Do any of the below factors resonate with you?

Do any of the below factors resonate with you? By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist I hold traditional investments inside my holding/operating company I am looking to diversify my holdings towards an alternative tax advantaged asset class I want to increase the internal rate of return on my estate plan. I want to maximize the Capital Dividend Account balance (corporate IFA). I have an existing permanent insurance plan with cash value and want access today. I want to set up a charitable giving strategy without affecting cash flow. Did you know that you can leverage permanent life insurance policies using immediate financing arrangements? How an IFA works You own contract for a permanent life insurance policy which created significant Cash Surrender Value (CSV) in the policy’s over the years you owned it. The policy is assigned to a Bank as collateral to secure a line of credit. You pay the annual recurring insurance premium. You borrow back up to 100% of the CSV. (Or borrow back the entire premium by providing additional collateral security.) You use the line of credit for investment purposes – for example, to fund an operating business, purchase real estate or invest in a nonregistered investment portfolio. Steps 3-5 are repeated annually. When you pass away, the outstanding loan is repaid out of the death benefit and the remaining proceeds are paid to your beneficiaries. The two most common IFA structure 100% Cash Surrender Value Lending With this strategy, you borrow only 100% of the CSV of a policy each year which is, of course, less than the premium payment. The advantage to this structure is that the CSV of the policy creates a rapidly increasing borrowing capacity over time. The drawback is that there is a significant net funding requirement from you in the early years of the policy. 100% Replacement of Premium With this strategy, you pay the annual premium then provide extra collateral security – in addition to the CSV of the policy – to borrow back 100% of the premiums each year. The advantage of this structure is that you experience only a modest net cash outflow (net annual interest costs) in comparison to the death benefit, which increases the rate of return of the structure. The drawback is the requirement to provide additional collateral security. (However, the additional collateral security requirement may well fall and eventually disappear over time.) To get started with this always contact your Life insurance advisor and review the options that are best suiting your situation. Happy Planning!

Why the Information Doesn’t Always Match

Dead and Gone… Why the Information Doesn’t Always Match By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario Founder, FuneralCostOntario.ca There is a point where things can start to feel a little unclear. Not right at the beginning. Usually after a couple of conversations. After a few explanations. After some numbers have been mentioned. You start hearing similar things. But somehow they don’t quite land the same. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this happens more often than people expect. One place explains things one way. Another explains them differently. One estimate might seem shorter. Another… feels like there’s more there, even if it’s not obvious why. One conversation feels easier to follow. Another leaves people a bit unsure, even if they can’t quite put their finger on it. And quietly, a question starts to build. “Are we actually comparing the same thing?” I have seen families reach that point. Not because anyone has done anything wrong. And not because the family isn’t paying attention. It’s just hard to take in unfamiliar information when so much else is already sitting on your shoulders. Sometimes something looks lower at first. Later, the picture shifts a bit. Sometimes something feels more expensive. Then it turns out more was included from the start. That isn’t always easy to see in the moment. Usually it isn’t. It often becomes clearer later. After people have stepped away. After they’ve had a chance to talk it through a bit. After they’ve looked at things again with a little more breathing room. If I were gone, I would want my family to give themselves that space. Not to overthink everything. Just to let it settle. Because this is the kind of situation where understanding tends to come in pieces. Not all at once. There is another part of this that matters too. How something is explained can shape how it feels. A shorter explanation can feel simpler. A longer explanation can feel like more. But those impressions don’t always tell the full story. If I could leave one quiet thought, it would be this: It’s okay not to fully understand everything the first time. It’s okay if you need to hear it again. It’s okay to ask the same question a second time. Clarity comes that way sometimes. Slowly. And that’s enough. Next week, I will write about something many families find themselves trying to do at this stage: compare options without feeling overwhelmed by them.

Anger Is Its Own Illness

Anger Is Its Own Illness Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones “He preaches patience that never knew pain.” That line has been around for more than a century, and it still holds up. Spend time around people who are struggling, and you see why. Some are not just discouraged. They are angry. Angry at their health, at the system, at the people around them, and at life itself. Chronic disease changes everything. Diabetes can lead to amputation of a leg, sometimes both of them. Cancer brings fear and uncertainty. Arthritis limits movement and pain becomes a permanent companion. Others are trapped in situations that are just as damaging – abusive relationships, financial stress, or a system that promises support but delivers nothing of it. It doesn’t take much for frustration to turn into anger. But anger carries a very large cost. Research has shown that chronic anger raises blood pressure, increases stress hormones, and raises the risk of heart disease. It also worsens sleep and can make pain feel more intense. In short, it adds another layer of trouble to people who already have enough to deal with. I knew a man who lived this way. He was angry at everything. Conversations with him went in one direction. Nothing worked. No one was doing enough. Life had treated him unfairly, and he was not going to let it go. Then he had a stroke. Afterward, something changed. He was calmer. Less reactive. The anger that had defined him was no longer there. Doctors reported that the brain controls more than movement and speech. It also regulates emotion. When it is injured, behaviour can change. Neurologists have reported both increased irritability and, in some cases, a reduction in long-standing anger. But most people are not going to have a stroke that resets their outlook. There is growing evidence that certain practices can shift the brain’s patterns over time. Research in neuroscience is showing that even as we age, the brain is not fixed. It doesn’t stop adapting at some particular age. It can continue to be stimulated or exercised in ways that rewire certain circuits. Cognitive behavioural therapy, for example, teaches people to examine the thoughts that drive anger and disrupt entrenched patterns of thought. Mindfulness training helps create a mental pause before reacting. Exercise reduces tension and improves mood. These are not quick fixes, but they are supported by research. Still, many people resist. They feel their anger is justified. But being justified does not make it useful. So what do you say to someone who is angry with life? Telling someone to “stay positive” may not be a helpful message to people who are not yet able to appreciate the intention of the words. When consumed in anger, people perceive even olive branches as kindling to light a bigger fire. But there is a question worth asking. That is, is the anger helping? And it’s best to find the right person to delve into that discussion. Who is able to open and sustain a wholesome discussion about wellbeing? It might not be the most obvious candidate. But the point is to note that if the status quo does not involve good sleep, health, or relationships, then it may be time to try something else. This is not to deny the issues or pretend things are fine. But the goal is to reduce the cost of carrying that anger every day. And time is not always on side with these matters. Managing life’s challenges can be difficult enough on their own. Don’t make them even harder by just waiting for change. Make it happen.

