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

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

The Traditions We Never Meant to Start

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

How Difficult Can It Get?

How Difficult Can It Get? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones What are the true tests of a healthcare system? Is it how well it resolves health problems? How it prevents them? How efficiently it operates? One question should be, how does it treat our eldest citizens? But the fact is, it’s absurdly difficult for seniors to access care, submit claims, and navigate a plethora of disjointed systems. People pay taxes for decades. They contribute to insurance plans. They work hard, raise a family and play by the rules. Then, when they finally need help after a stroke, a broken hip or a heart attack, they are handed another form to complete, another approval to obtain, and one after another, bureaucratic hurdles to clear. In the United States, headlines have focused on insurance companies denying rehabilitation, long-term care and other medically necessary services to older patients. Many denials are overturned on appeal. But if the care was appropriate, why was it denied in the first place? How defeated are people in the process? How much illness is created, not cured? Canada likes to congratulate itself for having a different system. But Canada has its own version of bureaucracy. Long waits for diagnostic tests. Delays for specialist appointments. Programs that are nearly impossible to navigate. And yes, diabolical mayhem with making claims to provincial programs or insurance companies. If this isn’t making people sick, their medications certainly are. Everywhere seniors are juggling too many medications because physicians and pharmaceutical companies have created an epidemic of excessive prescriptions. It should be no surprise what’s happened as a result. Older people and their caregivers are beaten down. What is the price of the absurdity? Governments worry about the rising cost of caring for an aging population. But what’s truly worrisome is the failure to care at all. Getting care has become too complex – for all of us, but especially for the elderly. A national survey should ask this question, “have you given up?” Can’t get an appointment? Can’t get there if you do? Can’t get the right forms or figure them out? Don’t even know you are missing the forms? How much time and money is spent dealing with paperwork? How many hospital admissions could be avoided if someone took the time to review a senior's dozen prescriptions? How many older people deteriorate unnecessarily while waiting for approvals, referrals or appointments? These are not questions for debate. They are management imperatives. In other industries, executives measure customer satisfaction, identify bottlenecks and eliminate waste. If an airline stranded thousands of paying customers every day, heads would roll. If a bank required six approvals to cash a cheque, shareholders would revolt. The excuse is always that health care is "complex." But so is aviation. So is nuclear power. Complexity is not an excuse for inefficiency. It is a reason to manage better. What worries me most is the growing distance between decision-makers and patients. Increasingly, care is being managed by algorithms, utilization reviews, budget targets and policy frameworks. Somewhere beneath all that paperwork is an 82-year-old woman recovering from pneumonia who simply wants to go home, or an 89-year-old man hoping to walk again after hip surgery. Here's my challenge to every health minister, deputy minister, insurance executive and hospital CEO. Go spend time shadowing an 85-year-old who is trying to book an appointment – or trying to get to it. Check to see if they understand their medication list. Try to join them for a call with their physician and see if anyone answers the telephone. Then tell us that the system is working as intended and that it cares for those who need it most.

Private Security Is Growing Is Oversight Keeping Up?

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

I believe in Getting to Know People

I Don't Believe in Networking. I believe in Getting to Know People By Nick Kossovan For most job seekers, job searching is a gruelling test of perseverance against their delusion that spending their time screaming into the digital void of applicant tracking systems, blasting out identical, AI-generated resumes like they're feeding a slot machine, and praying the next pull is 'the one' is a viable job search strategy. Most job seekers' job searches are prolonged because they approach employers like beggars, which is exactly what they are when they ask for a chance instead of offering a solution. Employers don't hire out of charity, nor do they hire to fill seats. They hire because they're bleeding time, money, or efficiency, and therefore need a specific headache taken care of. The moment you stop treating yourself like a commodity looking for a boss and start operating like a service provider looking for a problem, the power dynamic flips. You stop chasing opportunity. You start attracting it. If you want to shorten your job search, change your mindset. Follow these three steps to become an employer magnet. Step 1: Select a Problem Trying to be everything to everyone is one of the biggest mistakes job seekers make. In a desperate hope they'll expand their options, they craft generic resumes filled with vague corporate jargon, such as "results-oriented professional with a diverse background." They assume this versatility makes them attractive, but in reality, it makes them entirely forgettable. When you try to appeal to everyone, you end up appealing to no one. You become a commodity, and commodities are bought at the lowest price. As the old idiom goes, “a jack of all trades is a master of none.” Employers are looking for a scalpel, not a Swiss Army knife. They're looking for a specialist who can step in on day one and dissect a specific, painful operational bottleneck. Becoming an employer magnet requires declaring a specialty by choosing a specific problem to solve. Start by identifying a high-stakes challenge in your industry that you're uniquely equipped to address. Is B2B sales volume declining, thereby affecting revenue? Is a chaotic, unoptimized supply chain affecting timely order fulfillment? Is high turnover in mid-management negatively affecting morale? Is a messy, insecure digital infrastructure a security risk? Narrow your lane. Pinpoint the specific organizational headache that keeps hiring managers up at night. By owning a distinct problem, you distinguish yourself from the majority of job seekers who are merely looking for a paycheque. Step 2: Be the Solution to the Problem Once you've chosen a problem, your professional setup (e.g., resume, LinkedIn profile, digital footprint, cover letters) should reflect your expertise in solving it. This is where most job seekers fall short. They treat their resume and LinkedIn profile as historical records of past activities rather than as evidence of forward-looking capabilities. Employers don't care what you did; they care what you can do for them. The key is to restructure your professional narrative from a list of duties into a repeatable blueprint for success that demonstrates a predictable methodology for achieving measurable outcomes. Today, credentials are less important than tangible execution. According to Liz Ryan, author and former Fortune 500 HR executive who pioneered the pain letter concept, employers don’t hire people because they have impressive resumes; they hire them because their business pain(s) needs to be solved. Being “the solution” means speaking the language of metrics. If the problem you solve is inefficient digital processes, and you state on your resume and LinkedIn profile that you’ve “managed software migration,” the reader will inevitably say to themselves, “So what?” Instead, state: Streamlined legacy workflows, reducing project delivery timelines by 22% and eliminating $95,000 in software redundancies. Quantify your value. Frame your past achievements as evidence that you’ve successfully slain the dragon the employer you’re targeting is currently fighting. Step 3: Market Yourself to Employers as a Solution Your ability to solve an employer’s headache is worthless if you keep it secret. You can’t sit back and wait for employers and recruiters to discover you by accident. Humility doesn’t pay the bills, and hoping to be noticed is an inefficient strategy. “Without promotion, something terrible happens… nothing!” – P.T. Barnum’s promotion philosophy. Attracting employers magnetic-like requires aggressively and strategically marketing your capabilities directly to the decision-makers who are losing sleep over the problem you solve. This means abandoning the lazy “Apply Now” button mentality. First, curate your digital real estate. Use social media platforms, especially LinkedIn, to publish insight-driven commentary on industry trends and problem-solving strategies. Consistently sharing sharp, practical solutions establishes you as an authority. Second, build a proactive outreach strategy. Identify the hiring managers at your target employer who own the problem you solve (there's no need to contact HR). Reach out directly with a concise value proposition. Don't ask for a job. Instead, point out a common challenge their department faces and briefly showcase your proven track record of solving it. This is how you become not just another job seeker but a viable solution worth hiring. Stop looking for a job. Start looking for problems to solve. Position yourself as a solution, then activate the employer magnet by putting yourself in front of employers.

