The Things Nobody Thought Were Important

Dead and Gone… The Things Nobody Thought Were Important By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things I have noticed over the years is that families are not always very good at predicting what will matter later. I do not mean that as a criticism. I think most of us are probably the same when it comes to these things. We protect the things that seem obvious and valuable to us. We keep important documents together. We put certain photographs in frames to look at and have others look at. We also decide which possessions are worth insuring, saving, passing along, or placing carefully in a box where they will not be damaged. That is all reasonable, and it is also incomplete in some sense of the word. After someone dies, families often discover that importance does not always follow the path they expected. The items that were carefully preserved may still matter, of course, but they are not always the things that stop people. Sometimes it is the object that was never meant to survive or to be thought about at all. Something left in a drawer, or something tucked into a book. Maybe it is something kept for no clear reason other than the fact that nobody threw it away. We have all seen people move quickly past things that had obvious value, then pause over something almost accidental. And generally it is not because it was beautiful or rare or financially meaningful, but because it seemed to contain evidence of ordinary life. That is a different kind of value, and it is harder to explain without making it sound more sentimental than it is. Someone's house can be full of possessions and still leave a family looking for traces. That is the part I find interesting, and by no means do I think it is fair to say that most people are always looking for the most important or valuable object. Sometimes they are looking for proof of the person as they actually were, in the middle of regular life, before anyone knew there would eventually be a need to remember them so carefully. And that may be why the ordinary things can become kind of complicated. They were not curated, they were certainly not chosen for legacy, they escaped attention, which is probably why they can feel more authentic later. A formal portrait tells one kind of truth, while a marked-up calendar, an old notebook, or a tool left on a basement shelf tells another. There is also a practical side to this that families know all too well. Not everything can be kept, as most of us do not have the space, time, or emotional energy to preserve an entire household. Decisions have to be made, and many of them are fairly straightforward. Keep it, donate it, sell it, or discard it. Those words are simple until they are applied to objects that belonged to someone who is no longer there to explain why they kept them. I do not think there is a perfect way through that. Some things will be saved that later seem unimportant. While other things will be let go that someone may wonder about years afterwards. That is probably unavoidable. Families are trying to make decisions with limited space, limited time, and often very little emotional distance. What I find myself thinking about is how much of a person’s life exists outside the things we formally preserve. By this I mean routines, their habits, the unfinished projects, or the way a drawer was organized, or not organized. The things they placed on a shelf and left there. None of it was meant to become meaningful and I think that is what makes it different. Maybe that is the part worth noticing, as we all spend years deciding what matters, and then time quietly makes its own decisions for us. It does not always choose the most valuable things. And it does not always choose the things we would have expected. But sometimes it does decide to choose whatever happened to remain. When all is said and done, while standing in front of a box or a drawer or a workbench, a family realizes the object they are all looking at was never really the point. It was simply one of the few places where ordinary life was still visible.

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help?

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones This week I’m writing from Berlin, where I’m leading Canadian university leaders on a week-long study of Germany’s higher education and research ecosystem. Our North American penchant for policy by experimentation was in sharp contrast with the coordinated national strategies and infrastructure evident across the German economy. By my observation, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in health is becoming the next national mission. Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, is leading the charge to unleash AI. “I will push to ease the regulatory burden in the EU on AI,” he said recently, “and, where possible, to exempt industrial AI from the current regulatory straitjacket that is too tight.” Now, before readers stop and say, “This has nothing to do with me,” think again. AI is not just about computers and robots. Increasingly, it will shape what happens when you visit your doctor, undergo a test, receive a diagnosis, or fill a prescription. And whether this becomes a blessing or another modern headache depends on our leaders setting the right course. Americans are charging ahead at full speed with AI. In the United States, giant technology companies see healthcare as the next great gold rush. Faster diagnostics. Faster data collection. Faster treatment decisions. Germany has a different attitude and people are asking questions. Who controls the data? Can patients trust computer-generated advice? Will medicine become colder and more mechanical? Will doctors eventually rely too heavily on algorithms? These are genuine concerns. Medicine is not a math problem. Patients are frightened, confused, emotional, vulnerable. They need accurate information, but they also need judgment, experience, communication, and compassion. A machine cannot look a worried patient in the eye and say, “You’re going to be alright.” At least not convincingly. But make no mistake. AI is coming to healthcare everywhere. Soon, if not already, AI will read mammograms, identify skin cancers, flag dangerous drug interactions, predict heart disease risk, and analyze blood tests. In many cases, it will catch abnormalities earlier than physicians can do. That’s the good news. The bad news is that many people are completely unprepared for this transition. Some readers still avoid online banking. Others rarely use email or electronic records. Many older people understandably distrust technology altogether. But avoiding technology is risky in itself. Patients now need “AI literacy in healthcare” to understand enough about how AI works in medicine to ask sensible questions and avoid being fooled. That matters because AI can be brilliant one moment and dangerously wrong the next. A computer program may confidently provide false information. Anyone who has experimented with AI systems knows this. So what should readers do? First, become more engaged in your own healthcare, not less. Too many people drift through the medical system. They take pills they don’t understand and undergo tests they never discuss. Second, become comfortable with digital tools. Learn how to access your medical records electronically. Learn how to verify information from reliable medical sources. Ask family members for help if necessary. Pride is a foolish reason to remain uninformed. Third, know that technology should align with common sense – not replace it. One of the smartest observations I heard in Germany came from a researcher who warned that societies risk becoming “overconfident in technological answers to human problems.” AI may improve medicine. It may reduce errors, shorten wait times, and help physicians make better decisions. But no algorithm replaces healthy living. No computer can exercise for you, stop you from smoking, overeating, drinking excessively, or refusing to manage stress. And no AI system will magically repair a piecemeal healthcare system damaged by leadership indecision or policy blunders.

