What Does the Price List Actually Tell You?

Dead and Gone… What Does the Price List Actually Tell You? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario When someone dies, families often hear a new term very quickly. The price list. It sounds simple enough. A document with prices. Clear. Straightforward. But if I were gone, and my family was sitting across from someone reviewing a funeral home’s General Price List for the first time, I would want them to know this. A price list can be helpful. It just doesn’t tell the whole story. In Ontario, funeral homes are required to provide written pricing information. That matters. Families should not have to guess. The list outlines professional fees, transportation, facilities, vehicles, merchandise, and optional services. On paper, it looks organized. Almost clinical. Grief rarely is. Most price lists are divided into sections. There is usually a basic professional fee. There may be transfer charges. Preparation fees. Facilities and staffing for visitation or ceremony. Casket and urn options. Items most families have never purchased before and may never have thought about until that moment. If I were sitting with my family in that room, I would want them to understand something simple. Not every line on that page applies to them. A price list shows what is available. It does not automatically reflect what a family will choose. And that is usually where uncertainty starts to creep in. Two funeral homes may present similar looking documents, yet the final totals can differ. One may bundle services together. Another may separate them. One may include certain third party costs in its estimate. Another may list them separately. Without context, the differences can feel bigger than they actually are. If I could leave my family one practical suggestion, it would be this. Ask which items are required and which are optional. That question alone can change the tone of the conversation. If a family is choosing direct cremation, for example, many line items simply do not apply. There may be no visitation. No chapel service. No hearse. No cemetery coordination. Those services remain on the list because they are part of the funeral home’s full range of offerings, not because they must be selected. A price list is meant to inform. Still, in the middle of grief, even straightforward information can feel heavy. I would also want my family to know it is completely reasonable to take that document home. To read it more than once. To compare it with another. To ask for a written estimate that reflects the specific choices being considered, not just the full menu. No family should feel rushed to decide from a single sheet of paper. There is another detail families sometimes discover later. A funeral home’s price list may not include cemetery fees, clergy fees, obituary notices, or flowers. Those costs often sit outside the funeral home itself. If that is not explained clearly, the final number can come as a surprise. Clarity rarely comes from the document alone. It comes from asking questions and taking a little time. If I were gone, what I would want most is for my family to feel comfortable speaking openly about cost without embarrassment. Talking about money at a time like this can feel uncomfortable, but it does not diminish love. It simply helps prevent confusion. The purpose of a price list is not to pressure anyone. It is there to show what exists. What families choose from it should feel thoughtful, not hurried. Next week, I will write about something many families quietly wonder about after a death. What government benefits may be available, and how those programs actually work in Ontario.

Don’t let them scare you

Don’t let them scare you A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak. There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side. If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to. So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family. The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose. Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.

By The Numbers

By The Numbers By Wayne and Tamara I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year. The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better. Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things. To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me? Daphne Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule. A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number. But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them. That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with. Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer. Wayne & Tamara Benched For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive. But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count. She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on? Greg Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman. Wayne & Tamara

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust. By Nick Kossovan The crux of all hiring decisions comes down to one word: trust. AI, combined with a growing number of malicious actors in the job market, has eroded trust between employers and job seekers, an issue that is worsening. Today, everyone's resume looks great. Same buzzwords. Same frameworks. Same: "I managed," "I built," "I scaled." Miraculously, every candidate is strategic, results-driven and cross-functional. With AI, it is easy to create a slick veneer of tripe, filled with buzzwords from the job posting, at best, making hollow promises. Most job seekers, especially bad actors, focus on looking smooth. In contrast, savvy job seekers focus on presenting evidence—quantifying their impact on their employer's business (read: profitability)—to build trust. ATSs and, to a large extent, humans struggle to distinguish between effort, outcomes, and mimicking the job posting; therefore, hiring managers and recruiters seek job seekers who do what most don't: quantify, with numbers, the friction they caused in their previous employer's business. What does "Led a team of inside sales reps to achieve sales quota" mean? What value does this sentence offer? Does it build any trust or credibility? The same for: · "Managed and maintained the organization's social media accounts to strengthen Wayne Enterprises' online presence." · "Managed the team calendar." · "Handled customer inquiries." · "Filed reports." · "Supported sales and marketing efforts." · "Improved office efficiency." · "Hard worker with a go-getter attitude." (Isn't every jobseeker?) These sentences list duties and opinions ("Employers don't hire opinions; they hire results") instead of what employers want to see: your accomplishments (read: results). Moreover, they fail to answer the critical "so what?" question. Hiring managers and recruiters aren't asking, "Is this candidate impressive?" They're asking, "Can I trust this person to deliver the results we need?" Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles don't fail screening. They fail trust. A highly effective job search strategy is to concentrate intensely on demonstrating to recruiters and employers that you are results-oriented. Candidates who come across as trustworthy, result-driven, and reliable, and who aren't afraid to own their results, are the ones employers swoon over. A common job search myth, perpetuated by a sense of entitlement, is that one's experience, which is subjective, speaks for itself. It doesn't. Experience only holds value for an employer if the person with the "experience" can be trusted to produce measurable results. Job seekers need to understand that hiring doesn't occur in a reflective environment that gives a job seeker, who's a stranger to the hiring manager, the benefit of the doubt. Hiring occurs under pressure. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles are rapidly scrutinized for evidence of impact at prior employers. When a resume or LinkedIn profile doesn't provide evidence of impact, it becomes, without a second thought, a "No." Hiring isn't mysterious, as many would like you to believe, especially those who benefit—make money—from you believing it is. It's layered. The first layer is answering the question every hiring manager asks themselves when scanning a resume: "What has this person achieved?" If what you've achieved leads the hiring manager to think, "[Name] could be someone we can use here," then the candidate moves on to the second layer, determining whether you can be trusted. AI or not, resumes never tell someone's full story. As I pointed out at the beginning, the job market abounds with bad actors and job seekers who exaggerate or outright lie about their experience and qualifications, or whose behaviour (personality traits) isn't conducive to being an employer's ideal employee. Nowadays, employers understandably seek a comprehensive view of a candidate, so they: · Google the candidate—check their digital footprint (read: behaviour)—and review their social media activity (articles, blogs, comments, posts), especially on LinkedIn, to determine whether they're interview-worthy. Does the candidate's online presence raise any questions? Are they associated with (written, commented on, reposted) any industry- or profession-related articles or blogs? What charitable activities do they engage in? Do any illicit or questionable activities appear? · Look them in the eye, listen, and observe how they communicate during the interview. Speaking for myself, a lack of communication skills—the ability to articulate with confidence—is a non-negotiable requirement when I hire. The way a candidate communicates with me—I'll also ask candidates to write something to gauge their written communication skills and how they think (writing is thinking)—is how they'll communicate with customers, prospects, and their colleagues. "The ability to communicate is critical to building relationships, to leadership, and to learning." Sheryl Sandberg, American technology executive, philanthropist and writer. · Ensure the applicant can walk their talk by asking them to take an assessment test or complete an assignment. I've lost count of how many candidates I've interviewed who talked a good game but didn't pass an assessment or submit a subpar assignment. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles have always contained a great deal of fluff, embellishments, and falsehoods. As employers grow increasingly weary of job seekers' claims, the core issue job seekers face is communicating their value in a few seconds and convincing employers they can be trusted. Job seekers who empathize with employers, have trust issues, and therefore focus on building credibility to gain trust will be far ahead of their competition.

Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants

Karmageddon By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants Municipal governments in Ontario are widely regarded as financially disciplined. Balanced-budget requirements, strong audit practices and conservative debt management have created a culture of fiscal caution. That discipline has value. But in an era defined by housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and constrained revenue tools, caution alone is no longer sufficient. Most municipalities structure their finance departments around accounting expertise. Treasurers and chief financial officers are typically trained in audit compliance, financial reporting and budget administration. Their mandate is to ensure that spending aligns with revenues, that reserves are properly allocated and that statutory requirements are met. These functions are essential. But they are not economic modelling. Accounting is, by nature, retrospective. It records and categorizes what has occurred. Economic modelling, by contrast, attempts to forecast behavioural responses to policy decisions. An accountant asks whether the budget balances. An economist asks what will happen if a variable changes. The distinction matters. Municipal councils today are routinely making decisions about development charges, property-tax rates, infrastructure financing and long-term debt issuance. These decisions influence housing supply, business location, migration patterns and assessment growth. They shape the local economy for decades. Yet many municipalities approach these questions primarily through an accounting lens. Consider development charges. When rates are increased to fund capital projects, the financial logic is straightforward: growth should pay for growth. But what is the elasticity effect? At what point do higher charges suppress housing starts? How does that affect long-term assessment growth? Could a lower rate generate higher total revenue over time? These are economic questions. They require modelling. The same applies to property-tax policy. What level of increase begins to influence business investment decisions? How sensitive are commercial properties to tax differentials across municipal borders? How do households respond to cumulative cost pressures? Without economic forecasting, councils risk making technically balanced but economically inefficient decisions. The consequences are rarely immediate. A budget can be balanced while housing starts decline. Debt ratios can appear manageable while assessment growth slows. Tax rates can rise incrementally without recognizing the point at which competitiveness erodes. Over time, however, these effects compound. Senior levels of government routinely integrate economic modelling into fiscal policy decisions. Provincial and federal ministries publish forecasts, stress-test assumptions and examine behavioural impacts before implementing major changes. Municipal governments, which now manage increasingly complex infrastructure and growth mandates, should do the same. This does not mean replacing treasurers with economists. Accounting discipline remains indispensable. But municipalities would benefit from institutionalizing economic expertise alongside traditional finance functions. An in-house municipal economist – or a formalized economic modelling unit – could evaluate development-charge sensitivity, tax elasticity, infrastructure return on investment and long-term debt sustainability under varying growth and interest-rate scenarios. Major fiscal decisions would then be informed not only by compliance requirements, but by forward-looking analysis. Ontario’s municipalities are being asked to grow faster, build more housing and maintain affordability, often with limited fiscal tools. In that environment, optimizing spreadsheets is not enough. Municipal governance must evolve from budget management to economic strategy. Balancing the books is necessary. Modelling the future is essential.

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars. Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable. But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense. That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades. And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again. After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical. We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears. When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”? A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks? Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working. There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend. Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now? Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second. These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous. The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it. So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.” The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting. If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment. The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger. I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents. In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead.

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario When someone dies, the first day is about shock, phone calls, and trying to understand what just happened. Very quickly after that, another reality shows up, whether families are ready for it or not. Questions about cost start to appear, sometimes quietly, sometimes all at once. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this is normal, and that feeling uncomfortable talking about money at a time like this is something almost every family experiences. This is not always an easy topic to talk about. Cost and grief do not belong together, but in reality they often meet very quickly. I hear this from families across Durham more often than people might expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that price differences are common, and that they do not automatically mean something is wrong. When families first start asking about cost, this is usually where the conversation begins. In Durham Region, direct cremation is often one of the lower cost options families consider. In many cases, families may see prices starting somewhere in the lower thousands, but that number can change depending on timing, transportation, paperwork, and third party fees. Some providers include more services in their base price, while others separate them into individual line items. That alone can make two quotes look very different even if the final service feels similar. As families begin looking at other types of arrangements, costs usually increase simply because more is involved. Traditional burial or full service funeral arrangements often include visitation, staffing, facility use, vehicles, and coordination with cemeteries or churches. Cemetery costs in particular can vary widely depending on location, availability, and what is selected. That is why families sometimes see a total price that is several thousand dollars higher than what they expected when they first started asking questions. One thing I would want my family to know is that funeral homes do not control every cost. Crematorium fees, cemetery fees, clergy or celebrant fees, and government paperwork costs are often outside the funeral home itself. If one estimate includes those items and another does not, it can create confusion. It can feel like one provider is dramatically more expensive when in reality the quotes are simply structured differently. Timing can also matter more than people expect. After hours transfers, weekend arrangements, or urgent timelines can affect cost. Some providers build flexibility into their base pricing. Others only add charges if those services are needed. Neither approach is automatically better, but families deserve to understand how pricing works before making decisions. Many families I speak with are surprised by how normal it is to ask for written estimates and to take time to review them. There is no rule that says decisions must be made in a single conversation. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel comfortable asking for information in writing and taking a day to talk together before making final choices. If I could leave my family one practical piece of advice about cost, it would be this: ask which costs belong to the funeral home, and which costs are paid to someone else. That one question often makes quotes much easier to understand. I would also want them to remember that lower cost does not automatically mean lower care, and higher cost does not automatically mean better service. What matters most is whether the family feels supported, informed, and comfortable with the decisions they are making. These conversations are not about finding the cheapest option. They are about understanding choices clearly enough to make decisions without pressure or confusion. During grief, clarity matters more than anything else. Next week, I will write about something families often hear about but rarely understand clearly before they need it: how price lists work, what they are supposed to show, and how families can use them to compare options more confidently. ​