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

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

THE DAY AFTER CANADA DAY!!!

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

The Press's Obsession with Prime Minister Mark Carney

The Press's Obsession with Prime Minister Mark Carney by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In every healthy democracy, the relationship between political leaders and the media is both essential and complicated. The press serves as democracy's watchdog, ensuring that governments remain accountable to the people they serve. At its best, journalism exposes wrongdoing, explains complex issues, and gives citizens the information they need to make informed decisions. However, there is a fine line between vigilant scrutiny and unhealthy obsession. In recent months, much of the Canadian media appears to have crossed that line in its coverage of Prime Minister Mark Carney. No one disputes that the Prime Minister deserves close examination. He occupies the country's highest elected office during one of the most challenging periods in modern Canadian history. Canada is confronting slowing economic growth, a persistent affordability crisis, growing geopolitical uncertainty, renewed questions about national unity, and an increasingly unpredictable international trading environment. The decisions made by the Prime Minister and his cabinet will shape the country's future for years to come. Canadians have every right to expect those decisions to be thoroughly examined. Yet there is an important distinction between examining a government's policies and becoming fixated on the individual leading it. Too often, daily news coverage has become less about what the government is doing and more about what Mark Carney said, how he said it, whom he met, how he appeared, and how political commentators interpret each gesture. Political journalism increasingly resembles sports commentary, where every day brings new scorecards, winners, losers, and endless speculation about strategy. While such reporting attracts viewers and generates online clicks, it rarely helps Canadians understand the substantive issues that affect their lives. This trend is not unique to Canada. Around the world, modern media increasingly emphasizes personalities over policies. Social media algorithms reward controversy, conflict, and constant updates. Twenty-four-hour news cycles demand fresh content every hour, leaving little room for thoughtful analysis. Political coverage becomes a series of dramatic episodes rather than an examination of long-term public policy. Canada has not been immune. Housing affordability deserves sustained investigative reporting. Productivity growth, which has lagged behind many peer nations, should receive continuous attention. Defence spending, Arctic sovereignty, infrastructure modernization, immigration policy, health-care reform, interprovincial trade barriers, and Canada's competitiveness in emerging technologies all warrant careful, detailed reporting. Yet these topics often disappear behind daily coverage centered almost exclusively on the Prime Minister's latest announcement or political fortunes. The result is a distorted public conversation. When every policy is framed primarily through the lens of one individual, citizens begin evaluating personalities instead of outcomes. Politics becomes increasingly tribal, with supporters defending every decision and opponents criticizing every action regardless of its merits. Serious debate gives way to political branding. This serves neither democracy nor journalism. The media's responsibility extends beyond questioning the government. It must also explain why policies matter, evaluate their effectiveness, investigate unintended consequences, and present competing viewpoints fairly. Citizens deserve reporting that helps them understand how federal decisions influence their mortgages, taxes, pensions, businesses, and communities. Accountability should always remain vigorous. If the government makes mistakes, they should be exposed. If promises go unfulfilled, journalists should demand answers. If ethical standards are breached, investigations should be relentless. That is precisely how democratic institutions remain healthy. But accountability loses credibility when every issue is treated as a political drama centered on one individual. Prime ministers come and go. Institutions endure. Canada's prosperity depends less on the popularity of any one leader than on the strength of its economy, its democratic institutions, its judicial independence, its armed forces, its provinces working together, and the resilience of its citizens. These larger questions deserve consistent, thoughtful attention. There is another consequence of excessive focus on the Prime Minister. It unintentionally diminishes the role of Parliament itself. Canada is governed not by one person but through a parliamentary system in which cabinet ministers, Members of Parliament, parliamentary committees, provincial governments, municipalities, courts, and independent public institutions all contribute to national governance. Yet media coverage frequently reduces every issue to whether it helps or hurts the Prime Minister politically. Such simplification deprives Canadians of a fuller understanding of how their democracy functions. Political reporting should illuminate institutions, not merely personalities. This is especially important at a time when trust in democratic institutions is under pressure across much of the Western world. Public confidence grows when journalism is perceived as balanced, independent, and committed to facts rather than narratives. It weakens when coverage appears excessively focused on personalities, speculation, or partisan conflict. None of this suggests that Prime Minister Carney should receive easier treatment. On the contrary, holding the country's most powerful elected official accountable is among the press's highest responsibilities. Tough interviews, persistent questioning, investigative reporting, and informed criticism strengthen democracy. What should change is the proportion of attention devoted to personalities versus policies. Imagine if the same journalistic energy devoted to analyzing political messaging were invested in explaining why Canada's productivity has stagnated for over a decade. Imagine sustained investigative reporting into interprovincial trade barriers, procurement delays in national defence, municipal housing approvals, health-care wait times, or the country's long-term fiscal outlook. Canadians would be better informed, public debate would become more substantive, and governments of every political stripe would face stronger incentives to deliver measurable results. The public deserves journalism that places facts before theatre, policy before personality, and national interest before political spectacle. The Prime Minister will always attract attention. That is both inevitable and appropriate. However, democracy flourishes when the press remembers that its ultimate obligation is not to chronicle every movement of one political leader, but to help citizens understand the challenges, opportunities, and choices facing their country. Canada's future will not be determined solely by the success or failure of one Prime Minister. It will be shaped by the strength of its institutions, the wisdom of its policies, and the informed engagement of its citizens. The press has an indispensable role in that process. It should embrace it by broadening the national conversation beyond one office, one personality, and one political narrative. Canadians deserve journalism that asks difficult questions of every government while never losing sight of the larger story—the future of Canada itself.