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canadians already know the economy is struggling. They do not need another article telling them groceries cost more, housing costs more, and jobs are harder to find. They know. They live it every day. For months, Canadians have been telling politicians, business leaders, and experts that something feels wrong. Families have been cutting back. Young people have been searching for work. Parents and grandparents have been worrying about what kind of future the next generation will inherit. None of that is news anymore. The real question is what comes next. If you listen to enough headlines, you would think Canada is on the edge of collapse. One day it is the economy. The next day it is a war somewhere in the world. Then it is another crisis, another warning, another prediction that the sky is about to fall. Fear sells. It always has. Yet Canadians have heard these warnings before. In the 1970s, inflation was eating away at family budgets. Prices seemed to rise every time someone walked into a grocery store. Fuel costs climbed. Interest rates rose. Families worried about paying bills and keeping food on the table. Many people thought the good times were over for good. They were wrong. Canadians adapted, businesses adjusted, and eventually the economy recovered. The lesson from the 1970s is not that hard times are easy. The lesson is that hard times end. The same lesson appeared again in 2008. The financial crisis spread around the world. Businesses slowed down. Jobs disappeared. Retirement savings took a hit. People watched the news and wondered what disaster would come next. There was fear that entire economies could collapse. Yet Canada weathered the storm better than many countries. Communities carried on. Workers adapted. Businesses found ways to survive. Recovery did not happen overnight, but it happened. Looking back today, many people barely remember how frightening those months felt at the time. That should remind us that today's challenges, while serious, are not the first serious challenges Canada has faced. Many Canadians are no longer worried about getting rich. They are worried about staying afloat. That may be the biggest economic warning sign of all. When people stop dreaming about the future and start worrying only about next month's bills, confidence begins to disappear. The greatest threat to Canada may not be a recession. It may be losing confidence in ourselves. History matters because it reminds us that Canadians are builders. We built railways across a vast country. We built industries that supported generations of workers. We built communities, schools, hospitals, roads, and businesses. We did not build them by panicking. We built them by getting to work. That is one reason many Canadians are watching new energy projects closely. Whether it is pipelines, natural gas, mining, hydroelectric power, or other forms of development, many people see these projects as opportunities to create jobs, attract investment, and strengthen the economy. No project is a magic solution. They cost money and take years to complete. But growth rarely happens without investment. Canada cannot build a stronger future if it is afraid to build at all. A country that stops building eventually starts shrinking. New pipelines and energy projects may not solve every problem tomorrow, but they can help create the kind of long term growth that gives future generations more opportunities. Every major project built in Canada today becomes part of the foundation future Canadians stand on tomorrow. The same conversation applies to education. For decades, trades helped build the middle class. Carpenters, electricians, welders, mechanics, machinists, truck drivers, and countless others helped shape this country. Today, many employers say they cannot find enough skilled workers. At the same time, many young people are struggling to find stable careers. Perhaps it is time to place greater value on the skilled trades once again and remind young Canadians that success can take many different paths. Not every student needs a university degree. Canada will always need people who can build homes, repair equipment, maintain infrastructure, and keep the country running. Strong trades programs can create good jobs while helping solve labour shortages at the same time. Immigration is another issue Canadians discuss openly. Canada has always been a country built by newcomers. Generation after generation, people arrived here looking for opportunity and became part of the Canadian story. Most Canadians do not oppose immigration. What many want is a system that is fair, organized, and focused on helping newcomers succeed while maintaining the values and responsibilities that hold the country together. The conversation is not about rejecting people. It is about making sure Canada remains strong enough to welcome them successfully. What often gets lost in political arguments is that Canadians have more in common than they sometimes realize. Most people want safe communities. They want decent jobs. They want affordable homes. They want their children and grandchildren to have opportunities. Whether someone lives in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Oshawa, Montreal, or a small town in Atlantic Canada, those goals are remarkably similar. Patriotism should not be controversial. Being proud of Canada does not mean believing the country is perfect. No country is. It simply means recognizing what generations before us built and wanting to leave something even better behind. Canadians come from many backgrounds, faiths, cultures, and experiences, but we share a country. That shared identity matters. There are good politicians and bad politicians. There are good business leaders and bad business leaders. There are good ideas and bad ideas. No single group has all the answers. The strength of Canada has never come from a handful of powerful people. It has come from ordinary Canadians helping one another through difficult times. The economy may be slowing, but that is not the whole story. The story is also about resilience. It is about a country that has weathered difficult decades before and emerged stronger. It is about communities that continue to support one another when times are tough. Canadians should not ignore problems. They should not pretend everything is fine when it is not. But neither should they forget who they are. The generation that faced inflation recovered. The generation that faced the financial crisis recovered. The generation that endured the pandemic recovered. Canadians have a long history of proving the experts wrong when times get tough. The economy may be slowing, but Canada is not finished. Not even close. The future will not be decided by fear. It will be decided by what Canadians choose to build next. If history is any guide, betting against Canadians has rarely been a winning strategy.

Stop Fearing Rejection

Stop Fearing Rejection By Nick Kossovan At the risk of stating the obvious, if you're looking for work, you're likely fearful of rejection. I constantly see job seekers paralyzed by fear of rejection, dreading the sting of hearing "No." Rejection isn't a personal tragedy; it's an unavoidable part of job searching, just as my articles are sometimes rejected, is part of "being a writer." Viewing every job application as an emotional investment is why job seekers struggle with their job search. Let go of the dread you're harbouring and approach your job search as an activity that thrives on volume and resilience, not on emotional validation Regular readers know I emphasize mindset. To expedite your job search, adopt a "Business of One" mindset. A job seeker is essentially someone seeking an employer to buy their service(s)—their expertise and labour. An employer choosing not to buy isn't personal; it's just a business transaction that didn't close. I know firsthand that the fear of rejection is a real and exhausting emotion. However, observing those who achieved the success I wanted made it clear that rejection is something to overcome, not something to lean into. Breaking out of the paralysis caused by fear of rejection requires recognizing that rejection is part of a numbers game. Baseball's greatest hitters—Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn—failed to get a hit 70% of the time. They built their careers on failure and still made it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Your job search requires the same resilience. Getting hired only requires one "Yes." However, you'll never hear "Yes" if you're too afraid to swing the bat. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your ability to cope with rejection. 1. Become Comfortable with Not Knowing When you submit an application or leave an interview, don't agonize over what your interviewer(s) might think of you. How people perceive you often has far more to do with them than with you. They might misinterpret your resume or mannerisms, or you might trigger an unconscious association with someone they disliked. Other people's inner thoughts are beyond your control. Obsessing over what you can't control is a massive waste of mental energy. Instead, redirect that energy to your job search. Control what you can—your preparation, skills, and execution—and let go of the rest. 2. Recognize That You Aren't the Centre of Attention We'd worry less about what others think of us if we realized how rarely they do. The idea that a hiring manager is actively dissecting your character and critiquing every flaw is a figment of your imagination. Get that sh*t out of your head. Recruiters and hiring managers are overworked. They're sorting through hundreds, if not thousands, of applications to fill open positions, not sitting around judging your worth as a person. They care about only one thing: whether you'll deliver measurable value to the bottom line. 3. Their Opinion Is Not Your Problem A two-page resume, a LinkedIn profile, or a 30-minute phone screening rarely captures a person's true competence. When a hiring manager forms an opinion of you and decides to pass, consider it their loss, not yours. Never internalize a stranger's judgment. Organizational psychologist Dr. Adam Grant notes that rejection often reflects poor organizational fit rather than a statement about your personal worth. It's a mismatch of timing and needs, not an audit of your underlying value. However (me interjecting), it never hurts to consider how you can better present your skills and qualifications so employers can easily see how you'll enhance their profitability, greatly increasing your chances of hearing "Yes." 4. Stop Trying to Blend In Many job seekers believe that becoming a corporate chameleon, smoothing their personality, using a generic resume, relying on inconsequential buzzwords during interviews, and giving scripted, robotic answers, hoping to "blend in," is an effective job search strategy. Playing it safe doesn't reduce your chances of rejection; it makes you forgettable, which is a job seeker's kiss of death. Recruiters and hiring managers, especially the good ones, value individuality. Your unique skills, experience, and personality are your competitive advantage. 5. Focus Entirely on Execution Rather than focusing on what scares you, focus on what you want to accomplish. Focus your mind entirely on finding work. Think of it this way: if you were administering life-saving CPR in a crowded public square, you wouldn't care what bystanders thought of your hair or jeans. The mission's intensity completely drowns out the noise. Treat your job search with the same mission-critical focus. 6. Run Toward the "No's." Stop running from "No's." Collect them until they mean nothing. Rejection Proof author Jia Jiang demonstrated in his "100 Days of Rejection" experiment that the best way to eliminate your fear of rejection is to actively seek it out. The moment you realize that a "No" doesn't harm you, the word loses its power over you. Make collecting rejections a daily goal. Reach out to people you'd like to connect with and apply for roles that are beyond your current abilities. Accumulating "No's" will quickly show you that "No" isn't the end of the world. You're still standing, your coffee still tastes the same, and you're able to move on. Who knows, you might even get a "Yes."