From Ashes

From Ashes By Wayne and Tamara My life has been a disaster. My father was a legendary drunk who lied, chased women, and left us penniless when he died at age 48. My mother was hooked on prescription pills, smoked like a chimney, and was miserable until she passed. My sister is alcoholic and will probably die drunk. I managed to get a master’s degree and some successes, but typically in relationships I lose myself and the rest of my life crashes and burns. I’ve been so codependent in the past I lost a job by trying to please a woman. Then, of course, she left because I didn’t have a job! I suppose I have to laugh about that. I had some problems with booze also, but I haven’t drunk in 12 years. Here is something you wrote which definitely applies to me: “The effects on children of living with an alcoholic are well known. These include depression, inability to form close relationships, relentless self-criticism, inability to complete projects, and constant approval seeking. Children growing up in a household with an alcoholic are damaged children.” I am resilient and keep going, trying to live a spiritual life, but sometimes feel like giving up. I married a beautiful but materialistic woman who committed adultery with a wealthy man, stole my money, and left after she put a curse on me with a chicken egg. No, I’m not kidding. I obviously made a bad decision. I didn’t drink a drop through all this, but now I have little hope for the future. It could be a lot worse. I have little money, but at least I have no alimony or child support payments. I am physically healthy, and I have a good job. My question is: what hope is there for us damaged folk? I’ve made a ton of progress from where I was 20 years ago, but I am afraid to do anything now lest some unknown character defect, caused by my childhood, ambush my thinking and cause me more pain in the future. I have become the poster boy for caution. Clint Clint, the children of alcoholics live in their own levels of Dante’s hell. Their life begins, as the poet said, in a place “savage, rough, and stern, which in the very thought renews the fear.” The worst thing about such families is that they take away the passion for life. But that passion can be restored. Don’t take where you are now as a bad thing. Count yourself lucky. You are a newborn. You are at a perfect starting point. You have your health, you are not drinking, you have a job. Through some hard knocks, you know your weaknesses. You are ready to begin. The well-lived life is full of adventures. It involves learning skills, reading books, taking hot air balloon rides, rebuilding motors, and learning to fly fish. It includes things no one can ever take from you. Think of what you want to accomplish for yourself and fill your own well. When your well is filled, you will have a sense of: look at what is all happening for me. Rediscovering your passions and putting yourself in the way of things brings you in contact with people who are alive. Surround yourself with others whose flame burns bright. Go to them, not to steal their fire, but to inspire you. Go on a retreat, join a gym, begin tai chi, find a therapist, or just relax. Explore. “We want the world and we want it…Now!” says a song by the Doors. But it doesn’t happen now. It happens by degrees, and one day we wake up and bad memories are like dead dates in a history book. They have no emotional charge. Then, instead of desperately searching for someone, instead of being attracted by a female’s facade, you will find the kindred flame that also burns within you. Wayne & Tamara

Canada Is Running Out of the People Who Keep It Going

Canada Is Running Out of the People Who Keep It Going By Dale Jodoin Columnist Try to find a family doctor in parts of Canada. Try to book a plumber when a pipe bursts. Try to get an electrician. More people are hearing the same answer. Not today. Not this week. Maybe next month. It is a warning. Something is shifting across the country, and people can feel it. Canada is getting older. Large numbers of workers are retiring. Fewer young people are stepping into many of the jobs that keep daily life moving. In some areas, there are not enough people to replace those who are leaving. That matters more than many Canadians may realize. This is not about office jobs or distant policy. It reaches into hospitals, job sites, farms, schools, care homes, and small towns. It reaches into the places people depend on every day. For years, Canada has relied on growth to stay stable. More workers supported more retirees. More families kept schools open. More people paying taxes helped keep public services running. That balance was never perfect, but it helped the country move forward. Now that balance is under strain. Across Canada, skilled workers are reaching retirement age. Doctors are leaving. Nurses are stepping away or burning out. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, truck drivers, and many others are ending long careers. These are not jobs you can fill quickly. Many take years to learn and even longer to do well. Canada did not prepare enough for this shift. The numbers are clear. Nearly one in five Canadians is now over the age of 65, and that share continues to grow. At the same time, job vacancy rates in key sectors like healthcare and construction remain high across the country. That gap is not closing on its own. For a long time, young people were pushed toward one idea of success. Get a degree. Work at a desk. There is nothing wrong with that path, but somewhere along the way this country stopped showing enough respect for skilled trades and hands on work. Too many young people were never told these jobs matter and are worth choosing. Now we are paying for that mistake. When there are not enough nurses, patients wait longer. When there are not enough tradespeople, housing projects slow down. When there are not enough truck drivers, goods take longer to arrive. When there are not enough care workers, seniors and families carry more of the burden. People are living it now. The problem grows when cities and provinces compete for the same shrinking pool of workers. One area offers money to bring in doctors. Another raises wages to pull nurses from somewhere else. Some even pay to move people across the country. It looks like action, but it does not solve the real problem. There are only so many trained professionals available. If one city pulls a doctor from another, Canada did not gain a new doctor. It just moved the shortage. That is not growth. It is a shuffle. While communities compete, the pool keeps shrinking. Canada needs people. In practical, everyday ways. We need workers who can build, care, repair, grow food, drive trucks, open businesses, and raise families. We need people who will step into roles that are already sitting empty. Without newcomers, the slowdown will move faster. If more people leave work than enter it, the country weakens. Fewer workers means less tax coming in. It means more pressure on healthcare and pensions. It means more strain on those still working. It means fewer services and rising costs. There is also a reason Canada still depends on temporary foreign workers. Programs like the Temporary Foreign Worker Program help fill jobs that would otherwise go unfilled. On farms, workers help harvest crops that would be lost without enough hands. In care homes, they support seniors where staffing is already stretched thin. These are not jobs being taken from Canadians in many cases. These are jobs that are open and waiting. Without temporary workers, some businesses would close and some services would slow down even more. That does not mean the system is perfect. Workers must be treated fairly and paid properly. But removing this workforce without replacing it would make a bad situation worse. Canada needs balance. We need to train young people for the jobs the country actually needs. We need to bring respect back to trades, healthcare, and practical work that keeps daily life moving. Schools need to show kids these paths matter. Communities need to value work that is hard and done with the hands. At the same time, we need newcomers and temporary workers to help fill the gaps while the country rebuilds its strength. This is not about blame. It is about reality. This is about whether you can get care when you are sick. Whether your home can be repaired. Whether food gets grown, delivered, and sold. Whether a town can keep its clinic open. Whether businesses can stay open. This is not fiction. This is real life. It is what our country needs if it wants to grow and even hold its ground. People remember a Canada that felt steadier and easier to trust, but that world is gone. The country we have now needs people, skills, planning, and honesty. If we ignore that, the slow decline already starting will not stop. It will become normal, and by then Canada will be in deeper trouble than many expect.