Putting the Story Back Together

Dead and Gone… Putting the Story Back Together By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how quickly families begin trying to reconstruct a life after someone dies. Most people would probably assume that this begins with memories, but that is not really what I have noticed. It usually begins with questions. Not particularly profound questions, either. More often they are the ordinary details that nobody had much reason to think about while life was unfolding. When did they buy this house? Was that before or after the business started? Did they move here because of work, or was there another reason? Who introduced them? Why did they stop spending summers at the lake? None of these questions seemed especially urgent a few months earlier. Then suddenly they do. What makes this interesting is that no one person usually has all of the answers. One sibling remembers the early years, and another might remember what happened after the children were born. An aunt or uncle can recall why the family moved, while an old neighbour remembers what came before. Everyone seems to be carrying a different part of the story, and it is only when people begin comparing those pieces that they realize how widely the family's history had been distributed all along. I have enjoyed watching and learning as families spend half an hour trying to settle what sounds like a simple question. Did that happen before the move or after it? Was Grandpa already retired? Was Uncle Jim married yet? Someone is convinced it happened one way. Someone else is equally certain it happened another. Eventually another relative remembers a small detail that quietly settles the discussion, and everyone moves on. None of the answers themselves change anything, and nobody is making a decision based on whether something happened in 1986 or 1988. The conversation is really about something else altogether. People are trying to understand how the pieces fit together in a way that matters much more than all of the details. They are rebuilding a timeline that always existed, but was never stored in one place so that the stories that shaped a person don't feel like they are lost. I think that there's an urgency that comes with it and that probably helps explain why these conversations can go on much longer than anyone expects. One answer naturally leads to another question. If they were living there then, was that before Dad started his own business? If that happened first, does anyone remember why they sold the cottage? Suddenly three stories that had always existed independently become connected, and the family's understanding of its own history becomes a little clearer. I do not think this happens because people suddenly become interested in genealogy. It happens because the person who quietly connected many of those pieces is no longer sitting at the table. For years there was always somebody who could settle a disagreement in thirty seconds or explain why one event led to another. Families rarely notice how valuable that kind of knowledge is while it is readily available. The interesting part is that no single person usually replaces them. Instead, the family begins assembling the story together. Each person contributes a memory, a date, a conversation, or a detail that somebody else had forgotten. The finished picture belongs to everyone, even though no one person ever carried all of it. The longer I have watched families work through these conversations, the more I have noticed that they are rarely searching for facts alone. More often they are discovering that a family's history was never kept in one place. It had been living, quietly and imperfectly, across the memories of the people who shared it.

Joint ownership: pros, cons, and alternatives

Joint ownership: pros, cons, and alternatives By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Investors looking for an efficient, cost-effective, and quick way to transfer assets to an heir or beneficiary often place assets into joint ownership with right of survivorship. On the surface, this looks like a great way to transfer wealth. Placing non-registered assets into joint ownership is one of the most common attempts to avoid probate, and it may be effective in the right situation. The catch? There can be significant disadvantages with joint ownership that outweigh the benefits. Joint ownership with adult children often misses the mark. Parents think they’re setting up an easy way to transfer assets, by simply adding a child to the account while keeping all other aspects the same. That child may transact on the parent’s behalf while they are alive but won’t personally benefit from the funds until the parent passes away. In that case, when the parent passes away, a resulting trust is presumed to exist which all other references to joint ownership meaning joint ownership with right of survivorship. Joint ownership doesn’t apply in Quebec, means the asset flow through the deceased’s estate, and is distributed according to their will and may be subject to probate, if applicable. Without proper documentation, this can create complications, especially if there are other beneficiaries that believe they have an entitlement to that same asset. Fortunately, there are other options available that help avoid the risks of joint ownership and provide additional benefits as well. Advantages and disadvantages when using joint ownership as a wealth transfer strategy. If considering this strategies, ensure you discuss this with your financial advisor accountant and lawyers. Alternative considerations shows how naming a beneficiary or successor owners with a certain investment contract or insurance guaranteed interest account (GIA) can achieve the same advantages—and more —without the liabilities and risks. Not all investments are governed by the same estate rules. Investments held with banks vs insurance companies or investment companies have different rules in administering estates. Ask the questions to ensure you are not creating more concerns for your executors and family members Safe travels Happy Planning!!