Mr. X: Clarington's OLT Motion Misses the Point

Clarington Council recently passed a motion calling for reforms to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The motion has been celebrated by some as a defence of local democracy. Unfortunately, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Ontario Land Tribunal exists in the first place. For years, municipal politicians across Ontario have conditioned residents to believe one thing: "The developers always win." "The OLT always overturns council." "The Tribunal is taking away local control." After hearing this message repeated often enough, many residents have come to accept it as fact. The problem is that it isn't true. What residents are often hearing is not an objective explanation of the planning system. They're hearing political cover. The Ontario Land Tribunal was never created to protect developers. It was created to protect good planning. Those are two very different things. The Tribunal exists because municipal councils are political bodies. Planning decisions are supposed to be evidence-based. Councils worry about elections. Tribunal members do not. Councils respond to organized pressure groups. Tribunal members do not. Councils sometimes make decisions based upon political considerations. Tribunal members are required to make decisions based upon evidence, planning law and provincial policy. That distinction matters. In fact, it is the entire reason the Tribunal exists. Yet somehow a narrative has emerged that every time a municipality loses at the Ontario Land Tribunal, it is proof that the Tribunal is broken. Let's think about that for a moment. If a municipality repeatedly loses appeals, is it possible the Tribunal is wrong every time? Perhaps. But is it also possible that the municipality's decision was unsupported by evidence? Absolutely. Is it possible council ignored its own planning documents? Yes. Is it possible politics got ahead of planning? It happens more often than many would like to admit. The uncomfortable truth is that every OLT loss is not necessarily evidence of Tribunal failure. Sometimes it is evidence of municipal failure. That is the conversation many politicians are unwilling to have. Instead, the Tribunal becomes the perfect scapegoat. It becomes the villain in every story. It becomes the explanation for every unpopular outcome. Most residents never hear the other side. They rarely hear that councils write the Official Plan. They rarely hear that councils pass zoning bylaws. They rarely hear that councils establish urban boundaries, density permissions, employment designations and growth strategies. They rarely hear that municipalities already possess enormous planning authority. Because if residents understood how much power councils actually have, they might start asking different questions. Questions such as: "If council wanted this outcome, why didn't they put it in the Official Plan?" "If council disagrees with this development, why does the zoning permit it?" "If council keeps losing appeals, are the policies being written properly?" Those are difficult questions. Blaming the Tribunal is much easier. What makes the Clarington motion particularly puzzling is that Ontario has already spent years reforming the planning appeal system. The Ontario Municipal Board became LPAT. LPAT became the Ontario Land Tribunal. Governments of different political stripes have reviewed the system repeatedly. The Province has spoken. The Legislature has spoken. Yet some municipalities continue acting as though every planning dispute would disappear if the Tribunal simply gave councils whatever they wanted. That would not be planning. That would be politics. And that is precisely why independent review exists. Perhaps the most revealing part of the entire debate is this: Many politicians cite statistics showing how often municipal decisions are overturned. But those same statistics can be interpreted another way. If a hockey team keeps getting penalties called against them, eventually you stop blaming the referee. You start questioning how the team is playing the game. The same principle applies here. The Ontario Land Tribunal is not perfect. No institution is. But the Tribunal is not the reason municipalities lose appeals. Municipalities lose appeals because somebody presents evidence and somebody else fails to overcome it. That is how independent adjudication works. The Tribunal is not a barrier to democracy. It is a safeguard against bad planning. And before Clarington starts demanding reforms to the referee, it might be worth asking whether municipal politicians should spend more time looking at the quality of the decisions being made on the field. — Mr. X

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK By Joe Ingino Am I the only one who sees it? Our city is in a dangerous position. We have a downtown that is nothing short of a makeshift war zone. From the many homeless individuals, prostitutes, drug dealers, and criminal elements to the open public drug use, the situation continues to deteriorate. Businesses are closing at an alarming rate. A few token businesses that do open soon discover they are in over their heads. No parking and no walk-in traffic lead to one reality: NO BUSINESS. I have been a critical watchdog for the past 35 years, slowly watching one administration after another fail to recognize what was happening. It started during the Nancy Diamond era. Her political alliance was with the Oshawa Centre. The goal was to keep the mall as the primary place to shop while slowly draining the downtown core. Since then, one administration after another has continued to erode the quality of life downtown. From incompetent councillors to councils with no vision or understanding of the future of our downtown, the decline has been steady. Mayors have come and gone, many with no clear vision for the core beyond copycat pipe dreams that led nowhere. The combination of senior housing and student-focused developments simply failed. I ran for office to improve the downtown core. I am still operating the only successful downtown "shop local" initiative since 2018. Unfortunately, it is not enough. My plan was to tear down the Four Corners and erect a minimum 60-storey complex with ample parking for residents and visitors. I envisioned creating an indoor downtown bridge connecting all four corners to compensate for winter weather. The concept would enclose the Four Corners while still allowing traffic flow, creating a showcase destination similar to what exists on the Las Vegas Strip. We have to provide value to visitors. We have to give people a purpose and a reason to come downtown. We also need to increase pedestrian traffic. Those are all things we currently lack. The two downtown councillors do not have the life experience necessary to achieve even a fraction of what is needed. One spends more time and taxpayer dollars maliciously persecuting and prosecuting local downtown businesses, while the other lives in an arts-and-culture make-believe utopian world that simply does not exist. How can anyone justify spending $10 million on a downtown park?This same council has no understanding of marketing or promotion. They want to charge visitors for parking at Lakeview Park. Wonder why we lost Ribfest? Wonder why we lost Oshawa's annual car show at Lakeview? The "No Park, No Parking" mentality will soon become a pathetic reality. People will simply stop going to the park because they may be in violation of a bylaw and face a fine. As it stands, you cannot really picnic, bring a large family gathering, or enjoy an extended visit without worrying about restrictions. The list of things you "can't do" is long.Is this how we welcome visitors? No. This is how we turn a park into a homeless encampment. People will flock from all over to camp out, knowing the police will not arrest them and bylaw officers will never collect the fines.Now, don't get me wrong. I am pro-Oshawa. I have approached the city many times with ideas and investors, only to receive the same result.In 2026, we have the opportunity to replace two insiders: Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Jim Lee. These are two councillors who, in my opinion, have done little to improve Oshawa during their terms and are now expected to be rewarded with higher-paying positions to do more of the same. Come on. There has to be someone out there who can lead our city. Our future depends on it. We cannot afford to waste our votes on career politicians.