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Which investment option is best for you! When it comes time to decide which mix of savings is best for you, your options can look quite confusing. There are registered retirement saving plans (RRSP’s) Tax free saving accounts (TFSA’s and First Home Buyers saving accounts (FHSA). Establishing which plan or combination of plans works best for you depends on your own personal, goals and financial situation. RRSP’s, TFSA, s FHSA’s Most Canadians hold RRSP’s where they can claim deduction and then the deferral of tax until they withdraw funds at retirement. RRSP’s have numerous other benefits and as Canadians many do not use these upon reaching retirement. Something you may wish to discuss in your preretirement years. The introduction of TFSA has provided another powerful saving tool that allows investments to grow tax free with the opportunity to withdraw funds when need. This does have some restrictions if funds are withdrawn same year of contributions. The withdrawal of TFSA can create costly penalties if funds are repaid to quick. First Homebuyers saving accounts FHSA is the newest registered plans that gives first time home buyers the opportunity to invest up to $40,000.00 in a lifetime for the purchase of a first homeowner tax free basis. This plan be open if you are over the age of 18. This plan is a great tool for grandparents that wish to help kids and grandkids with saving for a first home. Ask a qualified investment advisor how to arrange suggest a plan. Like RRSP contributions are tax deductible and withdrawals for the purchase of a new home are non taxable like a TFSA All plans have limits and maximum contribution limits, and you should always confirm your contribution limit in you CRA my Account. Before making contributions discuss your options with a qualified investment advisor to ensure you are in vesting in plans that follow your risk tolerance. Simple planning gets you where you need to go never chase the larger returns can bring larger loses.

The Politics in a Paintbrush The Power of Political Art Within our Society

The Politics in a Paintbrush The Power of Political Art Within our Society By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Art is integrated into nearly every aspect of our society, from the clothes we wear to the movies we watch and the music we listen to. Over time, the history of art has evolved, however the purpose has stood consistent. Historically, art has been used to express emotion, illustrate global issues, and highlight an important event. Regardless of the format, style, or intention, there is one common theme which has always been prominent within the arts: political intention. Regardless of the genre or medium of art, every piece created makes a statement. An attractive landscape says something about beauty and peace, while professional portraits make a comment about power dynamics and hierarchy. Even abstract art speaks of atypical interpretation and works to challenge normality. All these forms are political, not because they focus on government itself, but because they engage in society, power dynamics, and social ideals. A piece does not need to revolve around a political system itself, but to question the systems and everyday influences which govern our individuality. Although all art contains political meaning, this can be expressed in many different ways, both upfront and more symbolic. Committed art presents an obvious, evident meaning to the viewer, often addressing themes regarding environmental issues, societal pressures, and social justice. This contrasts with avant-garde art, which pushes boundaries but may not have a clear meaning. Avant-garde art includes more room for personal interpretation, asking the viewer questions which may otherwise be ignored. Both styles leave viewers questioning our society and its systems, which is what makes the politics in art so significant. Arthur Miller's The Crucible, first published in the 1950s, is a powerful example of political art. Through the play, Miller tells the story of the Salem Witch Trials, while commenting on the Second Red Scare and political fear in his time. The warnings and morals are clear, making it a piece of committed art, while continuing to be an interesting and entertaining play. Modern films and books have an equal political meaning, some more obvious than others. For example, the fictional nation Panem from The Hunger Games is not just a fictional world, but a society which reflects some of the most dystopian ideas which we have today. This includes extreme inequality, political control, and misinformation. Despite the light-hearted mood, the 2023 Barbie movie is another strong example, as it reached the hearts of countless people by highlighting misogyny and sexism still prevalent today. Even less obvious media, such as superhero movies, talk of helping those with lower socioeconomic status, supporting refugees, and fighting against inequality. The halftime show at the 2026 Superbowl shows the power of political activism through artwork. Bad Bunny, a Puerto Rican singer, performed at the halftime show, a performance that upset millions of football fans. Despite the resistance, Bad Bunny used this platform to promote his message of equity and peace, displaying messages such as “the only thing more powerful than love is hate.” His performance inspired countless individuals to stand up for what they believe in and fight for social justice. When discussing art, it is important to understand the wider scope of the influence. Art is not just classical paintings of flowers or ancient sculptures, but also the fashion we wear and the songs we hear. Every art piece of it says something about our society, and about who we are as individuals. In the wrong hands, art can be used as propaganda to lead the misinformed or to spread hate, however it can also be used to fight against this exact corruption. The right paintbrush, guitar, or script in the right hand can be a powerful weapon against injustice worldwide. Art is a universal language of protest, of change, and of love, and it has been used as such for thousands of years. One good painting can touch our hearts, souls, and entire nations.

It Is Not What It Seems!!!

