged transportation infrastructure and forced countries to compete for essential commodities. The consequences were felt far beyond Europe. Higher fertilizer, fuel, shipping and insurance costs eventually reached Canadian farms, processing plants, supermarkets and household budgets. The lesson was clear: even a food-exporting country such as Canada is not insulated from international shocks. The conflict involving Iran and the wider instability of the Middle East have reinforced that lesson even more dramatically. The Strait of Hormuz, not the “Street of Hormuz,” is a narrow maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. It is one of the most important energy corridors in the world. Around one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passed through the Strait in 2025, and alternative routes have only limited capacity. A significant share of internationally traded liquefied natural gas also depends on this passage. The current war and shipping disruptions around Iran have shown how easily this strategic chokepoint can be threatened. Vessel traffic has been severely affected, insurance and transportation risks have increased, and oil markets have reacted sharply to renewed fighting. A prolonged closure or serious restriction of the Strait of Hormuz would affect much more than gasoline prices. Oil and natural gas are embedded throughout the modern food system. Farmers require diesel for tractors, combines and irrigation equipment. Natural gas is essential to the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Energy is needed to operate greenhouses, barns, food-processing plants, refrigeration systems, trucks, trains and grocery stores. When energy becomes more expensive or unreliable, food inevitably becomes more expensive as well. Canada should be better protected than most countries. We are a major energy producer and agricultural exporter. Nevertheless, our ability to move resources across our own country remains inadequate. Eastern Canada can still be exposed to imported energy, while Western Canadian producers face transportation constraints and limited access to overseas markets. This is an unacceptable strategic contradiction. Canada produces more than enough energy to meet its needs, yet insufficient pipelines, refining limitations, regulatory uncertainty and regional political disputes continue to weaken national resilience. Energy security does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility. It means recognizing that reliable energy must come before economic activity can occur. Canada needs a balanced energy strategy based on oil, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectricity and economically sound renewable generation. Our conventional resources will remain essential for decades, particularly for heavy transportation, agriculture, aviation, manufacturing and national defence. Canadian oil and natural gas are also produced under higher environmental, labour and transparency standards than supplies from many authoritarian regimes. Canada should therefore build the infrastructure required to move Western energy eastward and to export liquefied natural gas and other resources to democratic allies. Every shipment of Canadian energy that replaces dependence on hostile or unstable suppliers strengthens both our economy and the security of our partners. Nuclear energy must also become a central pillar of Canadian policy. Canada possesses uranium, engineering expertise, an established nuclear industry and experience with CANDU technology. Ontario’s nuclear fleet has demonstrated the value of dependable, low-emission baseload electricity. Small modular reactors may eventually provide additional options for remote communities, industrial projects and regions seeking reliable power. Food security requires the same strategic seriousness. Canadian farmers are efficient and productive, but they face high costs for fertilizer, machinery, fuel, seed, crop protection, labour and financing. Farm Credit Canada projected that Canadian crop producers could spend approximately $22.5 billion on imports in 2026, with fertilizer alone approaching $10 billion. Governments must stop treating farmers as an unlimited source of new regulatory obligations. Environmental improvements should be pursued through research, incentives, modern technology and cooperation and not through measures that undermine production or make Canadian agriculture uncompetitive. Canada must also protect prime farmland from uncontrolled urban expansion. Once productive agricultural land is paved over, it rarely returns to cultivation. Provinces and municipalities need stronger policies to preserve farmland while directing new housing and industrial development toward appropriate locations. Domestic food processing is equally important. Canada exports large quantities of raw agricultural products but often imports more expensive processed goods. Expanding Canadian slaughterhouses, mills, canneries, cold-storage facilities and food-manufacturing plants would create jobs and shorten supply chains. The federal government’s recently announced National Food Security Strategy includes support for year-round production, greenhouses, vertical farming and domestic processing. These are constructive measures, but they must complement and not replace traditional farms and open-field agriculture. Canada also needs strategic reserves of essential goods. Governments should examine whether emergency stocks of fuel, fertilizer, seed, veterinary medicines and selected food staples are sufficient for a prolonged crisis. Hospitals maintain emergency supplies. Armed forces maintain ammunition and equipment. A serious country should also prepare for disruptions to the systems that feed and power its population. Critical infrastructure must be protected against cyberattacks, sabotage and foreign interference. Pipelines, ports, electrical grids, railways, food-processing facilities, telecommunications systems and water networks are all potential targets in a period of geopolitical confrontation. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are not distant events without consequences for Canadians. They are reminders that international stability can deteriorate rapidly and that strategic dependencies can become national vulnerabilities almost overnight. Canada has the resources to feed itself, power itself and help sustain its allies. What it lacks is not capacity, but coordinated political determination. Food and energy security must become permanent national priorities. Our objective should be straightforward: Canadian families must have access to affordable food; Canadian farms and industries must have reliable energy; and Canada must never become dependent on unstable or hostile foreign powers for the essentials of national life. In an increasingly dangerous world, sovereignty begins with the ability to keep the lights on, the economy moving and food on the table.

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?