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is facing a difficult economic reality. While the country has avoided the severe recessions that many feared in recent years, Canadians are increasingly feeling poorer, not richer. Housing affordability remains out of reach for many young families. Productivity growth has stagnated. Business investment has weakened. Government debt has increased. And our traditional economic advantages—abundant natural resources, access to global markets, a skilled workforce, and political stability—are not translating into the prosperity they once did. The challenge facing Canada is not merely cyclical; it is increasingly structural. The country needs more than careful economic management. It needs a national growth agenda. For decades, Canadians have been accustomed to steady improvements in living standards. Each generation expected to enjoy greater prosperity than the one before. Today, that assumption is no longer guaranteed. Real GDP per capita, one of the most important measures of economic well-being, has struggled to keep pace with population growth. Many Canadians are working harder while finding it more difficult to purchase a home, save for retirement, or support their families. At the heart of the problem lies Canada's productivity challenge. Productivity may sound like an abstract economic term, but it is ultimately the foundation of higher wages and improved living standards. A worker equipped with better tools, technology, infrastructure, and training can produce more value. When productivity rises, wages can rise without creating inflation. Unfortunately, Canada has fallen behind many of its peers in productivity growth. Business investment per worker has lagged behind that of the United States. Companies are investing less in machinery, technology, research, and innovation. Too much capital is flowing into existing real estate rather than into productive enterprises that generate long-term economic growth. This trend should concern policymakers across the political spectrum. The solution is not simply to spend more public money. Governments cannot subsidize their way to prosperity indefinitely. Instead, Canada must create conditions that encourage investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. One obvious area for improvement is infrastructure. Major projects in Canada often take years, sometimes decades, to move from concept to construction. Whether it is a mine, port expansion, electricity transmission corridor, nuclear facility, transportation project, or housing development, approval processes have become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Environmental protection remains essential, but regulatory systems must also recognize the economic costs of delay. A project that takes fifteen years to approve may effectively be denied. Canada must find a better balance between environmental stewardship and economic development. Housing presents another major challenge. The affordability crisis is not simply a social issue; it is an economic issue. When workers cannot afford to live near employment centres, labour mobility suffers. Businesses struggle to attract talent. Young families delay important life decisions. Economic growth becomes constrained. The answer is straightforward, even if implementation is difficult: build more housing. Municipal approval processes must be streamlined. Infrastructure investments must support new development. Governments at all levels must work together to increase housing supply rather than merely managing demand. Canada must also confront once and for all its fragmented internal market. It is often easier for Canadian companies to export goods to foreign countries than to sell them across provincial borders. This reality would be almost unbelievable to outsiders. Interprovincial trade barriers increase costs, reduce competition, and limit economic opportunity. Removing these barriers should be a national priority. A country of nearly forty million people should function as a single economic market. Energy policy represents another area where Canada possesses enormous untapped potential. Canada is one of the world's leading producers of energy and critical minerals. These resources are essential not only for today's economy but also for the energy transition technologies of tomorrow. Yet Canada frequently struggles to bring projects into production. Investors face uncertainty. Regulatory processes are lengthy. Political debates often discourage long-term investment. Canada does not need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Modern technology, strong regulatory oversight, and rigorous environmental standards can support both objectives. What Canada needs is the confidence to develop its resources responsibly while ensuring that the resulting prosperity benefits all Canadians. The same principle applies to critical minerals. As countries compete to secure supplies of lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, uranium, and rare earth elements, Canada possesses significant strategic advantages. These resources should form part of a comprehensive national economic strategy that strengthens both prosperity and national security. Education and skills development must also remain central to Canada's future. The global economy increasingly rewards innovation, scientific expertise, engineering talent, and technological capability. Canada has world-class universities and research institutions, but more must be done to connect research with commercialization and industrial development. As a professional engineer, I have long believed that nations prosper when they value science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Technical expertise should play a greater role in politics, public policy, economic planning, and national decision-making. Canada should also recognize that economic growth and national security are increasingly interconnected. A country that cannot build infrastructure efficiently, produce critical resources, or maintain industrial capacity will find it more difficult to defend its interests in an increasingly competitive world. Economic strength remains the foundation of national strength.

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure By Murray Lytle Are Canadians less adventurous than they once were? It’s hard to argue otherwise. Alexander Mackenzie was only 24 when the North West Company named him chief fur trader at Fort Chipewyan, in what is now Alberta. A few years later, in 1789 he traveled north along what is now known as the Mackenzie River to become the first European to reach the Arctic Ocean overland. Four years later he crossed the Rocky Mountains and was the first European to reach the Pacific Ocean, beating Americans Merriweather Lewis and William Clark by a full dozen years. In 1898, Martha Purdy arrived in Dawson City to escape a failed marriage and make her fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. It was while climbing the notorious Chilkoot Pass that she discovered she was pregnant with her third son. She later remarried and, as Martha Black, was the second woman to be elected to Canada’s Parliament. She was also a successful entrepreneur, second woman elected to Canada’s parliament and a world-renown expert on wild flowers. Canadian history is filled with tales such as these. Explorers, soldiers, settlers and other restless souls who endured great hardships and did great things. There is a natural sense of awe that arises when retelling such lives filled with adventure. To our modern selves, they appear as fascinating aberrations, gifted men and women with unusual appetites for risky or dangerous undertakings. Their willingness to set out into the unknown strikes us today as thrilling, unnerving and more than a bit foolhardy. But while their accomplishments may be striking, they lived in more adventurous times. Today society shrinks from adventure and the unknown. Through a combination of practical circumstances, changing social standards and dramatic shifts in individual risk tolerance and government behaviour, present-day opportunities for adventure have been drastically curtailed. How can Canadians get that sense of adventurousness back? “An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered”, G.K. Chesterton once wrote. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.” There is a case to be made that adventures are simply harder to come by these days. There are no more blank spaces left on maps, and hence no places for modern-day Mackenzies to discover. The omnipresence of the Internet and GPS similarly makes it almost impossible to get truly lost anymore. And if you do, help is usually close at hand. Beyond these practical limitations, however, it seems incontestable that society today is less interested in promoting, facilitating or participating in adventurous life experiences. No one talks of running away with the circus or joining the French Foreign Legion anymore, even in jest. According to Statistics Canada, twice as many Millennials are still living at home as was the case with previous generations. And if any of these young adults do go away, it’s more than likely to be an adventure-less ‘gap year’ holiday between graduate degrees recorded in minute detail on Snapchat and Instagram. The perpetual childhood of today’s younger generations contrasts sharply with the youthful accomplishments of past eras. William Wilberforce, for example, was elected to the British Parliament at age 21 and then proved instrumental in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His friend William Pitt became Prime Minister at 24, and spent his career fighting the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who became a general at 24. Quite a lot can be accomplished when one starts early. Other factors that limit the availability of adventure in our post-modern era include the suffocating impact of the welfare state. When Mackenzie left his family home at 15 to become an apprentice in the fur industry, it was because he had little choice. He needed to make his way in the world as a teenager. The same urgency applied to Black when she decided to escape a failed marriage by travelling to the Yukon. With no government to hold your hand, adventure follows. Popular culture in earlier eras also did its bit as well by celebrating explorers and adventurers as celebrities in the same manner that we laud singers and athletes today. Just as adventure was once regarded as a social virtue to be admired, today society aggressively enforces the opposite expectation – that it is our duty to avoid risk at all costs. In their 2021 book The Coddling of the American Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff take a close look at the impact of a creeping safety culture on the behaviour of younger generations. Children, the authors observed, are now deliberately shielded from any sense of risk or uncertainty. How can anyone – young boys most of all – learn about the world around them when school principals announce at the onset of every snowfall that “All snow must stay on the ground.” The ideal of adventure and resilience has been replaced by a debilitating sense of fragility and risk avoidance. So is the dream of looking over an untravelled horizon that animated people like Alexander Mackenzie or Martha Black completely dead in the 21st century? Not exactly. Adventure should properly be considered a spirit, not a place. It is driven by a powerful mixture of curiosity, necessity and an openness to experiencing new things. And it can be found wherever uncertainty reigns. Today, that might entail travelling to strange lands, meeting new people or even engaging in uncomfortable discussions about whether Alberta should remain part of Canada forever. Wherever the unknown lies, adventure can be found.