It Is Not What It Seems!!! A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist This may seem like a personal rant but after speaking with several of my neighbours over the last couple of weeks I can guarantee you it is not. What I am referring to is communication, or to be more precise, the lack there of between the public and their elected City Councillors. Why is it that some Councillors are master communicators and others are missing in action? Take Rick Kerr and Brian Nicholson for example, they are both known for responding to their constituents. Actually, because they both communicate so well, a lot of people that are not residents of their wards will ask questions of them on Facebook regarding community matters and they will respond. One Councillor in particular, Derek Giberson, who has been basically invisible for the last three years has now predicably started posting on Facebook that he is doing this or that in the hopes of having people think that he’s been doing this community work since he got elected three years ago, but he has been for the most part unseen and unheard. Now all of a sudden, he has taken to Facebook to post that he is hosting a series of meetings on the housing crisis, like he’s some kind of rock star. Well, the housing crisis is not new. In fact, the only thing that is new in this whole situation is that he is talking to the public. I happened to notice a post that Derek Giberson made on Facebook a few weeks ago and it really irritated me. It irritated me because he is a Councillor that is well known for next to no interaction with his constituents. The people who elected him. His post on Facebook had the commenting turned off. It prompted me to make a post myself asking what kind of Councillor makes a post and turns commenting off? Well, the kind that is not interested in what the public has to say. That’s exactly who does that. Within one hour, Derek Giberson had the commenting turned on. Hmm…looks like someone took notice. Just the other day my post received a message from another constituent. He said that he had hand delivered two letters to this Councillor at City Hall and made a few phone calls. This gentleman got no response to his hand delivered letters nor did he receive a return phone call. Why does any Councillor anywhere think that that type of behaviour is alright? Moreover, why in the world would someone think they stand a chance of being reelected by people that they’ve ignored for their entire term in office? It certainly makes one wonder.

Case Closed

Case Closed By Wayne and Tamara I met my boyfriend on an online dating service four months ago. About a month ago I went to the dating service website to take my profile off. Out of curiosity I looked his up, and it was still there. When I mentioned it to him, he said he would take his profile off because he wanted to be with me. Now I know I should have trusted him, but something told me to test him. So I created a fake profile with a picture of an attractive woman and e-mailed him as the other woman. When he didn't respond, I e-mailed again. He still didn't respond. I realized then he must have canceled his membership, so I looked him up and inquired if he was the guy on the dating site. I told him I was new to the site, thought he was attractive, and maybe we could meet for a drink sometime. When I asked if he was seeing someone, he said he met someone who could be serious and had a lot of potential. I asked again if he wanted to meet, and eventually he said maybe. That broke my heart. I got my girlfriend to phone him as the other girl. When she got him on the line, he was suspicious but hesitantly agreed to meet her for a drink. At that point I told him I was the girl who didn't exist. He said he thought it was either me or some kind of prank. I am not a jealous person by any means, but I wonder if we can get past this. Eva Eva, the law does not permit entrapment. Entrapment occurs when the idea for a crime is suggested by the police, the police talk a person into committing the crime, and the person was not previously willing to commit the crime. Once you realized your boyfriend canceled his membership you should have stopped. He is innocent of any crime, but you have proven you are by nature a jealous person. Tamara Favorite Son My husband's parents own a dairy farm, and his brother works full-time on the farm and draws a wage. My husband has a very demanding job, yet he is expected to work on the farm each weekend, count cattle in the morning, and does not get paid even for gas. Our family time is nonexistent. The phone rings and my husband runs. The only time we get together is when I book a holiday. I really think my husband is frightened of his parents. They say his brother needs time with his child, but what about me and our children? When we go away, my husband is so burnt out he is ill for the first few days of our break. But when we are away, he is like a different person. I'd do anything to save my marriage, but I'm not sure how much more I can take. Mona Mona, there is a South American bird with two subspecies, one which builds a nest on the ground and one which nests in a tree. Occasionally a male of one subspecies will get together with a female of the other. When this happens the birds live in great confusion. One puts nesting material on the ground, while the other continually moves it to the branch of a tree. The two never succeed in building a proper nest and usually this results in a mating failure. Occasionally, however, they do struggle and successfully raise chicks. Good parents raise their children to be independent and self-sufficient, knowing that love is the bond which will hold their children to them always. Some parents, however, use demands and obligations to tether their children. That is your husband's problem. There is no resolution to this problem unless your husband decides he wants to build his nest with you. Wayne

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst

Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst Durham Region has launched what it calls a “Community-Based Hate Reporting Program,” and it is being sold to residents as a progressive step toward safety and inclusion. But I’m going to say what too many politicians are too afrai