Tailor Your Answers to the Employer’s Needs

Tailor Your Answers to the Employer’s Needs By Nick Kossovan Employers don't care about your past; they care about their future. Yet most candidates walk into an interview prepared to recite their career history (read: water under the bridge) as if it were a biopic. They then wait for questions that'll give them a chance to explain why they're the right candidate for the job. When those questions aren't asked, which is very likely, they feel they didn't adequately convey their suitability for the job. Waiting and hoping your interviewer recognizes your value isn't a viable strategy; it's a gamble with very low odds. Savvy job seekers don't just answer questions; they manage the interview. They don't see the interviewer's inexperience, vagueness, or unpreparedness as obstacles; rather, they see them as opportunities to steer the interview towards their value-add. They also understand that interviews are sales meetings, and it's their job to convince the employer that hiring them would be a good investment. Every interaction with an employer, whether through your resume, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, or especially during interviews, is your chance to show that you understand their business and how you can contribute to their profitability. Based on my experience, the majority of those who conduct hiring interviews do so as an appendage to their core responsibilities. Unless you're speaking with a full-time recruiter or HR, the person across from you is likely your future boss, who has a mountain of other responsibilities. Inevitably, there'll be times when your interview will be an interruption to your interviewer's workday, which, if it's filled with 'goings on', they'll have their head elsewhere. I've conducted many less-than-ideal interviews sandwiched between meetings, 'putting out fires,' or while dwelling on pressing matters. This lack of focus is precisely why your interviewer may not have read your resume, may not remember reading it, and may ask vague, unstructured questions. When an interview starts to feel messy, your initial reaction might be to think, "This isn't going well!" However, a messy interview is an excellent opportunity to sell yourself. Remember, an interview is a sales meeting. Don't wait for perfect questions; instead, subtly guide your interviewer. Tailor your answers to show you'd be a value-add to the employer's profitability. · Weak Question: "So… tell me about your experience." · Tailored Answer: "I've spent fifteen years in operations, but to make this most useful for you, I'll focus on the parts most relevant to this role—specifically where I've led teams through high-pressure execution challenges and reduced overhead by 20%." · Why it works: You're setting the direction. Rather than giving a long, unfocused history of your career, as most candidates do, you're presenting your skills and experience according to the job's requirements. · Weak Question: "Tell me about a challenge you faced." · Tailored Answer: "I'll use an example where a delivery was off-track, and the client was at risk. Since this role requires managing complex vendor relationships, this will show you how I navigate friction points." · Why it works: You've tailored your answer to their needs. You're not just telling a story; you're illustrating your value. · Weak Question: "What is your greatest strength?" · Tailored Answer: "My strongest skill is identifying operational bottlenecks before they hit the P&L. For Vandelay Industries, which is scaling quickly, this means I can ensure your growth doesn't outpace your infrastructure." · Why it works: You've turned a personality trait into a business asset. · Weak Question: "Where do you see yourself in five years?" · Tailored Answer: "In five years, I plan to have mastered this market segment. But more importantly, in the first six months here, I intend to have your new regional office operating at full capacity so that the five-year goals we set are starting to be visibly accomplished." · Why it works: You've brought a hypothetical future back to you, being a hire that'll offer an immediate ROI. You're also telling them you're focused on their five-year plan, not just yours. · Weak Question: "Why should we hire you instead of someone else?" · Tailored Answer: "I'm not here just to do a job. I'm here to take on your challenges. This job appealed to me because of your recent expansion into the Toronto market. I have the specific vendor contacts and local regulatory experience that would enable me to shave three months off your rollout time." · Why it works: You've moved from "I'm a hard worker," which every candidate claims to be, to "I am a strategic partner who can provide an advantage." Guiding your interviewer, if necessary, isn't about taking control or appearing boastful. Instead, it's about helping them easily recognize your value. The more specific and relevant your responses are to the value you delivered to your previous employers, the less effort your interviewer needs to assess your value. The quality of your answers (read: their influence on your interviewer) is measured not by how long you talk, but by how effectively you communicate that you can influence the employer's profitability. When your interviewer appears disengaged or seems to be struggling, don't get frustrated. Instead, do your best to provide answers that'll help them see you have the skills, experience, and drive to influence profitability.

“You Don’t Get to Rewrite History — Especially When I Was There”

There’s a line in public life you don’t cross. Not policy. Not politics. History. Because when you start rewriting history to suit a narrative, you’re not leading anymore — you’re managing perception. And in Clarington, that’s exactly what’s happening. Let’s Be Very Clear — I Was There I’m not commenting from the outside. I was: - The Regional Councillor when the Clarington Board of Trade was created - The Mayor of Clarington who worked directly with it So when I hear statements that don’t align with reality — I’m not guessing. I’m correcting the record. The Claim That Needs to Be Shut Down The suggestion that the Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce was offered the opportunity to provide these services is not just misleading. It’s false. And Now It’s Being Repeated Public commentary has suggested this was a competitive or open opportunity. That did not occur. Not formally. Not informally. Not procedurally. What Actually Happened Under the previous council — including Mayor Diane Hamre: - The Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce was not recognized as representing Clarington businesses - They were not permitted to be referenced in Council chambers in that capacity How the Board of Trade Was Actually Created - Clarington lost its Economic Development Officer - A Mayor’s Task Force was struck - CAO Bill Stockwell stated: “Business sells to business better than government sells to business.” We created the Board of Trade as a targeted tool. Its first Chair was Mike Patrick of the Bowmanville Foundry — a respected business owner who was chosen for a reason, not by accident. Another Myth When I became Mayor: - I recognized the Chamber’s support for nuclear projects - But I never opened the door for them to replace the Board of Trade The model was already working. What the Board of Trade Was Meant to Do - Business Retention - Business-to-Business Engagement The Current Model Works - Board of Trade = retention - Municipality = growth This Is About Accountability This isn’t about opinion. It’s about record. If a statement is made publicly — by anyone, including the current mayor — that contradicts how decisions were actually made… It deserves to be corrected. Factually. Final Reality Check The Board of Trade: - Was created intentionally - Was not the result of an open competition - Has a defined role I have no issue with it. Mr. X Takeaway Accountability starts with the truth. And the truth doesn’t change just because the narrative does.

FAZIO - THE LEGEND DIES… WHO WILL BE NEXT?

FAZIO - THE LEGEND DIES... WHO WILL BE NEXT? By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States It is a sign of the times. One after another local downtown businesses closing. Just recently it was announced that the famous ‘Fazio’s’, subsequently ‘The Legend of Fazio’, had it’s last serving. Once a mighty hot spot. A hub for politicos, society butterflies and the like. It was a place to be seen. This was during the good times of our core. Today our core looks and feels more like a battle ground than a welcoming place. Riddled with pot shops, questionable entities. I have seen administrations come and go. I can tell you first hand. Municipal government have become ineffective. Made up of people that only care about either pensions, pension cushioning and or the un-employable that got lucky during an election. We do not have leaders... we have opportunists. As a local long standing business man and consultant based downtown. I can tell you that the decay of our core is the responsibility of the two elected downtown core council members. Neither of them have any business experience. Neither of them ever had a business in the core. Then how are we the taxpayers expecting them to know what is needed for the success of the core. I tried working with Rick Kerr, I offered my experience and connections in the core. He only came in once. When I spoke with him it was like i was speakings some foreign language. The other local elected scoundrel... could or will never be hired by anyone to hold a position of responsibility as that of which he has been elected. So what is he doing representing the downtown business community? He has never once visited my office as his local media and city newspaper. Instead this character, has attacked my local business and other downtown businesses. He has been known to waste tax payers dollars and resources on political vendettas hearings. In my opinion a punk with luck. I can’t understand how voters allowed him a second term. I know that if I was in office. My frist thing would be to meet with all the local downtown businesses and land owners. Come up with special constituency plans addressing rents. The core will only come to life is we drop rental rates. Create parking and rid of the crime. I would assure that all downtown merchants received special hydro/gas cut rates. We can’t expect change with punks and dream catcher at the helm. I surely ask all reading this that during the 2026 we get rid of the deadwood and bring in some real business leadership.