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence

Alberta Separation and the Shadow of Foreign Influence by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East One of the more sensitive — and increasingly unavoidable — questions surrounding Alberta separatism is whether foreign actors could exploit, amplify, or influence the movement for their own geopolitical or economic interests. There is, at present, no public evidence of a coordinated foreign conspiracy directing Alberta separatism. Most grievances expressed by Albertans are real, domestic, and rooted in longstanding political and economic frustrations within Canada itself. To dismiss the movement as “foreign manipulation” would be both inaccurate and politically counterproductive. However, modern geopolitics teaches an important lesson: foreign powers do not need to create divisions to exploit them. They merely need to magnify existing fractures. Canada is not immune. Around the world, democratic societies have experienced attempts by external actors to influence public opinion, deepen polarization, weaken institutional trust, and encourage fragmentation movements. Examples range from a complexity of Western and Russian disinformation operations in Europe and the United States to foreign online interference surrounding Brexit, Catalonia, and various populist movements across the West. The strategic logic is straightforward. Large, resource-rich, politically stable democracies become weaker when internally divided. In Canada’s case, Alberta is not just another province. It is central to: · continental energy security, · agricultural production, · petrochemical supply chains, · pipeline infrastructure, · and North American trade networks. Any prolonged constitutional instability involving Alberta would inevitably attract international attention and potentially foreign opportunism. Several possible vectors of influence deserve serious consideration. First is information warfare. Social media ecosystems allow foreign actors to anonymously amplify anger, conspiracy theories, anti-federal narratives, or anti-democratic sentiment. Algorithms reward outrage. Polarization spreads rapidly. Small fringe narratives can suddenly appear mainstream through coordinated amplification campaigns. Canada has already witnessed foreign interference concerns related to elections, diaspora communities, and online influence operations. It would be naïve to assume that separatist tensions would be ignored by hostile or opportunistic external actors. Second is economic influence. Global energy competitors may quietly benefit from Canadian paralysis. If Canada remains internally divided and unable to build pipelines, export infrastructure, refineries, or coherent energy policy, competitors gain market share. The irony is profound: while Canada debates how to restrict or delay its own energy sector, geopolitical rivals aggressively expand theirs. Third is political fragmentation itself. Foreign governments often prefer dealing with weakened or internally divided democracies because fragmentation reduces strategic coherence. A Canada consumed by constitutional disputes becomes less influential internationally, less economically competitive, and less capable of projecting unified national policy. This does not mean every separatist argument is illegitimate or manipulated. That would be irresponsible and unfair to many Albertans who sincerely believe Confederation is failing them. However, it does mean Canada must approach the issue with maturity and vigilance. There is another danger as well: the temptation by political actors to weaponize accusations of foreign influence domestically. If every Western grievance is casually dismissed as foreign-backed extremism, Ottawa risks deepening alienation even further. Citizens who already feel unheard will become even more distrustful if their concerns are portrayed as disloyal or externally driven. Democracies weaken when governments stop listening to legitimate regional frustrations. At the same time, separatist movements themselves must exercise caution. Once movements become emotionally charged and digitally mobilized, they can attract extremist elements, conspiracy networks, and opportunistic outside actors who care little about Alberta but much about destabilization. This pattern has appeared repeatedly in international politics. The solution is therefore neither paranoia nor complacency. Canada requires stronger democratic resilience: · improved transparency regarding online influence campaigns, · better civic literacy, · stronger national institutions, · more balanced regional representation, · and a renewed sense of national purpose. Most importantly, Canada must reduce the conditions that make fragmentation narratives attractive in the first place. Countries confident in their institutions and fairness are harder to destabilize. The deeper issue remains domestic, not foreign. Albertans are not imagining their frustrations. Western alienation has existed for generations. Economic grievances, regulatory tensions, and regional political imbalances are genuine policy issues requiring serious national dialogue. Foreign actors can amplify a fire. However, they cannot ignite one where no combustible material exists. Ultimately, the Alberta debate is less a story about foreign influence than about Canadian cohesion. External interference becomes dangerous only when internal confidence has already weakened. Canada’s greatest protection against foreign manipulation is not censorship, fear, or political labeling. It is national unity built on fairness, mutual respect, and economic realism. It is creating a federation where every region believes it has a meaningful stake in the country’s future. Let’s hope that the Canadian political establishment finds a way to safeguard the unity of Canada in a very dangerous geopolitical environment.

SAME FEES CLEARER STATEMENTS

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Folks starting December 31, 2026, all your Segregated fund Investment statements will include a breakdown of what fees you’re paying to invest in your segregated fund contract. This process was introduced in the mutual fund platform a few year back and now has come into effect with segregated funds. In a part of a new industry-wide change to help make fees and charges easier to better understand and more transparent your updated statement will give you a clearer view of your investments fees. These changes are meant to support better conversations with your advisor about costs, value, and your financial goals. Your advisor is your partner in long-term success, offering personalized guidance, helping you stay on track, and supporting you through market ups and downs. Please review this information with your advisor to ensure you understand your plans and you goals are on track. If you have questions or want to talk through what’s changing, reach out to your advisor. The fees themselves aren’t changing, but how they’re shown on your statements is. You’ll see, Total annual cost of investing shown in dollars, Clear explanations about investment fees, Enhanced performance reporting. Safe travels, until next time good planning!!

The Awkward Reality of Inheritance

Dead and Gone… The Awkward Reality of Inheritance By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the strangest tensions that shows up after somebody dies has almost nothing to do with the death itself. It comes later. The funeral is over, the casseroles have stopped arriving, the relatives from out of town have flown home. Things are quiet again. And then somebody mentions the will. Or the house. Or a ring nobody is sure what to do with. The room changes. Most families do not go looking for a fight. If anything, the opposite. People get careful, almost too careful. You hear things like, "I don't really care about any of it," or, "whatever everybody else thinks is fair is fine by me." A lot of the time they mean it, or at least part of it. But you can still feel the air tighten the second money enters the conversation. Money and grief just do not sit well together. Talking about finances too soon feels disrespectful, even though the paperwork does not wait. And inheritance has never really been only about money anyway. The minute things start getting decided, the old family stuff comes back. Quietly. Sometimes nobody notices it is happening. One sibling did most of the care-giving for years while another lived three provinces away. One kid got helped out financially in their twenties and everyone remembers, even if nobody says so. People keep score without meaning to. It is not always greed. Usually it is something underneath - fairness, feeling overlooked, an old hurt that was there long before anybody died. I have talked to families who couldn't believe how emotional things got over stuff that wasn't even valuable. A watch, a ring, or an old chair nobody had sat in for years. One family nearly fell apart over a recipe box. Somebody says, "no, you take it, really," and somebody else says, "no, it should stay with you," and then everybody starts choosing their words a little too carefully because nobody wants to look like the one who actually wants it. That awkwardness - more people know it than admit it. Wanting something does not make you greedy. Objects hold stories, and one person looks at an old dining room table and sees an old dining room table. Somebody else looks at it and sees thirty years of Christmas dinners. The house is its own thing. A lot of parents quietly assume one of the kids will want to keep it. Sometimes none of them do. Not because the house didn't matter, life just looks different now. Adult kids live in smaller places, different cities, different financial situations than their parents had at the same age. A three-bedroom in a town nobody lives in anymore is not always a gift. Selling the family home can feel like the right call and a small heartbreak at the same time. Both can be true. The hard part, I think, is that the paperwork moves on its own schedule and the feelings move on theirs, and the two are almost never lined up. People do not always handle that gracefully. It would be a little strange if they did. The families who come out of this okay are not always the ones who avoided every disagreement. They are the ones who figured out, somewhere along the way, that the relationships mattered more than any single decision. That sounds obvious written down. It is much harder in the room, with forty years of history sitting in there with you. I would not want my family judged on how they acted during a few of the worst weeks of their lives. People behave in ways that aren't really them during a stretch like that. Most families find their footing again eventually. The conversations just stay awkward longer than anybody expects.

Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities Employers Want to See the Potential ROI of Hiring You

Job Seekers Stop Fighting Business Realities Employers Want to See the Potential ROI of Hiring You By Nick Kossovan Every second you spend on LinkedIn “raising awareness” about how the hiring system is supposedly broken or ranting about unicorn-hunting recruiters is a second you’re choosing to stay unemployed. Employers don’t care about your grievances; they have a business to run within the constraints of economic realities. By publicly and privately resisting the transactional realities that keep businesses and economies alive, you’re not being a martyr; rather, you’re showing employers you’d be difficult to manage. The employer-employee relationship is more asymmetrical and transactional than ever, and completely indifferent to your personal needs. Getting hired requires refraining from playing the oldest unproductive game of all—making excuses for why you’re a victim—and instead showing employers how you can contribute to their profitability. Increasingly, I see job seekers who treat their job search like a shopping list for their lifestyle and expect employers to be their parents. Before they've proven—shown their track record of accomplishments and results—how they'll add value to the employer's bottom line or solve their problem(s), they demand remote work, six-figure salaries, and unlimited vacation. Employers aren’t responsible for your chosen lifestyle. Employers aren’t charities; it’s not their concern that your rent went up, your car insurance doubled, or that you “believe” you work better from a beach in Mexico. An employer is a profit-seeking entity that has a fiduciary responsibility to its current employees and shareholders. Therefore, if you’re not showing employers quantifiable numbers for how you’ve generated revenue, reduced costs, or removed risks for your past employers, you’re just noise, similar to the noise chacma baboons make when arguing, which describes most job seekers. Even if you spend five percent of your day fighting the following variables, you’re leading equity. Accept them—don’t deny them—pivot and keep moving forward. The Economy- The economy is indifferent to your bills. Inflation and interest rates are macroeconomic constants; complaining about the “cost of living” during a job search, or the reason you deserve a raise, is a rookie mistake that signals entitlement rather than value. Employers pay for the ROI of a role, not the cost of your lifestyle. You’re responsible for your financial management; the economy will not adjust to fund your personal overhead. AI and Automation Disruption - CEOs have a fiduciary responsibility to replace expensive, inefficient human processes with streamlined technology. This isn’t an inhumane act; it’s just business. In the emerging economy, you’re either the employee leveraging AI to deliver 5x the value, or you’re the overhead to be phased out. As a job seeker, instead of mourning the “old ways,” show employers how you can leverage the “new ways.” “Unfair” Hiring Processes - Nepotism and favouritism have always existed and will always exist, as every human is biased in some way or another. You can’t change the “who you know” culture of a company you don’t own, hence referrals always get priority. Your best move is to create a resume, envision a “Master Value Document,” and a LinkedIn profile so compelling that being “well-connected” is no longer your competitors’ only advantage. If you can’t be the nephew, become the person who’s too valuable to overlook. Aging - The ‘ageism’ shield is for those who refuse to adapt. Employers don’t fear your age; they fear your overhead and your inability to learn. Pivot from ‘seniority’ to ‘certainty.’ Offer employers, indisputably, the proven reliability that a 27-year-old can’t fake. If you market yourself as a relic, don’t be surprised when you’re treated like one. Change is Inevitable -In his 1973 book, Reflections on the Human Condition, Eric Hoffer wrote, “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” Nostalgia doesn’t pay the bills, and ‘experience’ is a trap if not accompanied by constant evolution. If you can’t explain to your interviewer what you’ve done to rebuild your skillset over the last 12 months, you’re a dinosaur waiting for the asteroid. Rather than just ‘handling’ change, employers want to see that you thrive on it and are willing to master the tools that are terrifying many of their employees. The Golden Rule - If there's one business reality that's pointless to oppose, it's the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. If you want to dictate your employment terms, start your own business. Until then, you're playing the employer's game on their turf by their rules. It's not necessary to like the employer's rules, but you must abide by them, especially during their hiring process, to be hired. Arguing with business realities has the consequence of you always losing. Essentially, you are telling yourself comforting lies, or buying into comforting lies being told, to make yourself feel better about not getting what you want. Public outbursts on LinkedIn aren’t the answer. The only thing such behaviour does is signal to employers that you are unable to manage your emotions, making you a high-risk hire. Resisting business realities is why many job seekers are experiencing prolonged unemployment; your best job search strategy is to refrain from complaining and focus on proving to employers that you can contribute to their profitability.

Canada’s Bill C 22: How Much Freedom Will Canadians Give Away?

Canada’s Bill C 22: How Much Freedom Will Canadians Give Away? By Dale Jodoin Columnist George Orwell warned people years ago about governments watching their own citizens. Movies like V for Vendetta showed ordinary people slowly giving away freedom because they were frightened and wanted protection. Back then, most people treated stories like that as fiction. Something dramatic. Something that could never really happen here. Ten years ago, most Canadians probably would have laughed this conversation off. Today, more people are starting to wonder if those stories were less about fantasy and more about warning signs.Most people imagine freedom disappearing all at once. Soldiers in the streets. Chaos. Loud moments nobody could miss. Real life usually does not work that way. Rights disappear quietly. One new law. One new power. One more piece of information collected. Small things at first. Small enough that people barely notice until years later when the country suddenly feels different.That is why Bill C 22 is making many Canadians uneasy.The federal government calls Bill C 22 the “Lawful Access Act.” Ottawa says the bill is needed to help police deal with terrorism, organized crime, child exploitation, and growing online threats. The government argues criminals now hide behind encrypted apps, private messaging systems, and digital services that investigators struggle to access.The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons on April 20, 2026, and has now moved to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for more study. Committee hearings began on May 7.Ottawa says the bill is simply about bringing policing into the digital age.A growing number of Canadians hear something elsePeople are being told they need to hand over a little more privacy to feel safe. Meanwhile many Canadians already feel less safe than they did years ago. Violent crime keeps making headlines. Random attacks happen in broad daylight. Drug overdoses continue climbing. Car thefts spread through communities across the country. Families already feel worn down. Bills keep rising. Trust keeps dropping.People are tired, and tired people sometimes give away freedoms they would have fought for years earlier.That may be the most dangerous part of all.Many Canadians are now asking a question government leaders do not seem eager to answer. If governments already hold major powers today, why does the country still feel like it is slipping in so many places?That question sits at the center of the debate around Bill C 22.One section of the bill raising concern involves metadata collection and retention. Under the proposed law, telecom and digital service providers could be required to keep certain user information for up to one year. That may include location data, communication times, connection records, and device information.Most people never think about metadata until somebody explains what it can actually reveal. It sounds like a boring technical term, but privacy experts warn metadata can tell a detailed story about a person’s life without reading one private message. It can show where someone travels, who they contact, when they are active, and patterns in their daily routine.Supporters of the bill say this information could help police solve crimes faster and identify dangerous suspects before more people get hurt. Most Canadians want criminals caught. Most people want children protected. Most people understand police need tools to deal with modern crime. But many Canadians worry about what happens after these powers are created.History shows governments change.Laws stay.That concern is not only coming from Conservatives. Some Liberal and NDP voters are also questioning how much access any government should have to private digital information. This debate is becoming bigger than party politics. It is about trust. It is about limits. It is about whether Canadians still believe privacy matters in a country that keeps asking them to trade pieces of it away.There is also concern about what Bill C 22 could mean for Canada’s technology future. Companies like Apple and Meta have already raised concerns about laws that may pressure companies to weaken encrypted systems or create ways into private communications. Encryption protects banking information, passwords, health records, personal files, and private conversations. Once trust in those systems weakens, people begin wondering who else may eventually gain access.That should concern Canadians.If companies begin seeing Canada as a difficult place to invest or operate, they may pull back services, delay investment, or avoid expanding here altogether. That could leave Canadians with fewer choices, weaker services, and higher costs. Most people may not think about encryption every day, but they will notice if services disappear or become more expensive.Civil liberties groups are also warning there may not be enough oversight built into the legislation. Canadians are being asked to trust institutions with larger amounts of personal information at a time when public trust already feels badly shaken in many parts of the country. This is why many critics believe all political parties should slow down and seriously examine Bill C 22 before pushing it further ahead. Privacy affects everyone regardless of political views. Once governments gain more access to people’s private lives, every Canadian lives under that new reality.At its heart, this debate is not really about apps or phones. It is about how much freedom Canadians are willing to trade for promises of safety from institutions that openly admit they still cannot fully keep the public safe.That question may help decide what kind of country Canada becomes over the next few years