Dying Rich and Too Young

Dying Rich and Too Young Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones This week, another vintage Gifford-Jones column from well over a decade ago that notes the avoidable – and unavoidable – hazards that can cut a life short. How many legions of men and women work to achieve financial success and then die prematurely of a needless disease? I've seen it too often: patients who are extremely bright, yet babes in the woods on medical matters. In fact, some of their pitfalls, stubbornness and irresponsibility are hard to fathom. One 45-year-old friend repeatedly refused my advice to have a colonoscopy. "They're not going to do that to me!" he said. A few years later he noticed rectal bleeding and still would not agree. Unfortunately, the bleeding was not due to hemorrhoids as he believed but to advanced colon cancer. He travelled abroad for fraudulent treatments and after spending thousands of dollars he died a slow, painful death in middle age. It should never have happened. Why are millions of people still puffing on cigarettes? One wonders, are these people living on another planet? The scientific evidence is overwhelming that inhaling smoke and multiple carcinogens can result in cancer. We can’t prevent many malignancies, but we can most lung cancers by tossing cigarettes away. It's been said it's better to be lucky than good. I was lucky to inherit the longevity gene. And I was lucky to have parents who taught me not to spend it foolishly by following a risky lifestyle. I've been lucky to inherit the gene of thinness. But I also step on the scale every day. My diet isn't perfect but it avoids excessive fats, sugar, processed foods, and it includes ample fibre. I love what I do, and plan to continue until 10 years after I'm dead! Being inactive physically and mentally kills people. I had the lucky break of becoming a journalist. That allowed me to interview Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling, among others. He believed humans need high doses of vitamin C and lysine to wipe out coronary death. I'm convinced that without this knowledge I would not have survived to this age. I haven't succumbed to the North American habit of popping a pill for every ache and pain, causing liver and kidney damage. My household has never had an over-the-counter painkiller or any cold remedies on bathroom shelves. Rather, I've followed Sir William Osler's wise advice for treating a cold. You put your hat on the bedpost, go to bed, start sipping whiskey, and when you see two hats you stop. It was Osler's way of telling people they were over-medicating themselves with pills. Suffice to say, sleep will heal many minor ailments. I have limited radiation exposure to CT scans, chest and dental X-rays, unless absolutely needed. Nor do I believe in cholesterol-lowering drugs. Rather, I have used high doses of vitamin C and lysine to keep my arteries open. It’s long been my conclusion that alcohol in moderation is not to be vilified. It lowers blood cholesterol, helps oil the blood, decreasing the risk of blood clot, and is a great relaxant after a busy day. A good sense of humour never killed anyone. It maintains sanity amid today's medical, political and financial matters. Napoleon asked, when promoting an officer to general, "Is he lucky?" In war or peace, Russian roulette often decides who reaches the senior years. I have no delusions. Sooner or later, both luck and hard work lose out. How do I want life to end? I hope it ends suddenly. But too many are coming to a slow, miserable, and agonizing end.

Do Not Panic: Canada Is Not Coming For Your Old Car

Do Not Panic: Canada Is Not Coming For Your Old Car            By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               A man sees a video online and looks out the window at the old car in his driveway. It is not a show car. It is not something he bought for fun. It is the car that gets him to work, to the grocery store, and to his appointments. It has rust in places. It makes a noise he has learned to ignore. But it is paid for, and these days that means something. Then the video says cars from 1980 or earlier may be scrapped by the government. That is enough to scare a person. For some Canadians, an older car is not a hobby. It is survival. For classic car owners, the same rumour hits another nerve. They think about years spent in garages, parts hunted down, summer car shows, and memories tied to a vehicle that may have belonged to someone they loved. Around Oshawa, where General Motors work has fed families for generations, people understand cars. They understand repair bills. They understand pride in keeping something running. They also understand what it would mean if someone told them their old car was suddenly a problem. So before panic spreads further, the question has to be asked plainly. Is Canada really coming for older cars? From what can be checked, the answer is no. As a journalist, I cannot base an article on hating one government or defending another. That is not the job. The job is to check the claim, follow the facts, and tell readers what is real and what is not. If a real law ever comes forward that hurts poorer drivers, retired people, workers, or classic car owners, then it should be questioned hard. But if a fake video is frightening people for no reason, that also has to be called out. The rumour says Canada is going to start scrapping cars from 1980 or earlier. It says these cars will be treated as dangerous. It says people will not be allowed to fix them. It also says the rule starts on June 1. That is a serious claim. But serious claims need proof. The video that helped spread this claim was checked and found to be AI generated. It was not a real government announcement. That means the June 1 date came from the fake video. There is no real start date for scrapping old cars because there is no verified law ordering it. As of June 19, 2026, I found no federal law that says older cars must be destroyed. I found no national order saying people with older vehicles will lose them. I found no rule saying a car from 1980 or earlier cannot be repaired. Transport Canada still has information about importing older vehicles. Vehicles older than 15 years are treated differently at importation under federal safety rules. That does not mean every old vehicle can automatically be licensed in every province. But it does show that old vehicles are not illegal just because they are old. Now here is the real part. Ontario can still deal with unsafe vehicles. That is not new. If a vehicle has bad brakes, unsafe steering, broken lights, rotten structure, bald tires, or other serious problems, it can be ordered off the road until it is fixed. That applies to old cars and newer cars. There are also real rules about window tint. In Ontario, the driver must be able to see clearly. The windshield and the windows beside the driver cannot be so dark or coated that they block the driver’s view or hide the inside of the vehicle too much from outside. Police can deal with illegal tint. But that is not the same thing as taking away old cars. Classic cars are also recognized in Ontario rules. A historic vehicle is generally at least 30 years old, mostly unchanged from the original product, and used for things like exhibitions, parades, tours, club events, testing, repairs, or sale demonstrations. That does not sound like a government preparing to wipe out the car show world. For people who own older cars, the best advice is simple. Do not panic. Keep the vehicle safe. Keep your paperwork in order. Be careful with dark tints. Understand the difference between regular plates and historic plates. If you are buying or selling an older vehicle, know when a safety certificate is required. There is no real start date because there is no verified law ordering old cars to be scrapped. That is the sentence people need to hear. For poorer Canadians, that old car may be survival. For classic car owners, it may be family history. Both deserve facts, not fear.