We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports?

We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports? by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In the Greater Toronto Area, few debates have been as intense—or as politically charged—as the future of farmland and green space around Rouge National Urban Park. For years, governments, environmental advocates and local communities have contested every hectare. The objective is clear: protect prime agricultural land, preserve ecosystems and manage the pressures of relentless urban expansion. Now, with the federal government stepping away from the long-proposed Pickering airport on lands held for decades by Transport Canada, the debate has entered a new phase. Thousands of acres of publicly owned farmland—adjacent to Rouge Park—are once again open to policy decisions. What should be done with them? It is an important question. But it is also an incomplete one. Because while we scrutinize every acre of public land in Rouge and Pickering, we continue to ignore a far larger reality—one that sits in plain sight across Durham Region and the eastern GTA. Golf courses. The land we choose not to see In Durham Region alone, golf courses occupy an estimated eight to 10 square kilometres of land. That is not a marginal figure. It is comparable to the footprint of Vancouver International Airport and not insignificant relative to Calgary International Airport or Edmonton International Airport. If a proposal were brought forward today to build an airport of that size on prime land in the GTA, it would trigger years of environmental assessments, legal challenges and public consultations. Yet that same scale of land already exists—distributed across golf courses—and it is almost entirely absent from serious policy discussion. This is not an oversight. It is a contradiction. A double standard The case for protecting Rouge Park and the Pickering lands rests on the value of Class 1 farmland—some of the most productive soil in Canada. This is a compelling argument. Food security, climate resilience and long-term economic sustainability depend on preserving such land. However, many golf courses sit on the same class of land. They are often former farms, converted over time into low-density recreational spaces serving a relatively small portion of the population. They occupy large, contiguous tracts—exactly the kind of land policymakers now argue is too valuable to lose. Yet, unlike farmland, golf courses are rarely subjected to the same scrutiny or policy pressure. If the principle is that prime land must be protected for the public good, it cannot be applied selectively. The Pickering paradox The cancellation of the Pickering airport proposal has created a rare opportunity. For decades, these federally owned lands were effectively frozen, reserved for infrastructure that never came. Now, they can be reimagined. Some argue they should remain entirely agricultural. Others propose integrating them into Rouge Park. Still others see an opportunity for carefully planned development to address the region’s housing shortage. All of these positions are valid. However, they also reveal a deeper inconsistency. We are prepared to debate publicly owned farmland hectare by hectare, while ignoring privately held land of comparable scale that could offer greater flexibility. It is as if one category of land is considered strategic, while another is simply beyond discussion. Housing and hard choices The GTA’s housing shortage is no longer theoretical. Governments are under pressure to increase supply, accelerate approvals and identify land for development. At the same time, there is strong resistance—rightly so—to building on protected farmland or environmentally sensitive areas. This is where the silence around golf courses becomes consequential. These lands are: · already cleared and serviced · often located near existing infrastructure · large enough to support meaningful development Even partial repurposing—10 to 20 per cent of golf course land—could support tens of thousands of housing units across the region, while preserving recreational use. This is not about eliminating golf. It is about acknowledging that land use must evolve. Why the silence persists The answer is straightforward. Golf courses are politically comfortable. They are established, familiar and rarely controversial. They do not generate the same level of opposition as new development or infrastructure projects. In short, they are easy to ignore. However, good policy is not about avoiding difficult conversations. It is about confronting them—especially when they involve trade-offs of this magnitude. A question of fairness Public lands like Rouge Park and the Pickering lands are subject to intense scrutiny because they are meant to serve the broader public interest. Their use must be justified in terms of environmental value, agricultural productivity or public access.Golf courses, by contrast, are typically: · privately owned or membership-based · accessible to a limited segment of the population · maintained with significant resource inputs This is not an argument against golf. It is an argument for consistency. If one category of land must justify its use in terms of public benefit, then all categories should be held to a comparable standard. Time for a coherent strategy The real issue is not golf courses—or even the Pickering lands.It is the absence of a coherent, region-wide land-use strategy. What we have instead is fragmentation: · intense scrutiny of public land · relative silence on large private land uses · reactive decisions driven by pressure rather than planning A serious strategy would apply consistent criteria across all land uses, evaluate them based on long-term public benefit and explore multi-use models that integrate recreation, housing and green space. The broader test The debate over Rouge Park and the Pickering lands is necessary. However, its credibility depends on its scope. If we are willing to scrutinize public farmland hectare by hectare, we must also be willing to examine other large-scale land uses with equal rigour. Because in a region where land is finite and growth is inevitable, what we choose not to debate matters just as much as what we do. And silence, in this case, is not neutrality. It is a policy choice.

How Do You Choose Who to Call?

Dead and Gone… How Do You Choose Who to Call? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a moment that comes sooner than most people expect. It doesn’t feel like a big decision at first. But it is. Someone asks a simple question. “Who should we call?” If I were gone, I think this is the moment I would worry about more than most. Not because it is complicated. But because it happens before everything has settled. A name is suggested. Sometimes by a hospital. Sometimes by a care home. Sometimes by someone who has been through this before. “Just call here.” And in that moment, it can feel easier to follow that path. Not because it has been thought through. But because it is something to hold onto. I have seen families move forward with that first call without realizing they could pause. Not because anyone rushed them. But because everything has already started to move. If I were gone, I would want my family to know something simple. They can take a moment. Even here. Even now. They can ask each other, quietly, “Do we want to speak to one or two places before deciding?” That question does not change everything. But it changes enough. Because once that first call is made, things begin to take shape. Conversations narrow. Options become less visible. And stepping back becomes harder than it was at the beginning. Not impossible. Just harder. There is another part of this that families often notice later. The first conversation stays with them. Not always the details. But how it felt. Whether things were clear. Whether they felt comfortable asking questions. Whether they felt like they needed to keep up. Those things are not always obvious in the moment. But they matter more than people expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to pay attention to that feeling. Because it will follow them through everything that comes next. If I could leave one quiet reminder, it would be this: You don’t have to move faster than you’re ready to. Even when everything around you has already begun. Next week, I will write about something families often notice once they begin speaking with more than one place: why the information they receive can look very different, even when the services being considered are nearly the same.