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. There is something happening across Ontario that taxpayers need to start paying very close attention to. Policing in Ontario is no longer just about policing. It has increasingly become about massive capital infrastructure empires. Across the province, police headquarters and policing campuses are becoming larger, more architecturally elaborate, more consultant-driven, and dramatically more expensive than what many other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States are building. Meanwhile, provinces like Alberta appear to have taken a far more pragmatic and operationally focused approach. And taxpayers should be asking why. The Ontario “Police Campus” Model In Ontario, modern policing infrastructure increasingly resembles institutional corporate campuses. Large headquarters. Massive administrative wings. Architectural showcases. Integrated civic complexes. Multi-phase expansions. Endless consultant studies. New buildings replacing perfectly functional older buildings. The result? Hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that ultimately land on the backs of property taxpayers.In some municipalities and regions, police infrastructure has evolved far beyond what is operationally necessary and has entered the realm of prestige infrastructure. Taxpayers are told: - the buildings must be state-of-the-art, - the facilities must be consolidated, - the campuses must be future-ready, - and every department must be centralized under one roof. But few people ever ask the obvious question: Does this actually improve policing outcomes enough to justify the cost? Because operational policing and expensive real estate are not necessarily the same thing. Alberta’s More Practical Approach By contrast, Alberta has historically appeared to maintain a more practical model. Not flashy. Not over-designed. Not campus-oriented. Just functional policing infrastructure. More emphasis appears to be placed on: - operational efficiency, - practical deployment, - adaptive reuse, - phased modernization, - and maintaining functional buildings longer. In many Alberta communities, policing facilities still resemble what policing facilities were traditionally intended to be: working operational buildings. Not monuments.And importantly, Alberta’s approach often appears far closer to the American municipal model. Across much of the United States, police departments commonly continue operating from: - upgraded legacy facilities, - industrial-style buildings, - phased retrofits, - decentralized operations, - and lower-cost modernization programs. The emphasis is often: “Does the building function properly?” —not— “Does the building impress people?” That difference matters. The Cost Explosion Problem Ontario taxpayers are now living through an era where virtually every public-sector institution appears to believe it requires: - a new headquarters, - a major expansion, - a flagship campus, - or a transformational capital project. Police. Municipal administration. Libraries. Transit facilities. Public works yards. Health facilities. Everything becomes bigger. Everything becomes more expensive. Everything becomes consultant-driven. And taxpayers are expected to quietly absorb the consequences through:- higher property taxes, - increased debt, - development charges, - and long-term operating costs. The problem is not policing itself. The problem is whether Ontario has lost sight of the difference between operational necessity and capital ambition. Bigger Buildings Do Not Automatically Mean Better Policing This is the uncomfortable conversation many politicians avoid. A larger headquarters does not necessarily reduce crime. A newer building does not automatically improve response times. An architecturally impressive campus does not inherently make communities safer. Good policing is ultimately about: - leadership, - deployment, - accountability, - staffing, - training, - community trust, - and operational effectiveness. Not marble floors and oversized atriums. Taxpayers Need To Start Asking Hard Questions Before approving another massive police capital project, Ontario taxpayers should be asking: - Can existing facilities be modernized instead? - Can phased retrofits achieve the same result? - Is consolidation actually necessary? - Are administrative expansions excessive? - Is the architectural scope reasonable? - How does this compare to Alberta or U.S. jurisdictions? - Are we building for operational need—or institutional prestige?These are not anti-police questions. They are pro-taxpayer questions. And in an era of affordability crises, exploding property taxes, and infrastructure deficits, they are questions that desperately need to be asked. Because somewhere along the way, Ontario appears to have drifted from practical policing infrastructure toward institutional empire-building. And taxpayers are paying the bill.

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream?

Mark Carney’s Canada: A Nation-Building Moment or an Over engineered Dream? by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East By any historical measure, Prime Minister Mark Carney is attempting something rare in modern Canadian politics: the reintroduction of national ambition. For decades, Canadian governments have largely managed decline, mitigated crises, and distributed incremental benefits while avoiding large-scale structural reform. Politics became administrative rather than transformational. The great nation-building projects of earlier generations — the railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway, the energy megaprojects of the postwar era — gave way to cautious managerialism. Carney appears determined to reverse that trajectory. His emerging vision for Canada is sweeping: a “One Canadian Economy,” a revitalized defence-industrial base, Arctic sovereignty, national infrastructure corridors, energy expansion, critical minerals, AI leadership, and a strategic reduction of dependence on the United States. It is, in effect, an attempt to reposition Canada for a harsher, more fragmented world. The real question is not whether the ambition is admirable. It is whether the Canadian state still possesses the institutional muscle, political cohesion, and economic discipline to execute such a vision. That is far from certain. Canada today suffers from a dangerous contradiction. It remains one of the world’s most resource-rich and educated nations, yet its productivity growth has stagnated for years. Major infrastructure projects take decades. Interprovincial trade barriers remain embarrassingly entrenched. Defence procurement is notoriously dysfunctional. Housing costs have become corrosive to social stability. Energy debates have become ideological trench warfare rather than strategic planning. Meanwhile, the geopolitical environment has changed dramatically. The comfortable post-Cold War era is over. The United States is becoming more protectionist and transactional. China is increasingly assertive. Europe is rearming. Supply chains are fragmenting. Arctic competition is accelerating. Economic security and national security are becoming inseparable. Carney understands this reality perhaps better than any Canadian prime minister in recent memory. His background as a central banker and global financial figure gives him an unusually international perspective on the forces reshaping the world economy. Unlike many traditional politicians, he appears to grasp that Canada can no longer rely indefinitely on geography, American protection, and commodity luck. That recognition alone is strategically important. His emphasis on defence industrialization and Arctic sovereignty is particularly overdue. Canada has spoken about the North for decades while underinvesting in the actual capabilities required to defend it. As climate change opens Arctic routes and great-power competition intensifies, sovereignty can no longer exist primarily through rhetoric. Similarly, the effort to break down internal trade barriers and create a more integrated national economy addresses one of Canada’s least discussed structural weaknesses. It is absurd that goods, credentials, and labour often move more easily across the Canada-U.S. border than between Canadian provinces. Carney is also correct to emphasize energy abundance rather than energy austerity. Canada’s future competitiveness will depend on access to reliable, affordable, large-scale energy. AI infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, mining, electrification, and defence production are all extraordinarily energy intensive. A serious industrial strategy requires a serious energy strategy. In that sense, Carney’s shift toward a more pragmatic approach — including openness to pipelines, nuclear expansion, hydroelectricity, and critical mineral development — reflects political realism rather than ideological purity. Yet enormous risks remain. The first is implementation. Canada’s political culture has become deeply proceduralized. Large projects are slowed by overlapping jurisdictions, regulatory duplication, litigation, consultation fatigue, and political fragmentation. Announcements are easy; execution is difficult. Governments increasingly measure success by funding commitments and press conferences rather than physical completion. A nation-building strategy without state capacity becomes theatre. The second risk is fiscal overreach. Carney’s instincts favour activist government and strategic public investment. Properly targeted industrial policy can indeed work, particularly in sectors tied to national security and technological leadership. But governments also have a long history of subsidizing politically attractive failures. Canada cannot borrow indefinitely to compensate for weak productivity growth. If public spending expands faster than economic output, the country risks higher debt burdens, inflationary pressures, and declining competitiveness. The third challenge is political cohesion. Canada is increasingly regionally polarized. Energy policy divides provinces. Housing pressures differ dramatically across cities. Western alienation remains real. Quebec protects its autonomy aggressively. Building a coherent national economic strategy in such an environment is extraordinarily difficult. The irony is that Carney’s vision may require exactly the kind of national unity that contemporary Canada struggles to sustain. And yet, despite these risks, there is something refreshing — even necessary — about a Canadian government once again speaking the language of long-term strategy rather than short-term political management. Countries do not drift into prosperity or sovereignty. They build them deliberately. Canada has often behaved as though its success were inevitable: protected by geography, blessed by resources, and anchored beside the United States. However, the emerging global order is less forgiving. Nations that fail to modernize their infrastructure, industrial capacity, energy systems, and defence capabilities may discover that comfort can evaporate surprisingly quickly. Carney’s wager is that Canada still has the capacity for renewal. He may be right. However, if this agenda is to succeed, Canada will need more than vision statements and industrial strategies. It will require faster decision-making, institutional reform, fiscal discipline, regulatory modernization, and political courage sustained over many years. In other words, it will require Canada to rediscover not merely ambition — but execution. That is the true test of the Carney era. Are you ready to step up and help make it happen?