d to say: this program is Orwellian, dangerous, and an insult to every Canadian who believes in freedom, due process, and democratic accountability. As a Pickering Councillor, I am 100% opposed to it, and I believe Durham residents should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to create a system that encourages anonymous accusations, bureaucratic surveillance, and the quiet erosion of our rights. Let’s be clear about something. Canada already has laws that deal with hate crimes. We already have a Criminal Code. We already have police services and courts that investigate and prosecute actual criminal conduct. Assault is illegal. Harassment is illegal. Threats are illegal. Vandalism is illegal. The promotion of hatred toward identifiable groups is illegal. If someone commits a crime, police can lay charges, evidence is reviewed, and the justice system determines guilt or innocence. That is how a free society functions. So the obvious question is this: what exactly is Durham Region solving here? Because there is no legal gap. There is no crisis that requires municipal staff to collect anonymous complaints about speech, opinions, “bias,” or interpersonal disagreements. This program doesn’t prevent violence, it doesn’t stop criminals, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. What it does do is create a government-run system for tracking allegations against ordinary residents without evidence, without verification, and without accountability. The most alarming feature is that it encourages anonymous reporting. Think about the implications of that for even a moment. Anyone can report anyone. A neighbour feud. A workplace disagreement. A political argument. A social media comment. A complaint from someone who simply dislikes you. With a few clicks, an accusation can be filed, logged, analyzed, and stored. The accused may never even know it happened, and they will certainly never be given the opportunity to respond, defend themselves, or challenge the claim. That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not Canadian. That is a system designed to normalize suspicion and fear, where the government quietly collects unverified allegations about its own citizens. And who is reviewing these complaints? Bureaucrats. Municipal staff. Victim services administrators. Unelected individuals who are not accountable to the public in any meaningful way. These are not police officers. These are not judges. These are not trained legal authorities. They are government employees being put in the position of deciding what qualifies as “hate,” what qualifies as “bias,” and what qualifies as a reportable “incident.” That is ideological policing by bureaucracy, and it is exactly how free societies begin to rot from within. People begin to self-censor. They stop speaking freely. They stop questioning. They stop criticizing government. They stop debating controversial topics. Not because they are guilty of a crime, but because they are afraid of being reported, labeled, and quietly added to a database. Durham Region is now creating a government-held repository of unverified accusations about residents. We are told this is for “trend analysis,” but that phrase should alarm every thinking person. Governments do not build databases and then keep them small. They expand them. They integrate them. They share them. And they eventually justify their existence by claiming they need more power, more funding, and more authority. Today this program is presented as separate from other municipal services, but anyone who understands modern data systems knows how quickly that can change. Integration is not some far-fetched conspiracy. It is the natural evolution of government bureaucracy. A complaint logged today could become an internal profile tomorrow. A pattern of anonymous reports could become a “risk assessment.” And once a government begins collecting subjective accusations, the line between “public safety” and “citizen monitoring” disappears faster than people realize. Even more disturbing is the complete lack of consequences for false reporting. There are no penalties. No accountability. No safeguards. In a real justice system, making false accusations can carry serious consequences. But in this program, anyone can anonymously accuse someone of being hateful, bigoted, or biased, and there is no legal consequence because it is not a formal criminal process. That means this program is wide open to abuse. It can be weaponized for revenge, harassment, and political targeting. And if you don’t think political targeting is possible in today’s climate, you haven’t been paying attention to what has happened across this country over the last several years, where dissent is increasingly treated as dangerous and disagreement is increasingly treated as hate. This is where history matters. Because we have seen this before. Anyone who has studied Nazi Germany understands that authoritarianism did not begin with camps and uniforms. It began with propaganda, fear, and citizen reporting systems. It began with governments encouraging neighbours to report neighbours. It began with people being labeled as “problematic” or “dangerous” for speech, opinions, or associations. It began with the normalization of surveillance culture, justified in the name of “public good.” It began with bureaucrats collecting information and quietly building files. That is how totalitarian systems grow: not all at once, but step by step, policy by policy, database by database, until citizens no longer speak freely because they fear the consequences of being reported. That is why this program should not be dismissed as harmless. The infrastructure of authoritarianism is always built under the banner of safety and morality. That is exactly what makes it so dangerous. And make no mistake, this program raises serious Charter concerns. Freedom of expression is not protected only when speech is popular. It is protected precisely because people must be allowed to hold and express opinions that others may dislike. Freedom of association matters because citizens must be able to gather, organize, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked. Privacy matters because the state should not be building databases about its residents based on anonymous allegations. Due process matters because no person should be accused, recorded, and categorized without being given a chance to respond. Even if Durham Region claims this is “non-criminal,” the chilling effect is the same. People will stop speaking. They will stop engaging. They will stop questioning. That is how democracy dies—not through force, but through fear and compliance. And all of this is being done with taxpayer money—approximately $89,000 over two years—for a program that does not stop crime and does not prosecute criminals. At a time when families are struggling to afford groceries, housing, and fuel, Durham Region has decided to spend public money creating a bureaucratic pipeline for anonymous complaints. That should outrage every resident, regardless of political affiliation. Government should be focused on real public safety, real crime prevention, and real support for victims—not building reporting portals that act as a mechanism for social control. If Durham Region truly wanted to combat hate and violence, there are real solutions: stronger policing, better mental health supports, outreach programs, education initiatives, and direct support for vulnerable communities. But instead of focusing on criminal conduct and real threats, they have chosen to create a system that encourages grievance reporting and expands government monitoring. This program does not protect the public. It trains the public to spy on each other. It creates distrust. It chills speech. It empowers bureaucracy. And it lays the groundwork for future expansion. Durham residents should be demanding immediate transparency and accountability. Who oversees this database? Who has access? How long is the data stored? What prevents integration with other municipal systems? What safeguards exist against malicious reporting? What rights do accused individuals have? What oversight exists to ensure this program is not weaponized politically? These questions are not optional. They are essential. Because once a government builds the infrastructure to monitor its own citizens, it rarely gives that power back. This is not about safety. This is not about inclusion. This is about control. And as a Pickering Councillor, I will oppose any initiative that moves our communities closer to a culture of surveillance, anonymous reporting, and bureaucratic profiling. History has already shown us where these systems lead, and Canadians should not tolerate them at any level of government. Not federally. Not provincially. And certainly not locally. If we want a safe society, we enforce laws against real crime. We do not build Orwellian programs that encourage residents to report each other in the shadows. That is not progress. That is regression. And if we do not stop it now, we will one day look back and wonder how we let it happen. So I ask the people of Durham: when is enough enough? How many red flags do you need before you recognize the direction we are heading? Because the slow demise of Durham will not happen overnight — it will happen one program, one policy, and one surrendered freedom at a time.