I believe in Getting to Know People

I Don't Believe in Networking. I believe in Getting to Know People By Nick Kossovan For most job seekers, job searching is a gruelling test of perseverance against their delusion that spending their time screaming into the digital void of applicant tracking systems, blasting out identical, AI-generated resumes like they're feeding a slot machine, and praying the next pull is 'the one' is a viable job search strategy. Most job seekers' job searches are prolonged because they approach employers like beggars, which is exactly what they are when they ask for a chance instead of offering a solution. Employers don't hire out of charity, nor do they hire to fill seats. They hire because they're bleeding time, money, or efficiency, and therefore need a specific headache taken care of. The moment you stop treating yourself like a commodity looking for a boss and start operating like a service provider looking for a problem, the power dynamic flips. You stop chasing opportunity. You start attracting it. If you want to shorten your job search, change your mindset. Follow these three steps to become an employer magnet. Step 1: Select a Problem Trying to be everything to everyone is one of the biggest mistakes job seekers make. In a desperate hope they'll expand their options, they craft generic resumes filled with vague corporate jargon, such as "results-oriented professional with a diverse background." They assume this versatility makes them attractive, but in reality, it makes them entirely forgettable. When you try to appeal to everyone, you end up appealing to no one. You become a commodity, and commodities are bought at the lowest price. As the old idiom goes, “a jack of all trades is a master of none.” Employers are looking for a scalpel, not a Swiss Army knife. They're looking for a specialist who can step in on day one and dissect a specific, painful operational bottleneck. Becoming an employer magnet requires declaring a specialty by choosing a specific problem to solve. Start by identifying a high-stakes challenge in your industry that you're uniquely equipped to address. Is B2B sales volume declining, thereby affecting revenue? Is a chaotic, unoptimized supply chain affecting timely order fulfillment? Is high turnover in mid-management negatively affecting morale? Is a messy, insecure digital infrastructure a security risk? Narrow your lane. Pinpoint the specific organizational headache that keeps hiring managers up at night. By owning a distinct problem, you distinguish yourself from the majority of job seekers who are merely looking for a paycheque. Step 2: Be the Solution to the Problem Once you've chosen a problem, your professional setup (e.g., resume, LinkedIn profile, digital footprint, cover letters) should reflect your expertise in solving it. This is where most job seekers fall short. They treat their resume and LinkedIn profile as historical records of past activities rather than as evidence of forward-looking capabilities. Employers don't care what you did; they care what you can do for them. The key is to restructure your professional narrative from a list of duties into a repeatable blueprint for success that demonstrates a predictable methodology for achieving measurable outcomes. Today, credentials are less important than tangible execution. According to Liz Ryan, author and former Fortune 500 HR executive who pioneered the pain letter concept, employers don’t hire people because they have impressive resumes; they hire them because their business pain(s) needs to be solved. Being “the solution” means speaking the language of metrics. If the problem you solve is inefficient digital processes, and you state on your resume and LinkedIn profile that you’ve “managed software migration,” the reader will inevitably say to themselves, “So what?” Instead, state: Streamlined legacy workflows, reducing project delivery timelines by 22% and eliminating $95,000 in software redundancies. Quantify your value. Frame your past achievements as evidence that you’ve successfully slain the dragon the employer you’re targeting is currently fighting. Step 3: Market Yourself to Employers as a Solution Your ability to solve an employer’s headache is worthless if you keep it secret. You can’t sit back and wait for employers and recruiters to discover you by accident. Humility doesn’t pay the bills, and hoping to be noticed is an inefficient strategy. “Without promotion, something terrible happens… nothing!” – P.T. Barnum’s promotion philosophy. Attracting employers magnetic-like requires aggressively and strategically marketing your capabilities directly to the decision-makers who are losing sleep over the problem you solve. This means abandoning the lazy “Apply Now” button mentality. First, curate your digital real estate. Use social media platforms, especially LinkedIn, to publish insight-driven commentary on industry trends and problem-solving strategies. Consistently sharing sharp, practical solutions establishes you as an authority. Second, build a proactive outreach strategy. Identify the hiring managers at your target employer who own the problem you solve (there's no need to contact HR). Reach out directly with a concise value proposition. Don't ask for a job. Instead, point out a common challenge their department faces and briefly showcase your proven track record of solving it. This is how you become not just another job seeker but a viable solution worth hiring. Stop looking for a job. Start looking for problems to solve. Position yourself as a solution, then activate the employer magnet by putting yourself in front of employers.

Courage Is Standing Up for Equal Opportunity

Courage Is Standing Up for Equal Opportunity By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE There are moments in politics when it is easier to remain silent than to speak uncomfortable truths. Those who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy often find themselves criticized, attacked, or misrepresented. That is why I believe Jamil Jivani deserves recognition for raising questions that many Canadians have been reluctant to discuss openly. Throughout his career, Jamil has consistently argued that every Canadian deserves to be judged on character, ability, effort, and merit—not on race, ancestry, or political ideology. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his argument or not, that principle has long been one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. His recent campaign questioning federal hiring and diversity policies has generated significant national debate. Supporters view it as a call to restore merit-based decision-making and equal treatment under the law, while critics disagree with his characterization of existing policies. Regardless of where one stands, the discussion itself is an important one in a healthy democracy. Having known Jamil personally, I can say he has never been motivated by hatred or division. Quite the opposite. He believes Canadians of every background should have the same opportunity to succeed without governments creating winners and losers based upon immutable characteristics. Canada has made tremendous progress because generations believed that opportunity should be available to everyone. The goal should never be to replace one form of discrimination with another. Our objective should be fairness for every Canadian. Politics often rewards those who follow the crowd. Leadership requires something different. It requires the willingness to raise difficult questions, accept criticism, and continue the conversation respectfully. Whether Canadians ultimately agree or disagree with Jamil's proposals, he has demonstrated a willingness to engage in debates that many politicians avoid. That courage deserves respect. In the end, Canadians should strive toward a country where government treats every citizen equally, where opportunity is earned through hard work and talent, and where no one isadvantaged or disadvantaged because of their race, religion, or ancestry. Those principles unite Canadians far more than they divide us.