It Was Never About the Couch

Dead and Gone… It Was Never About the Couch By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the stranger things families run into after someone dies is how quickly ordinary objects stop feeling ordinary. A chair nobody thought about much suddenly becomes “Dad’s chair.” An old jacket hanging by the back door feels difficult to move for reasons that don’t fully make sense even while you’re feeling them. Then there are the rooms nobody really wants to deal with yet. Basements. Garages. Closets that stayed untouched for years until suddenly somebody has to open them. I have spoken with people who were completely unprepared for how emotional it would feel to go through a parent’s belongings afterward. Usually it was not the expensive things that got to them. It was the small stuff. A grocery list in familiar handwriting. Reading glasses sitting beside the chair where someone always sat. A bathroom drawer full of half-used toothpaste, elastic bands, old batteries, pens that no longer worked. The kind of things nobody notices while a person is alive because they are just… there. Then one day they aren’t. And somehow the objects become heavier. I remember someone telling me they stood in their father’s garage for twenty minutes holding an old coffee tin filled with random screws and nails because they suddenly realized their dad had probably saved every one of them thinking they might come in handy someday. The screws themselves meant nothing. They knew that. Still, throwing them out felt awful in a way they hadn’t expected. Not devastating exactly. Just strangely final. That seems to happen a lot. People think sorting through belongings will mostly be a practical job, and part of it is. Boxes get labeled. Donation piles start forming. Somebody rents a dumpster eventually. But somewhere in the middle of all that, emotions sneak in sideways through objects nobody would have predicted beforehand. And families do not always react to those moments the same way. One person wants to keep almost everything because getting rid of it feels wrong. Another wants the house emptied quickly because being there has started hurting too much. Someone else quietly takes little things home without mentioning it because they are worried somebody else might throw them away first. Families can end up irritated with each other during this stage and not fully understand why. The arguments are rarely about the object itself anyway. At least I don’t think they are. I think people are often reacting to the uncomfortable feeling that a whole life is slowly being reduced to decisions about what stays, what goes, and what nobody has room for anymore. That can feel harsh when you actually stand inside a house full of somebody’s things. Especially if they lived there for thirty or forty years. You start opening drawers and realize how much of ordinary life people leave behind without ever thinking about it. Old receipts. Christmas decorations. Instructions for appliances nobody even owns anymore. Half-finished projects sitting on shelves waiting for time that never arrived. And eventually somebody has to decide what happens to all of it. If I were gone, I would not want my family feeling guilty for becoming emotional over small things that probably looked meaningless from the outside. But I also would not want them feeling guilty for letting most of it go either. Very few people can carry an entire lifetime of possessions forward with them, even if part of them wants to. I think that realization comes slowly. At first it can feel like throwing objects away means losing pieces of the person too. Then over time people begin understanding that the memories were never really sitting inside the objects themselves. The objects just happened to pull the memories forward for a while. Still… some things are harder to throw out than they probably should be. And honestly, I suspect most people do not fully understand that until they go through it themselves.

There’s No One Medical Truth

There’s No One Medical Truth Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting? Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray. This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here. All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic. Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision. Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance. Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence. Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by. But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness? That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters. A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another. There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood. Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions. And that’s the point. When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways. Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas. The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science. When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.

Middle Man

Middle Man By Wayne and Tamara I'm torn about how to handle this. My 23-year-old daughter got engaged last November. This weekend she and her fiancé visited us. Yesterday I sat down at my computer and her fiancé’s email was still open. In the sent mail I found pictures of his ex-girlfriend wearing nothing but a partially-open robe. This email is one he sent to himself in January. I’m no prude, but I think if nothing else this was stupid on his part. It would cause a major issue if she discovered it. Best case, they're pictures from years ago, and he simply wanted to keep them. Worst case, she is still sending him photos. I’m thinking of confronting him, and if he’s honest with me, then I’ll bury this. But if he lies, I will make him come clean with my daughter. I don't want to cause a problem where there isn't one, but I don't want to ignore something that may be a real issue. Leo Leo, one of the failings of honest people is they expect dishonest people to think as they do. The liar and the victim of the lie have a huge difference in perspective. If your daughter’s fiancé is actively involved with his old girlfriend, he has no reason to tell you the truth. If you talk to him, you should expect the same answer—denial—whether he is telling the truth or lying. The easy way out is to say nothing and pretend you never saw the photos. But the power to keep quiet is not something you have. It is better for your daughter to know now rather than knowing later. She is the one you have a relationship with. When you see someone breaking into your neighbor’s house and don’t tell your neighbor, who are you siding with? The thief. This young man brought consequences on himself. You will always have this in your head when you deal with him. You can’t stop your daughter from making mistakes, but you can give her the information you now possess. Talk to your daughter, alone and soon, in a calm and collected manner. Carefully tell her, “If something came of this, and I didn’t tell you, I would be kicking myself forever. I don’t have the knowledge to know what this means, but I saw something which hurt me because it may hurt you.” Then trust her to do the right thing. Wayne & Tamara Suspicions I work for a small company. Since I have been on board our very young owner has made accusations, but today was the worst. He was getting ready to leave and next to me was a check from one of our customers. It was similar in color to the ones I cut and he signs. He wasn't gone 10 minutes when I got a phone call, asking me why I signed one of our checks. I was dumbfounded then looked around and saw the customer’s check. I told him what he had seen and assured him I do not sign checks because I'm not authorized. There was great hesitation in his voice, and since then he has been rude and snappy with me. Meghan Meghan, your boss “saw” something he didn’t see. Rather than be disproven, he wants to defend himself and carry around the idea he wasn’t wrong. Perhaps he’s under stress, sensitive about his authority, or likes to bully others. Perhaps he is suspicious of others because he knows himself to be untrustworthy. Whatever the case, you have to protect yourself. Document the date and time of the phone call and details about the check involved. Explain to others what happened. In the meantime, act absolutely above board and professionally. If you think your job is in danger, act like your job is in danger and take steps to find a more welcoming workplace. Wayne & Tamara