Death & taxes and how do es it Mix?

Death & taxes and how do es it Mix? By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist It is often said that only two things in life are certain: death and taxes. What is less commonly understood is how closely the two are linked. In Canada, a deceased taxpayer’s assets are treated as if they were sold at their fair market value (FMV). For high-net-worth Canadians, this deemed disposition can mean that taxes owing at death can reach into the millions of dollars. Without proactive planning, these liabilities can reduce the wealth passed to family members, beneficiaries disrupt businesses and force the sale of cherished assets. You and financial advisors should be reviewing your wealth transfer strategies and overview of the tax implications that arise upon death in Canada, This review should be done a minimum once a year and highlights planning strategies that can help reduce or defer taxes. Considerations should be given to TAXES AT DEATH The executor’s role and why advisors matter TAX TREATMENT OF ASSETS AT DEATH for Non-registered investments Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) Pension plans Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) First Home Savings Account (FHSA) Real estate personal and investment Private company shares Corporation ownerships A continue review will make the transfer and transition of your financial affair easier and much cost effective for your family

WRONG EXAMPLE

WRONG EXAMPLE By Wayne and Tamara I think I'm in a tight spot. My older brother is married with two young children. He was caught having a little Internet fling a few years ago. Nothing happened, but I suppose the correct way of putting it is he emotionally cheated. He felt like crud, and we all thought he had put this behind him. He and his wife have been to counseling, and he did his best to be the best husband ever. Currently they're tense whenever they are together. You can cut the air with a knife, and it seems they are always ready to snap at each other. It's not easy to be around them. My brother and I went to lunch today. Lately he's been constantly texting on his device, and today it lit up with a text. I glanced at what he was typing, thinking it was business. I saw him type, "So u say u like to role play. Tell me…" I stopped and looked at the ground. I got a sick feeling in my stomach. So now, what do I do? I really don't think he was texting his wife. They're not sexual or warm toward one another, and even if they were, he would know her likes by now, right? It's a new girl. Got to be. Do I tell my fiancée, who is friends with my sister-in-law? Dennis Dennis, will you share your thoughts and events of the day with your life partner? Or will you compartmentalize what you say to her? Your brother's marriage has reached a point where he is leading a second life away from his wife. That's not because it doesn’t concern her, but because he has become a double agent. Such a divide is always present with two people who don't belong together. You know what is right in a relationship. You saw a wrong happen, and you are affected by it. Your fiancée is also likely to be affected by it. By all means share what you saw. With her you want the closeness, love, and trust which is missing from your brother's marriage. Wayne & Tamara Sticks And Stones I am newly remarried and recently my husband compared a part of my body to his ex-wife, who I will call X. We were fooling around, and he grabbed my breast and said, "Nice, but X's are bigger." I freaked. I flipped him out of his chair, kicked him, and pushed him down the hallway, hitting and screaming at him. Last time I had that much anger and acted like that, I was in my 20s, angry at my first husband, and alcohol was involved. I feel bad I hit him and have made an appointment for counseling. My husband has apologized, but now I am thinking he must still be thinking of his ex, since he mentioned her body parts like that. I was not previously jealous, but now I am. He has to maintain a relationship with her as they have a young child together. I am attractive, and she is fat and not very pretty. Should I just drop this? Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing. Staci Staci, the old line about sticks and stones is false. Words do hurt, especially from a loved one. The real story is your feelings toward his ex-wife. In marrying him, you became her hostage. She is a cash and time drain on your marriage. Their child is a reminder of their sexual relationship. Even though you both have a past, you have to wonder, what did he do with her? How do I compare? The issue to explore in counseling is the basis of your gut reaction. Love, not looks, is the real basis for comparison with the ex-wife. If you and your husband share the deep emotional connection which holds two people together, there is nothing to worry about. Wayne & Tamara

The Right Attitude Helps with a Fractured Hip

The Right Attitude Helps with a Fractured Hip Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones No one wants to get that call. A loved one has taken a fall. There’s always the hope that it will be just a bruise and shaken confidence. But when the ensuing emergency treatment confirms a fractured hip, it’s time for everyone to bring out their best skills in patience. Falls are, unfortunately, very common. But their consequences are anything but trivial. Research published in journals such as the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the New England Journal of Medicine has long shown that a hip fracture in later life is no walk in the park. Yet, the major risks associated with hip fractures are well known, and medical teams are trained to mitigate the ones that can cause problems while in the hospital. Hip fracture surgery has risks, but today, most people come through it. Roughly four in five older adults survive the year following a hip fracture. Few will return to their previous level of mobility and independence. But a hip fracture today is not what it was forty years ago. Dr. Mary Tinetti, Professor of Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, has spent a career studying why people fall. One of her observations is that it is often the more active, capable older adult who sustains the most serious injuries. They move more quickly, take more chances, and neglect preventative measures. Falling, she argues, is rarely due to a single cause. It is the result of small changes accumulating over time. Vision becomes less reliable. Balance is easily lost. Medications interact. Muscles lose strength. Some falls are preventable. The edges of rugs are a hazard, as is poor lighting. Showers, even with grab bars, are slippery places. Preventing a fall means slowing down so that every movement is a safe and steady one. But even with care, falls still happen. The evidence of many studies shows that frailty, rather than age, is the key determinant of rehabilitation outcomes. So whether before, for prevention, or after a fall, for recovery, exercise is critical. That’s why physiotherapy is standard practice for post-operative treatment. At any age, but particularly after 50, experts agree that people should be engaged in resistance training 2-3 days a week, aerobic exercise at least 3 times a week, and balance training just as frequently. Having professional physiotherapists to guide a program of exercise is ideal. Left to their own devices, people fail to do what’s good for them. In the U.S., large-scale surveys show that even after encouragement, about 80 percent of people don’t meet the guidelines. Getting started isn’t hard. Experts say that standing on one foot, then the other, while doing the dishes is one place to start. Slowly standing and sitting without using the arms is another good exercise. But here’s interesting news. In a longitudinal study of nearly 700 people who experienced a fall, researchers found that mindset matters. Independent of other important factors such as age, gender, and pre-fall physical function, people with positive self-perceptions of aging had significantly better outcomes as measured two years after their fall. In sports psychology, there is an expression, “The body achieves what the mind believes.” Athletes understand. Kids too. It’s just the older set that needs to internalize this. So patience, but resolve, if you are the unlucky victim of a fractured hip. It’s a long road to recovery, but with careful and consistent exercise, and a healthy outlook, you can ensure your place in the group of people who come through the trauma.