HYPOCRITES SEEDED IN CLARINGTON

By Joe Ingino This week, Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster issued the following statement: "We are seeing a rise in personal attacks, hateful rhetoric, and threatening behavior, both online and in our community. This is not debate or dialogue. These comments are meant to harm. They spread disinformation, target individuals, and are designed to create fear and divide our community. Clarington residents and staff—our friends and neighbours—have been doxxed and subjected to racist, discriminatory, and threatening posts. This is unacceptable. Harassment and hate undermine the values we stand for. If we ignore it, we allow it to grow. Enough is enough. Everyone in Clarington deserves to feel safe and welcome. Our community is built on respect, fairness, and inclusion. Each of us has a responsibility to uphold those values. Choose respect over hostility. Speak up when you see hate. Get your facts from a trustworthy source. If you see hate, speak up and report it. Defend the victims. Hate has no home in Clarington."— End of statement. Well, like the good Mayor wishes, I am reporting it right here.At one time, I thought the world of Adrian. Today, after seeing his actions, I call for his resignation. If he refuses to step down, then I call on voters to remove him.Here is a man who does not return phone calls from the region's only in-print newspaper. Why? Because he has proven himself to be a silent "woke" supporter. A small man, full of contempt. He uses the system to attack his opposition because he lacks the substance to argue his position on important issues.This latest statement stems from an exposé involving members of his community allegedly slaughtering wild animals in the name of religion. This sparked an outcry across Durham Region. During an election year, Foster is attempting to grandstand on the backs of real victims while painting the community at large with a broad brush: either conform and accept what others demand, or risk being labeled. No, Mr. Mayor. You are the one promoting division. You are the one escalating tensions by making sweeping statements such as these.The better approach would be to encourage open dialogue and determine where the hostility exists within the community and toward which groups it is directed.Instead, he chooses to paint everyone with a "woke" brush.He has to go. This is the same mayor who, in my opinion, practices corporate discrimination. Once again, instead of unifying the community, he uses the system to justify what I believe is a lack of understanding of corporate realities while using staff as a shield to defend policies that I view as biased. Adrian, I thought the world of you. I always respected you as one of the last good mayors. You let me down.You let the people of your municipality down. What are people supposed to think? You do not even have the character or professional courtesy to return phone calls from your municipality's only in-print newspaper. Shame on you.If this is how you treat your only in-print newspaper, I can only imagine how quickly you respond to the average person looking for guidance.I must have read this release 20 times.Everything that is wrong with society today is reflected in it.Politicians with limited intellect making general assumptions and painting people with a biased brush.Here's a free suggestion: Hold a series of town hall meetings. Talk to the people. Find out why there is so much hostility and determine toward whom or which groups it is directed. Once you identify the source of the conflict, then work toward a remedy.Instead, he attempts to make himself appear caring while issuing what amounts to a warning shot—that if you do not accept whatever the issue may be, you will be labeled and shunned. Shame on you, Mayor.