Canada Will Find Its Way Back

Canada Will Find Its Way Back By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canada is in a rough place right now. You can feel it when you talk to people at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, or waiting for the bus. Folks are tired. Not just tired from work, but tired in their bones. Tired of being talked down to. Tired of being told they are the problem. The job market keeps shrinking. Tens of thousands of Canadians have stopped looking for work because they see no future in it. Young people are stuck bouncing between short contracts and low pay. Seniors, people who worked their whole lives, are now showing up in shelters. Food banks are busier than ever. These are not rumors. They are happening right now. At the same time, billions of taxpayer dollars are leaving the country. We are told there is no money for housing, health care, or seniors, but there always seems to be money for something else. That makes people angry, and it should. Many Canadians feel like they no longer recognize their own country. If you speak up, you are labeled. If you ask questions, you are attacked. Disagree with the government and you are called names instead of being answered. That is not how a healthy country works. There is also a growing feeling that some groups are allowed to be openly targeted. Christians are mocked. White people are told they are guilty just for existing. Many people are afraid to even say that out loud because they do not want to lose their job or friends. But pretending it is not happening does not fix it. Canada was built on the idea that you earn your keep. You work hard. You help your neighbors. You raise your kids. You do not expect special treatment, but you expect fairness. That idea is being pushed aside and replaced with something else. Something that says your value depends on which group you belong to. That way of thinking will not last forever. History shows this again and again. Movements built on division always burn out. They get loud. They get angry. Then they collapse under their own weight. It may not happen fast. It may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen. Canada has been through worse times than this. The Great Depression nearly broke families. Two world wars sent young men overseas and left scars that never healed. People suffered. People went hungry. But the country pulled together because families stuck together. That is what matters now. Pull your family closer. Talk to your kids. Eat meals together when you can. If one of your children has been deeply influenced by a university or online world that teaches them to hate their own country or family, be patient. That is hard. They may say things that hurt. They may call you names. They may tell you that you are everything wrong with the world. Stay calm. In time, many of them will learn who really cares. It will not be activist groups. It will not be loud online movements. It will be the people who showed up when life got hard. Family always matters in the end. Do not stop loving each other. Love is not weakness. It is what holds people steady when everything else is shaking. You can be strong and still care. You can fight for your country and still be kind. There is a lot of talk about hate these days. But most regular Canadians are not hateful. They are worried. They are stressed. They are trying to protect their kids and hold onto something familiar in a fast changing world. That does not make them bad people. It makes them human. Canada does not need saving by outsiders. Nobody is coming to rescue us. The only thing we have is each other. Neighbors. Families. Communities. That is how this country was built in the first place. We also need to stop being afraid of our friends. The United States is not our enemy. Americans are just people, same as us. They argue. They vote. They make mistakes. Whoever is leading them at any moment does not change that. Fear helps no one. What Canada needs now is honesty. Honest debate. Honest media. Honest leaders who remember who they work for. Not activists. Not donors. Not loud online crowds. Regular people. This period will pass. The anger will burn itself out. New generations will look back and ask how things got so divided. They will also rebuild. My hope is that my grandchildren will live in a Canada that remembers fairness, hard work, and respect again. That future will not be handed to them. It has to be protected, talked about, and fought for. Calmly. Clearly. Without hatred. Stay chill, Canada. Do not turn on each other. Hold your ground without losing your heart. That is how countries survive hard times. We have done it before. We will do it again.

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura”

The Italians Call It “Sprezzatura” By Nick Kossovan Nothing kills attraction faster than the smell of effort. When you appear to be trying to impress, you've already lost; people can smell your desperation, which most job seekers show signs of. Rare is the job seeker who controls their emotions and whose actions appear fluid. The Italians call it sprezzatura, the art of making "the difficult" seem effortless. In his 1528 work The Book of the Courtier, Renaissance author Baldassare Castiglione described sprezzatura as "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it". Essentially, sprezzatura is the art of "studied carelessness," making difficult actions look effortless. Worth noting: with consistent practice and patience, any art can be learned and even mastered. Sprezzatura practitioners maintain a relaxed style that seems unintentional, never revealing the effort behind their actions. When you display "struggle," such as complaining about your job search on LinkedIn or criticizing how employers hire for their business, you publicly display that you can't manage your emotions, which diminishes your status. Remaining silent is better than saying or writing something that could negatively reflect on you, particularly with employers. Moreover, a nonchalant attitude—it'll be what it'll be—is much more appealing than desperate action or the display of frustration and anger. Not to undermine Castiglione, the first step in applying the art of sprezzatura to your job search is to adopt a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude, a mindset that's critical to confidence and, in the context of job searching, reduces anxiety and helps you cope with the frustrations of job searching, such as ghosting, long hiring processes, rejection, and months of silence. Those you admire and respect are likely individuals who embody a not-giving-a-f*ck attitude. Caring less about external validation, trivial opinions, critics, haters, and uncontrollable outcomes, such as whether you're ghosted, receive feedback, or get hired, frees up much-needed mental energy for self-trust (read: increase your confidence). Ultimately, not caring about what's out of your control, which is the majority of your job search, allows you to concentrate on what you can control: your actions. A job seeker who exhibits sprezzatura makes a strong first impression. Rather than appearing overly anxious or desperate, their nonchalant demeanour conveys self-assurance—a sense of calm control—a trait valued by employers. They approach networking, undeniably the most effective job search strategy, and interviews with a poised attitude. As I mentioned, any art can be learned and even mastered, including sprezzatura. 1. Stop being emotionally attached. I know this'll come across as a cliché; however, having spent decades navigating the corporate world, experiencing different workplaces more than most, I can confidently say that business is never personal. It took me years to realize that being emotionally attached to my work wasn't benefiting my well-being, and that I needed to detach myself from outcomes. In other words, do my best work, put it out there, and let the chips fall where they may (read: f*ck it). When job hunting, view applications as a numbers game rather than a measure of your self-worth. While submitting quality applications to jobs that align with your skills and experience is important, don't let perfectionism get in the way; ignore the "perfect candidate" narrative. The most effective way to capture an employer's attention is to hyper-focus on your resume and LinkedIn, highlighting how you contributed to your previous employer's profitability. 2. Stop drowning in execution. Avoid spending time tailoring your resume for every application. Instead, craft a single, impactful resume that highlights the value you delivered to previous employers, which is what employers look for when assessing candidates. The same applies to your cover letter, which you should always include. Write one cover letter that can be easily personalized with a few quick edits, that provides the reader with compelling reasons why you're the perfect candidate for the job, hence why they should read your resume. 3. Stop over-preparing for initial screening calls. Treat first-round interviews as conversations to determine whether the opportunity is one you want to pursue. Shifting from a "please pick me" energy to a "is this a fit for me?" approach levels the playing field and helps you spot red flags before you're in too deep. 4. Stop expecting. Expectations are just scripts you've written for others to follow, a recipe for frustration and anger, since many people don't read their lines. Stop "expecting," and you'll start releasing the tension that comes from waiting for others to meet your expectations. Employers don't owe job seekers, who freely participated in their hiring process, anything. Commenting on LinkedIn that employers need to "do better" doesn't change anything. While it would be nice not to be ghosted, social norms have shifted. Ghosting is now common in and outside the workplace. As for feedback, our litigious society has made giving it a liability concern. A not-giving-a-f*ck attitude coupled with "zero-expectations" is the foundation for cultivating sprezzatura, the most powerful, liberating, and empowering mental shift you adopt as a job seeker, which'll keep you moving with little mental friction from one opportunity to the next until you hear "You're hired!"