Not Getting Hired Doesn’t Prove Hiring is Broken

Not Getting Hired Doesn’t Prove Hiring is Broken By Nick Kossovan If I had a nickel for every time a job seeker told me, "I'm doing everything right! Why am I not getting hired?" I'd be writing this column from a Southern California beachfront house. Most job seekers aren't doing everything right. They're doing what's comfortable and easy, and what self-proclaimed career coaches tell them to do. I find many job seekers treat their job search like a hobby, something they tinker with when the mood strikes, usually between scrolling through social media and complaining that the hiring system is "broken." Clarification that a "hiring system" doesn't exist: No two employers assess candidates the same way, so there's no universal hiring system. Individual employers design their hiring processes according to what they feel is in their best interests, which is for them, not the job seeker, to determine. Especially in today's job market, "doing everything right" means meeting the demanding expectations of an employer whose keen business acumen considers employees as human capital investments and expects every hire to add value to their business that justifies their compensation. If you aren't getting hired, it's not because the mythical hiring system is broken; it's because you aren't positioning yourself as someone an employer needs to maintain, ideally increase, their profitability. To protect their egos, job seekers complain that employers don't know how to hire. By blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their lack of success in their job search, they're telling themselves (read: their ego) that it's not their fault; it's the recruiter's, the employer's ATS, or [whatever]. The "it's broken" excuse is a sedative for the unsuccessful. Ponder this: The likelihood of a high school football player making it to the NFL is about 0.2%. For hockey players aspiring to the NHL, it's about 0.11%. Do you hear the thousands of athletes who don't make the cut, screaming that the scouting and drafting system is broken? Professional sports teams are successfully filling their rosters with elite athletic talent. The system works for the NFL and NHL; it just doesn't work for those who weren't fast or strong enough to be drafted. Imagine the stress and pressure of trying to secure a surgical residency or being selected for a major airline pilot training program. In both cases, the application and selection process is intense, resulting in the majority of applicants being rejected. Is the selection process for a neurosurgeon "broken" because a straight-A medical student didn't get selected by their first-choice hospital? No, not at all. The application and selection process is designed specifically to select only the "best of the best." As we delve deeper into 2026, AI is constantly moving the goalposts. AI isn't just a tool anymore; it's a viable alternative to back-office functions. In tech and white-collar sectors, entry-level roles once considered "safe" are being automated. Increasingly, human roles are reserved for those able to deliver a healthy ROI on their compensation investment that, for now, machines are unable to match. Job seekers who are searching for a job by the "traditional rules" are the ones who aren't getting traction. I see this often: recent graduates with impressive academic credentials wondering why their inbox is empty. They did what they were told to do, but they neglected to develop real-world skills through internships, side projects, and informational conversations. Conversely, experienced professionals are struggling because they're failing to adapt their career story to a job market that prizes agility and digital fluency over decades of "doing things the old way." Given that employers are hiring great candidates every day, job seekers need to ask themselves: What are successful job seekers doing right? · Networking over Applying: They go beyond simply submitting their résumé. In a world of AI-generated applications, human connection is the only thing that scales. They create, maintain and leverage professional relationships to bypass digital gatekeepers. · Proving their value with Data: They don't merely claim to "manage a team"; they specify the exact cost savings, or efficiency gains they achieved for their employer. · Lifelong Skill Development: They prioritize acquiring knowledge and skills, knowing, for example, that if they don't become proficient with AI collaboration tools, they'll become obsolete. Resisting how employers choose to hire for their business is a monumental waste of energy. It's their business, their turf, and they're taking on the hiring risks. You don't have to like that they use AI filters, demand six rounds of interviews, or prioritize "cultural fit," but you do have to adapt to the new world order. As I pointed out, hiring processes differ from employer to employer, so there's no universal hiring system that's broken. However, universally, employers don't care whether you believe or are being told you're doing "everything right." Employers only care whether you'll create value for their business that's worth paying for. The takeaway: Not getting hired isn't evidence that an employer's hiring process is "broken." As an outsider, you have no visibility into what goes on inside. However, it's safe to assume an employer would fix their hiring process if they were concerned it wasn't attracting the candidates they need to maintain and increase their profitability.

The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock

The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock By Dale Jodoin Columnist It did not happen all at once. No one woke up and said, “That’s it, I don’t care anymore.” It came in small moments, quiet ones, the kind you almost miss. Like standing at the grocery checkout. The screen lights up. It asks for a donation. You pause. You think. You look at your cart like it might answer for you. Then you press “no.” Not fast. Not angry. Just tired. You glance around for a second after, like someone might have seen. No one did. Or maybe they did and just understood. That is where the story really starts. A few years ago, most of us would have said yes. A dollar. Five dollars. Maybe more if we could. It felt like part of who we were. You help where you can. You do your part. That part of us is still here. But life has changed. Walk through any store now. People are not browsing. They are calculating. You see it in their faces. They pick something up, check the price, then put it back. A man holds two packs of meat. He only takes one. A woman counts coins before she taps her card. A young worker checks his bank app before he pays. No one says a word. But everyone understands. Money is tighter than it has been in a long time. Food costs keep rising. Every week it feels higher. Rent keeps climbing too. For many people, it is not just hard, it is overwhelming. You pay it, and there is not much left. Young people feel it the most. They are trying to start their lives, but it feels like the ground keeps moving. Jobs are harder to find. Good jobs feel out of reach. Some move back home. Some take whatever they can get. Some just keep trying and hoping something opens up. And in the middle of all this, the tasks keep coming. Charities call. Emails pile up. Ads show up online. The bank asks. The store asks. There is always another cause, another need, another voice asking for help. At first, people try to keep up. They give a little here, a little there. They tell themselves it still matters. Then reality hits. A bigger grocery bill than last week. A rent increase. A payment that suddenly hurts more than it used to. That is when something shifts. You start saying no more often. Not because you want to. Because you have to. And here is the part people do not say out loud. Some of us have started avoiding it on purpose. We tap faster at the machine. We look away from the person with the clipboard. We scroll past the story that asks for help. Not because we do not care. Because we cannot carry one more thing. That is when the guilt creeps in. You feel it when you walk past a donation box. When you skip a fundraiser. When you ignore a message asking for help. You tell yourself, “Next time.” You tell yourself, “When things get better.” But next time I keep moving further away. After a while, something else happens. You start turning the volume down on that feeling. You have to. Because caring like that, all the time, costs something. It costs energy. It costs peace. It follows you home and sits with you when you are trying to rest. So you quiet it. From the outside, it can look like people stopped caring. That is not what is happening. People are trying to stay afloat. You cannot be generous when you are scared. Picture someone in deep water. They are not thinking about saving everyone else. They are trying to keep their own head above the surface. That is where a lot of Canadians are right now. And here is the hard truth. The more people are pushed, the less they can give. When every moment feels like another ask, another reminder, another weight, people do not open up. They close off. They protect what little they have left. Money, yes. But also their energy, their peace, their sanity. There is another side to this that makes it even harder. We still spend on small things sometimes. A coffee. A treat. Something to feel normal for a moment. Then later, we look at the bill and wonder if we should have said yes to that donation instead. That back and forth sits with people. No one talks about the moment caring starts to feel like pressure. But it is happening. There is also the question people keep to themselves. They look at what they pay in taxes. They hear about spending, programs, and promises. They are told more is needed. But their own lives are getting tighter, not easier. So they ask, quietly, where is it going? Why does it feel like it is never enough? Those questions hang there. And still, the tasks keep coming. This is where the warning lives. If we keep pushing people who are already struggling, we risk losing something deeper than donations. We risk losing trust. We risk wearing down the very instinct that made people want to help in the first place. Because generosity is not endless. It needs room. It needs stability. Right now, many people have neither. They are not bad people. They are not selfish. They are tired. They are stretched thin. They are doing everything they can just to hold their own lives together. We still care. We just ran out of room to carry it all. If we want that caring to come back strong, we have to let people stand again first. Ease the pressure. Give people room to breathe. Because when people feel steady again, they will give. They always have. But here is the part we should not ignore. Some people have already stopped answering the knock. And that number is growing. That is the warning. Because when people stop answering, it is not loud. It is quiet. Quiet enough that no one notices at first. Until one day, the knock is still there. But no one opens the door.