Canada Day 2026: Unity and Confidence in a Rapidly Changing World

Canada Day 2026: Unity and Confidence in a Rapidly Changing World by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada Day has always been more than a celebration of fireworks, parades, and summer gatherings. It is a moment to reflect on who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going. As Canadians mark the 159th anniversary of Confederation on July 1, 2026, they do so in a world that is becoming increasingly unpredictable and, in many ways, more dangerous. The international order that brought decades of relative peace and prosperity is under strain. Wars continue in Europe and the Middle East. Strategic rivalry between the United States and China is reshaping global trade and diplomacy. Economic nationalism is replacing globalization. Artificial intelligence is transforming industries and societies at a pace few could have imagined only a decade ago. Climate change is imposing enormous costs, while cyber threats and disinformation challenge democratic institutions everywhere. Canadians cannot afford to ignore these realities. Yet neither should we face them with pessimism. Canada possesses the resources, talent, and democratic traditions needed not merely to survive this period of change, but to thrive. Throughout our history, Canadians have demonstrated resilience in the face of adversity. We have overcome economic crises, world wars, and political divisions. We have built one of the world's most successful integrated multicultural societies. Our achievements have never been accidental. They have been the result of compromise, hard work, and a willingness to put the national interest above narrow differences. That spirit is needed again today. The greatest challenge Canada faces may not come from abroad but from within. Regional grievances, economic frustrations, and political polarization threaten to undermine the unity that has long been our greatest strength. Recent discussions surrounding Alberta's future are evidence that many Canadians feel disconnected from Ottawa and frustrated by policies they believe do not reflect their priorities. These concerns should not be dismissed. A strong federation requires listening and mutual respect. Western Canadians, Atlantic Canadians, Quebecers, and Ontarians all bring legitimate perspectives to the national conversation. However, the answer to disagreement cannot be division. Separation would diminish all of us economically, politically, and strategically. Canada's history has always been one of accommodation and compromise. Confederation itself was an exercise in recognizing differences while embracing common interests. Our diversity—regional, linguistic, and cultural—is not a weakness. It is one of the reasons Canada has endured and prospered. Economic renewal must become a national priority. Canadians have reason to be concerned about declining productivity, housing affordability, and rising public debt. Young families struggle to purchase homes. Businesses face regulatory complexity and international competition. Infrastructure requires modernization, and healthcare systems are under increasing pressure. These challenges demand action rather than complacency. Canada must become more competitive, encourage innovation, accelerate infrastructure projects, and remove barriers to interprovincial trade. It makes little sense that products and professional credentials can move more freely across international borders than between some Canadian provinces. A truly united economy is essential to national prosperity. Canada also possesses remarkable strategic advantages. Our reserves of oil, natural gas, hydroelectric power, uranium, and critical minerals place us in an enviable position as the world seeks secure supplies of energy and materials essential to modern technologies. We should develop these resources responsibly, recognizing that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. Artificial intelligence represents another extraordinary opportunity. Canadian researchers helped pioneer the field. With appropriate investment and thoughtful regulation, Canada can become a world leader in the industries that will shape the twenty-first century. However, success will require improving education, supporting research, and preparing workers for a rapidly changing economy. National security must also receive greater attention. The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier but a strategic region attracting growing international interest. Canada's sovereignty cannot be assumed; it must be protected. Modernizing the Canadian Armed Forces, investing in cyber defence, and strengthening critical infrastructure are no longer optional. They are necessities. Generations of Canadians have understood this responsibility. From Vimy Ridge to Juno Beach, from Korea to Afghanistan, Canadians have answered the call to defend freedom and democracy. Their sacrifices remind us that peace and security are never guaranteed. They require vigilance and commitment. For generations, newcomers have enriched our economy, culture, and society. This has become one of our defining characteristics and an important source of national vitality. However, immigration policies must be accompanied by investments in housing, healthcare, infrastructure, and education to ensure that growth remains sustainable and that social cohesion is preserved. Canada's reputation in the world remains strong. We are respected for our commitment to democracy, human rights, and international cooperation. However, respect abroad ultimately depends upon strength and confidence at home. A divided, economically stagnant, or inward-looking Canada cannot effectively influence the world. Perhaps our greatest advantage lies not in our resources or geography, but in the character of Canadians themselves. We are practical people. We value moderation over extremism, compromise over confrontation, and democracy over authoritarianism. We understand that freedom carries responsibilities and that rights are accompanied by obligations. At a time when many societies are becoming increasingly polarized, Canada offers an example of how people of different languages, cultures, religions, and political views can live together under shared institutions and common values. This achievement should never be taken for granted. On this Canada Day, we should celebrate our successes without ignoring our challenges. Patriotism does not mean believing that our country is perfect. It means believing that it is worth improving. It means having confidence in our institutions, faith in our fellow citizens, and optimism about the future. The world is changing rapidly, but the principles that have sustained Canada for nearly 159 years remain unchanged: freedom, democracy, opportunity, mutual respect, and unity. These values carried previous generations through times of uncertainty. They can guide us through the challenges ahead. As Canadians gather with family and friends this July 1, they have every reason to be proud. Not because Canada is flawless, but because it remains one of the most successful democratic experiments in history. In an age marked by instability and division, Canada must stand united, confident, and prepared. That is the true meaning of Canada Day 2026—and that is the promise we owe future generations. Happy Canada Day!

The Changes We Didn't Notice

Dead and Gone… The Changes We Didn't Notice By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how often families are caught off guard by changes that happened long before they noticed them. This seems to happen most often after a long illness or a period of care-giving that lasted for months or years. During that time, people's attention is naturally focused on what is directly in front of them. Appointments need to be attended. Routines need to be maintained. Problems need to be solved. Most families become very good at adapting to whatever the situation requires. What makes this interesting is that change is usually gradual. Very few people wake up one morning and decide they are going to stop travelling, stop seeing friends as often, give up a hobby, or reorganize their schedule around someone else's needs. Most of the time these things happen one adjustment at a time. A trip is postponed, a weekly activity is skipped, a standing lunch gets cancelled, or a routine commitment quietly falls away. None of it feels particularly significant in the moment, nor is it because life has simply rearranged itself. The longer a situation continues, the more normal those changes begin to feel. What started as an adjustment becomes a routine. And what started as a temporary accommodation becomes part of everyday life. With a little time, most people stop noticing the changes altogether because the new version of life no longer feels new. Then eventually the situation changes. At first there are other things requiring attention. Arrangements need to be made, maybe paperwork needs to be completed. Families are focused on all of the immediate concerns, and it is often weeks or months later that people begin noticing something else. A trip that was postponed never happened, a favourite hobby that disappeared was never replaced, good friends who used to stop by regularly have not been seen in years, the regular visit to their favourite restaurant that fell out of the routine. I t will be different for everyone but the common thread is what surprises people is not that these things changed. What surprises them is how completely the changes blended into everyday life while they were happening. I think that realization can be tough to describe because it is rarely attached to a single moment. More often it arrives in pieces. Someone notices an empty Saturday, or the who friend reaches out after a long absence. It can be a conversation that revives an old interest. Whatever it is, it is always gradual before people begin recognizing parts of their lives that had quietly moved into the background. This is not necessarily a sad realization and in most cases it is simply an honest one. The years spent caring for someone mattered more than the adjustments which were made for good reasons. Most families would make the same choices again. But that does not change the fact that life was changing at the same time. What I find most interesting is that people often expect the biggest adjustment to be the loss itself. Quite often they discover that another adjustment has been taking place for years. They simply did not have much reason or time to notice it while they were living through it. The longer I have watched families navigate these transitions, the more I have noticed that people are rarely surprised by what they gave up. More often they are surprised by how much they had gradually set aside before they realized it.