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism…

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Dear readers. I have been doing this job for well over 30 years. During my time as the city editor I have learned many valuable lessons. I have seen administrations come and go. I have see all kind of activists make their point and slowly become oppressed by political policy and regulation. The protocol is always the same. Some great cause. Followed by protest in various forms, only to be squashed by policy or law. In these modern times. Anyone and everyone crowns themselves a journalist. This compromising the profession of journalism. It brings to shame those that are professionals in the field do to the action of those that have no qualification and or education in the field. To write does not make you a journalist. True journalist have standards. They have integrity and a responsibility to the community they represent. Journalism standards are a set of ethical principles—primarily accuracy, fairness, independence, and accountability—designed to ensure truthful reporting in the public interest. Key practices include verifying information before publication, separating opinion from news, disclosing conflicts of interest, and promptly correcting errors. These standards aim to maintain public trust and provide context to news events. If this stands true as a measure of any media/publication. Then what are we to think of those that are online only news posting sites? Clearly they are not journalist. They are not publications as most post slanted interest items. Look at organizations like ‘Rebel News’, for example. They claim to be a news organization. Yet, they do not adhere to the principles and standards of the profession. As a journalist we can’t take sides on any issue. We are there to report on the events at hand. No matter if we personally support it or not. Our job as a journalist is to report on the facts as they are presented at that point in time. Any other form of reporting is nothing short of and opinion piece and or column with quotes to substantiate a particular point. No matter the political slant. This is not journalism. This is activism. Journalist and publishers pay dearly for confusing the two concept. Take for example the most prominent recent case of a publisher being jailed in China involves Jimmy Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong. On February 9, 2026, a Hong Kong court sentenced Lai to 20 years in prison for convictions related to national security, marking the longest sentence handed down under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law to date. In this particular case. The journalistic standard was not applicable as by it’s name clearly reported from a bias perspective. They printed in news print....But did not qualify them as a ‘NEWSPAPER’. Newspaper are to be true to the community they represent by reporting what is taking place and letting the readers make up their own minds based on the information published in accordance to the journalism standards. In these modern time. Just because you post something online it does not make you a journalist. Just because you have a blog, a social media site and or a youtube account. It does not make you a journalist. At best, from a professional position. You are nothing more then a source. A voice, but far from a journalist. Even some main groups like CNN have lost the sense of the journalistic standards and have chosen to falsely give themselves the creditability that they are journalists. Sad times we live in that we are bombarded with misinformation confusing the world we live in.

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore

A Century-Old Problem We Still Ignore Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones In 1982, PubMed, a research database, indexed 740 papers with “vitamin D” in the title. In 2020, there were 5,566. Clearly interest has increased. Today, vitamin D is studied as a system-wide regulator and an essential component of skeletal, immune, metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, and inflammatory processes. But even a century ago, nutritionists feared the dangers of vitamin D deficiency. Warnings were dismissed as “alternative thinking.” Vitamin D was discovered in the early 20th century, when researchers noticed that children deprived of sunlight developed rickets, a bone-softening disease that left them bow-legged and deformed. In 1903, Niels Ryberg Finsen, a Danish physician with Icelandic roots, received a Nobel prize for pioneering the therapeutic use of concentrated light. Sanatoriums, which emphasized sunlight exposure, and cod liver oil, rich in D, were common treatments for tuberculosis and other infections, but Finsen’s work explained it. For decades afterward, vitamin D was viewed narrowly as a “bone vitamin” in spite of the success of sanatoriums. Once rickets was largely eliminated through supplementation of food, the medical profession lost interest. Blood levels were rarely tested. The assumption was that a normal diet and a bit of sunshine were enough. More recent research has shown D is not just a vitamin, but a hormone, influencing hundreds of genes involved in immune function, inflammation, muscle strength, and brain health. Across the human lifespan, as much as 3-4% of the human genome is influenced by vitamin D. It’s confirmed what early advocates suspected – deficiency is the norm, not the exception. With aging, skin becomes far less efficient at producing D from sunlight. An 80-year-old produces only a fraction that a 20-year-old can make with the same sun exposure. And if you live north of Atlanta, GA, you aren’t making enough D from sunlight in winter, period. Vitamin D is vital for mothers and developing children too. Diet alone often isn’t enough. Very few foods naturally contain meaningful amounts of vitamin D. Unless someone regularly eats fatty fish or takes supplements, intake is usually inadequate. That means blood levels fall well below what researchers now associate with optimal health, 40 – 100 ng/mL. Low vitamin D levels are strongly associated with increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis; loss of muscle strength and balance, leading to falls; impaired immune function and higher susceptibility to infections; chronic inflammation, which underlies heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis; and cognitive decline and mood disorders, including depression. In other words, vitamin D deficiency worsens many of the conditions we attribute to “normal aging.” Perhaps the greatest irony is this: vitamin D deficiency is easy to detect and inexpensive to correct. A simple blood test can reveal deficiency. Sensible supplementation can restore healthy levels. Yet many elderly patients are never tested, and when they are, the “acceptable” levels recommended by some authorities are likely too low to provide full protection. 2000 – 5000 IU or 50 – 125 mcg of D3 per day is a good start, guided by testing blood levels. Magnesium and Vitamin K2 are important companion nutrients to optimize vitamin D metabolism. Medicine is very good at treating disease once it appears, but far less interested in preventing it. Vitamin D deficiency is a textbook example of this failure. No vitamin is a magic bullet, and vitamin D is no exception. But ignoring a widespread deficiency that affects bones, muscles, immunity, and brain health makes no sense. If there is a lesson here, it is one that’s been repeated in this column many times: when common sense, biology, and well-conducted research point in the same direction, it’s time to pay attention, no matter how long it takes conventional thinking to catch up.

Dead And Gone… So Now What?