When Good Intentions Go Wrong

When Good Intentions Go Wrong The Bike Lane Problem in Bowmanville There’s a difference between smart infrastructure and ideological infrastructure. Right now, in parts of downtown Bowmanville—particularly corridors like Liberty Street and King Street East—we’re not seeing thoughtful planning. We’re seeing the forced application of a one-size-fits-all policy that ignores the physical realities of the road. Let’s be clear: this is not an argument against cycling. Cycling infrastructure, when done properly, improves safety, reduces congestion, and enhances communities. But when it’s forced into corridors that were never designed to accommodate it—by stripping away existing traffic lanes—we create the opposite outcome: congestion, driver frustration, and, ironically, new safety risks. What we’re witnessing is a classic case of policy over practicality. Downtown Bowmanville is not a wide, multi-lane urban grid. It is a constrained, functioning corridor that already balances commercial access, parking, deliveries, and commuter traffic. Removing a live traffic lane in that environment doesn’t “calm traffic”—it compresses it. The result? - Increased bottlenecks - Reduced emergency response efficiency - More aggressive driving behavior due to congestion - And in some cases, greater risk for both drivers and cyclists There is a better way—and it already exists. Across Europe, municipalities have moved toward dedicated, off-road cycling networks wherever possible. These are: - Physically separated from vehicular traffic - Integrated with parks, boulevards, and secondary corridors - Designed for safety without compromising primary road function. This is not theory. It’s proven. Instead of forcing bike lanes onto already constrained arterial roads, municipalities like Clarington—and across Durham Region—should be asking a simple question: Where can cycling infrastructure be built properly, not just conveniently? That means: - Leveraging hydro corridors - Utilizing parkland connections - Creating parallel cycling routes off main streets - Designing infrastructure that works with traffic, not against it Because good planning isn’t about checking a box—it’s about outcomes. Right now, the outcome in parts of Bowmanville is clear: more congestion, more confusion, and a growing disconnect between policy and lived experience. If we actually care about safety—for cyclists and drivers alike—we need to stop forcing infrastructure into places it doesn’t belong and start designing it where it does. That’s not anti-cycling. That’s just good planning.

SALVAJES THE REAL REASON WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE

SALVAJES THE REAL REASON WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I remember my days as a child in Uruguay, South America. Living in the city of Montevideo a modern city as it was and is. Those in the big city generally were well educated and upheld the social norms to a ‘T”. There was no excuses for failures. There was no compromise on civic duty and responsibility. People tried real hard to fit in. To not be different. As different made you a ‘Salvaje’. No one wanted to be a ‘Salvaje’- by definitions: Salvaje - son aquellos que viven en su hábitat natural, libres de la intervención humana para su alimentación o protección. In English: Those that live in their natural habitat, free of human intervention for their food and protection. Wow, what a mouthful. Think this about this. Back in the day. We as a homogeneous society lived under a strict code governed by the government law and the church. The culture was one that unified the country into strong nationalism. The people did not want to be ‘SALVAJES’. They strived to be productive members of society for the betterment of Self, Family and Country. Even though we doubted religion. We lived by it’s code. Even though we may not support the government. It was our government and that elected by the people. In today’s world. We have no culture. If you think about the definition of ‘SALVAJE’. Are we not all become. We created a jungle of uncivilized beings. Survival in a modern culture is as harsh if not more difficult than having to hunt and live in harsh outdoors. The mix of different cultures that are less civilized than ours has compromised our standards our unity as a nation and turned us into a bunch of SALVAJES. Look at the task before Trump in the middle East. Having to deal with SALVAJES. Not that they are not educated or have national Iranian pride. But that their culture. Their customs and religions makes us obviously different. Their way of life is as different as those SALVAJES roaming the jungles of South America. This is not to be disrespectful. But it is a reality. That North American standards have always been much higher. Our fear of a loving God is what has made us so compassionate and accepting to others needs, desires and wants. Look at the immigration policies both in Canada and U.S. The Iranian peace deal will never be as their definition of peace and ours are not the same. We as a civilized beings need to impose our standards as they attempt to impose their religious SALVAJE ways. I am not saying that Islam is a Salvaje religion. I am saying that some that practice fundamentalism within Islam are and this is what is compromising world peace.

Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers

Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is making some of the most complex policy decisions in its modern history—on energy, defence, infrastructure, and technology—yet the people making those decisions in the House of Commons of Canada largely lack one critical form of expertise: engineering. Today, out of 340 Members of Parliament, only four can be clearly identified as licensed professional engineers (P.Eng.). All sit on the government benches. None are in the opposition. That is not just an imbalance—it is a structural weakness in how Canada governs itself. This is not a partisan issue. It is a national one. We are a country built on infrastructure, natural resources, and complex systems. From pipelines to power grids, from Arctic sovereignty to defence procurement, Canada’s strategic challenges are not abstract—they are technical. They require not only political judgment but a disciplined understanding of feasibility, risk, systems integration, and long-term consequences. Engineers are trained precisely for this. They are taught to solve problems within constraints. They learn to balance cost, performance, safety, and time. They are bound by a professional obligation to place public safety and welfare above all else. In short, they are trained to think in ways that public policy increasingly demands. And yet, they are almost entirely absent from Parliament. This is not new. During the government of Stephen Harper—a period defined by major debates over energy infrastructure, military procurement, and Arctic policy—there was effectively only one clearly identifiable licensed engineer in the House. A decade later, despite even greater complexity in national decision-making, the situation has barely improved. The consequences are visible. Canada’s defence procurement system has become synonymous with delay and cost escalation. Major infrastructure projects routinely face overruns and shifting timelines. Energy debates are often driven more by rhetoric than by technical clarity. These are not merely political failures—they are failures of systems thinking. Engineering does not replace politics, but it grounds it. An engineer in Parliament will ask different questions: Is this technically feasible? What are the system dependencies? Where are the failure points? What are the lifecycle costs? These questions do not end debate—but they elevate it. So why are there so few engineers in federal politics? Part of the answer lies within the profession itself. Engineers tend to work in environments where outcomes are measurable and decisions are evidence-based. Politics, by contrast, often operates in ambiguity and rewards persuasion over precision. Many engineers simply choose to stay where their skills are more directly applied. But part of the responsibility lies with political parties. Candidate recruitment has long favoured familiar profiles—lawyers, political staffers, business figures. Engineers are not systematically sought out, nor is their value fully appreciated in the legislative process. This is a mistake. Canada is entering a period defined by technological transformation and geopolitical uncertainty. We are navigating an energy transition while remaining a major energy producer. We are modernizing our defence capabilities in an increasingly unstable world. We are confronting infrastructure deficits in housing, transportation, and public services. These are engineering challenges as much as political ones. We do not need a Parliament of engineers. But we do need a Parliament that includes them. A more balanced House of Commons—one that brings together legal, economic, social, and technical expertise—would be better equipped to govern a country like Canada. It would make decisions that are not only politically viable, but technically sound. Professional engineers are bound by a code of ethics that prioritizes public safety, sustainability, and accountability. At a time when public trust in institutions is under strain, those are not qualities we can afford to overlook. The numbers speak for themselves. Fewer than a handful of licensed engineers sit in a Parliament of 340 members. In a country that depends on infrastructure, innovation, and resource development, that is not just surprising—it is deeply concerning. Canada does not lack engineering talent. It lacks a pathway to bring that talent into public life. If we are serious about building a resilient, secure, and competitive nation, we need to broaden who sits at the decision-making table. That means encouraging engineers—and other technical professionals—to step forward. It means political parties recognizing the value of technical expertise. And it means voters understanding that good policy is not only about values and vision, but seriously dependent on timely execution. In the end, governing a modern country is not unlike designing a complex system. It requires clarity, discipline, and respect for reality. Canada would be far better served if more of its legislators understood that firsthand.

Dear Fellow Canadians

Dear Fellow Canadians By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist According to Statistic Canada, over $10,000,000,000 was donated from 5,000,000 Canadians to charity in 2019. All these donations are eligible for a non-refundable tax credit. By using Life Insurance, you can increase your overall charitable donation benefiting a cause that really means something to you. Donating funds to the Canada Revenue Agency through taxation just doesn’t provide the same legacy. Enhance Your Charitable Giving Using Life Insurance Below are two structures that allow you enhance your donation to the charity of your choice and potentially pay less tax. Personally Owned Life Insurance: Purchase a Life Insurance policy where you are the owner/payor of the policy with your chosen charity as the beneficiary. Policy growth is tax-free increasing your overall donation. When you die the charity receives the death benefit tax-free. Your estate receives a tax credit of up to 100% of net income for both the year of death and the year immediately preceding it. You have access to the cash value during your life as the owner of the policy. Can change the beneficiary at any time. Charity owned Life Insurance: Purchase a Life Insurance policy and make the charity the owner and beneficiary. You pay the premiums. Every year you receive a tax credit in the amount of the premium paid. Maximum donation credit is 75% of net income per year while living. Unused credits can be carried forward up to 5 years. Charity has access to cash value and they control the policy. Using Life Insurance, you have enhanced your charitable contribution by 33.42%. The option you choose is dependent on your income tax situation and where you want to use the non-refundable tax credit (annually or at the time of death). With both options, the legacy that you can provide a charity has been significantly increased. If this is something that resonates with you, please reach out to discuss enhancing your legacy.

Fighting Cancer With Precision

Fighting Cancer With Precision Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones In my work with universities, I meet an array of Canada’s leading researchers. This week, it was Arghya Paul, Canada Research Chair in the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering and Chemistry at Western University in London, Ontario. Professor Paul and his team of young researchers are investigating new ways to fight cancer. For decades, the war on cancer has relied on chemotherapy and radiation to kill cancer cells, treatments that often harm healthy cells too. Now, scientists like Paul are exploring smarter ways to deploy drugs. He is working not at the scale of the tumour or the cancerous lesion, but at the biomolecular level of the nanoscale. That’s one billionth of a metre, where materials can be engineered to interact with the body in highly specific ways. Instead of flooding the body with toxic chemicals, researchers are designing tiny biocompatible particles that travel through the bloodstream, seek out cancer cells, and act only where needed. It is a guided system rather than a scattershot approach. These particles can be activated by ultrasound waves. When exposed to a specific ultrasound intensity, they heat up and destroy tumour cells from within. Healthy cells nearby are largely spared. Additionally, these particles can track tumor sites in the body using advanced clinical imaging systems. That means they can do more than one job at a time. They help doctors both see cancer cells more clearly and site-specifically destroy them. Detection and treatment are part of the same process. This is a big shift in thinking. For years, medicine has treated diagnosis and therapy as separate steps. First find the disease. Then treat it. Now, the two are beginning to merge. As Professor Paul explains, “This research represents a shift from treating cancer with blunt tools to engineering precise responses at the microscopic level. We’re beginning to program how therapeutic agents should interact with cancer cells rather than simply attacking them.” His research lab is looking into how these systems can be built to respond to the unique environment of a tumour. Cancer cells often differ from normal cells in subtle ways. They may have slightly more acidic surroundings, different oxygen levels, or altered surface markers. Nanoparticles can be engineered to recognize these differences and act only when they are encountered. The goal is simple in concept, but revolutionary in practice: maximum damage to cancer, minimal harm to the patient. There is still a long road ahead. Much of this work is in experimental stages. What works in a laboratory dish or in animal studies does not always translate to human patients. Safety, long-term effects, and large-scale manufacturing are all challenges that must be overcome. But the direction is clear. We are moving away from a model of medicine that relies on broadly toxic interventions, and toward one emphasizing precision, personalization, and control. This could mean fewer side effects, shorter recovery periods, and more effective treatments. It could also mean catching and eliminating cancers earlier, before they have a chance to spread. What’s another important insight? The future of medicine will not come from biology alone. It will come from the merging of physics, engineering, chemistry, and medicine. We need to stop thinking about doctors solely as people who come out of medical schools. The lifesavers may be graduates of engineering programs in advanced materials. We are not yet at the point where cancer can be treated without risk or discomfort. But we are closer to a world where treatment is targeted, intelligent, and far less destructive, using microscopic tools designed with extraordinary precision, aimed directly at the disease, and nowhere else. Carry on, researchers!