Most Will Make it to Retirement

Most Will Make it to Retirement By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist We know most people will make it to retirement without suffering a major illness but if you are one of the unlucky ones, what happens now? Would you forego 1% of your annual rate of return to eliminate this risk? Sure, you could use your savings or take out a loan to cover the unexpected costs, however, both options will have a significant impact on your retirements plans. If you need to access your registered funds, they are taxed in the year you use them. Accessing those funds prior to retirement is not part of your plan. Pass on that risk to an insurance company. They will take care of the rest with an illness recovery benefit. This is a tax-free lump sum payment to cover any number of unforeseen expenses. No need to submit receipts or to justify the costs. Keep your retirement goals on track If you are diagnosed and survive a major illness like cancer, heart attack, or stroke, you receive an illness recovery benefit payment. This will keep your retirement goals on track. After diagnosis, he/she needs to access 100k from their registered account at age 55 to cover additional costs associated with fighting an unfortunate cancer diagnosis. The impact is significant: Take 1% of your annual rate of return to pay the premium. Your future self and family will be grateful if the worst happens. Safe travel, Happy planning!

Fast Food

Fast Food By Wayne and Tamara I am in a long-distance relationship with a woman, and we see each other nine or ten times a month when she comes to my city for work. We are madly in love with each other and she has made plans to move closer to me. When we met we became lovers first and now are exclusive and serious. However, the problem is she has a lot of old boyfriends, dating buddies, and sex chat friends that still call, email, and text. I have seen messages which ask for sexual favors as if she is a working girl. She says she no longer sex chats with these guys and they are just friends now. I do not believe it. I fear she is going to continue with this sex chatting and see these guys again. She refuses to discuss or explain any more than “you have nothing to worry about.” Yet I worry. What should I do? Colin Colin, let’s assume the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. You walked into her restaurant and realized she has cooked for lots of other men. You found the cooking tasty, but you know many guys might want another one of her meals. You don’t think she is making it clear enough she will no longer cook for them. That is where your minds diverge. You believe she should make it perfectly clear, and she knows if she made it perfectly clear they wouldn’t still be hanging around the restaurant. The hitch is, you are looking for a home cook and that isn’t on her menu. Wayne & Tamara Actions Speak Louder Okay, here is the background. Seven years ago I met my husband when I was pregnant with my daughter. He took on the role of daddy. Three years later I cheated on him with a black man and as a result had a baby. My husband took on the role of daddy to him as well. Today my husband found out I sent a nude picture to the father of my second child, and now I need to apologize to the man I love and who has been through so much in this marriage. He is on the breaking point, and I think he will divorce me. I want my husband to know I am so sorry, I was wrong, and this is never going to happen again. It’s just that this other man has been coming up everywhere, and my husband is so insecure. How do I show my husband I love him so much, and how do I get trust back? Malina Malina, it’s not paranoia when you think someone is out to get you-and someone is actually out to get you. It is not insecurity if you feel you can’t trust someone who has already betrayed you. Two researchers, Mick Rothbart and Bernadette Park, once gave people a list of 150 traits and asked them how many events it would take to establish each trait. They also asked how many events it would take to disprove the trait. Rothbart and Park learned that the hardest trait to establish is trust, and trust is the easiest trait to destroy. There is a reason we despise turncoats, traitors, and embezzlers. Cheating triggers a disgust in us we cannot get past. When the cheater is someone we share our intimate life with, it is especially difficult. The problem with staying with someone who has broken trust is that they are likely to betray us again. Aside from our children, it is usually impossible to reestablish trust in one who has broken it. You don’t need advice on how to keep your husband. You need to understand why you keep doing this. Unless your husband leaves you, you are unlikely to learn this lesson. Until your husband leaves you, his future is unlikely to change. Wayne & Tamara

What Gifford-Jones Said a Decade Ago

What Gifford-Jones Said a Decade Ago Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It has been almost a year since my father penned his final column at the age of 101. To mark the occasion, I offer his own timeless words, this week edited from the forward to his book, 90+ How I Got There! George Bernard Shaw once remarked, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place.” Today the biggest problem with communication in medicine is that it's the wrong communication, delivered to medical consumers with disastrous results. During the latter years of my surgical practice, I began to realize that big pharma had created a culture of "consumer pillitis" wherein every minor problem required a pill. But no mention was made of unintended consequences. This triggered my interest in natural remedies that had stood the test of time. They have not killed anyone. Prescription drugs, on the other hand, have removed 100,000 North Americans from this planet every year. As a medical journalist I've enjoyed the privilege of interviewing international medical authorities. This had a profound influence on my approach to medical matters. And there's no doubt my two lengthy interviews with Dr. Linus Pauling are among the reasons for writing this book. Pauling's views on vitamin C, and those of Dr. Sydney Bush, represent to me the greatest medical achievement since I graduated 65 years ago from the Harvard Medical School. It may have the potential to help mankind as much as, or more than, any other research. But is still collecting dust in the medical community. It's an appalling tragedy as their findings of C's benefits could save countless lives. Voltaire, who spent time in the French prison Bastille one wrote, “It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong.” During my lifetime as a surgeon and medical journalist I learned that Voltaire was right. When my newspaper column tackled controversial medical topics, my popularity with some segments of society and the medical establishment was jeopardized. The written word is dangerous. But as a journalist one should never expect to win a popularity contest. Reporting the facts of medicine is never easy. Multinational companies producing chemical therapies are making billions of dollars supposedly to reduce suffering. But they confuse the public about the cause of heart disease and other medical problems. Sooner or later the truth does emerge. As Winston Churchill wrote, “The truth is inconvertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is." The truth is that we are getting older and living longer. But we all want to live longer well. In this age of degenerative disease, the Gifford-Jones Law states that one bad problem leads to another and another. It's best to avoid them a much as possible. Due to faulty lifestyle decisions, obesity may lead to Type 2 diabetes. Its complications may lead to loss of limbs, blindness and kidney failure. Atherosclerosis due to diabetes may lead to heart attack and sudden death. All may prevent a lengthy and active life. I hope that this book will show how these disasters and other medical pitfalls do not have to happen. They will occur less often if North Americans learn that smart people do at the start of life what fools attempt at the end. Enough said.