Dead And Gone... So Now What? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario If I Died Tomorrow: What I’d Want My Family to Know in the First 24 Hours? This is not an easy thing to write about, but it may be one of the most useful conversations we can have. If I died tomorrow, I know the first thing my family would feel is shock. Nothing prepares the people you love for that phone call. And in the middle of grief, there is often an added burden - the feeling that decisions need to be made immediately. So if I could leave behind one small piece of guidance, it would be this: the first 24 hours don’t have to be rushed. Here’s what I would want my family to know. First, take a breath I would want them to pause before doing anything else. The world will not fall apart if they sit down for a moment, call someone close, and simply breathe. I hope they wouldn’t try to handle the first day alone. A friend, a neighbour, a sibling - just having another person present can make everything feel less overwhelming. Where I died would shape the next steps If I passed away in a hospital or care facility, I would want them to know that staff will guide them. The process is familiar to them, even if it’s unfamiliar to my family. They will explain what needs to happen next. If I died at home, I would want my family to understand that things can feel less clear, but support still exists. In an expected situation, they may call a doctor or nurse. If it were unexpected, emergency services may need to be involved. Either way, they wouldn’t need to solve everything in the first hour. There is an official step before arrangements begin One thing many people don’t realize is that an official pronouncement of death is required. In a facility, that is handled automatically. At home, a medical professional takes care of it. I would want my family to know that paperwork and legal steps follow a sequence, and they don’t need to force the process forward before it’s ready. Choosing a funeral home can wait a little I think many families believe they must contact a funeral home immediately. If I were gone, I would want my family to know they usually have time. They could take a day to speak together, to think about what kind of arrangements fit our values, and to include the people who need to be included. The first conversation with a funeral home does not need to cover every detail. It can start simply. They don’t need every document on day one I would not want my family tearing through drawers looking for paperwork in the middle of grief. Yes, they will eventually be asked for basic information - full legal name, date of birth, health card details - but those things can come together gradually. If anything, I would want them to write down the names and numbers of the people they speak with, because the first day is often a blur. I would want them to slow down when decisions and costs come up In the days after a death, families begin hearing about service options, timelines, and pricing. Funeral professionals can be helpful, but no one should feel rushed. If I could leave one clear instruction, it would be: ask questions, request written information, and take time. The first day is hard enough without pressure layered on top of grief. A final thought If I died tomorrow, what I would want most is not a perfect plan. I would want my family to feel supported, to move slowly, and to know that they don’t have to do everything at once. The first 24 hours are about taking the next step - not all the steps. Next week, I’ll write about a question many Durham families face early on: what funeral and cremation costs typically look like in our region, and why prices can vary so widely.

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children

When Technology Becomes a Babysitter The Impact of Digital Technology on Children By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Technology is woven into nearly every aspect of modern life, from daily texting to virtual ELearn classes to social media. While technology itself is not always negative, one of its most damaging uses is seen with its constant use by young children. Over the past few years, children have begun using electronic devices at much younger ages, which has reached a troubling point. Many children grow up addicted and immersed in screens, forming digital dependencies before they can walk. Living in a digital world from such a young age can make technology feel impossible to step away from, creating an unbreakable bond. These children, who are practically raised by technology, are often referred to as “IPad Kids.” These are the children who cry when their devices get taken away, or throw a tantrum the moment they feel bored. Although these behaviors may be upsetting to see, they have become commonplace in our society. They are something so normalized, yet so new. These reactions are not simply bad behavior, however habits enforced by years of learning and a system set up for addiction. It is important to understand where this dependence comes from without placing blame on individual parents. Many parents turn to technology as a tool for education, entertainment, or daily survival in a chaotic household. It’s used to fill the busy moments and occupy kids while attention is placed elsewhere. Tablets and phones are readily available for caregivers to use, so it feels expected to use them to their fullpotential. In most cases, the use of technology in parenting isn’t a choice of neglect, but of care. It’s an easy solution when parents are working long hours or managing countless household responsibilities. It’s a result of parents doing their best, and of attempting to use the resources most prominent in our daily lives. A reliance on technology affects children in significant ways as they grow older. Prominent screen time is often linked to a shortened attention span, difficulty with information processing, problem solving, and weaker social skills. Instead of learning to share at lunch time, strengthening communication on the play ground, or utilising creativity when doing crafts, children scroll and text, missing out on countless life lessons. This leads to countless consequences, such as a struggle with face-to-face interactions, emotional regulation, and independent thinking. Additionally, it can be difficult for parents to monitor all the content their children consume. It’s easy for a child to be exposed to inappropriate or overwhelming material online, even with parental restrictions. Social media and the internet can be unpredictable, and content is impossible to control, making it difficult to trust young children with technology on their own. The progression of these issues is evident when I compare my childhood with that of my step-sister. Although I am only six years older than she is, her childhood reflects very different themes and aspects of technology. At the age of ten, I was talking to my friends, playing sports, and enjoying life care-free. To contrast, my step-sister,who is ten, spends most of her time glued to digital devices, whether that be an IPad, television, or borrowed cellphone. She is already attached to social media, spending her mornings scrolling on Youtube Shorts or TikTok, despite her lack of a personal cellphone. Her attention span is very short, and she is constantly bouncing from one activity to the next, unable to focus on one option. I may use the same devices now, however, the importance is the ages exposed. I had a childhood without this prominence of technology which was able to help me set boundaries with the digital world, which my step-sister may not have. As children grow older, the “iPad kid” behavior often transitions into what may now be called a “screen-ager.” Now teenagers, these individuals know nothing but technology, and are unable to disconnect as the years go by. Constant phone use, social media scrolling, and digital entertainment have become normalized, blending seamlessly into society. In 2026, technology is unavoidable, and the expectation of completely eliminating screens is unrealistic, at practically any age. However, this only highlights the importance of limits, especially with younger children. The use of technology can not continue to be an instinct for simplicity, but a conscious action paired with balance, offline activities, and healthy technology use. This is the only way to ensure future generations do not continue a legacy of digital addiction and electronic parenting. This is the only way to break the cycle of an “IPad Kid.”

Is this really the best the City can do?

Is this really the best the City can do? A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist After trying very hard to go with the flow for well over a year now, I feel I must say something about these seemingly random parking spots appearing out of nowhere in live lanes of traffic all over downtown Oshawa. Is this really the best the City can do? I commute daily and one day I was coming into Oshawa on King St. I was in the curb lane so that I could turn right onto Centre St. I went through the lights at McMillan and came to a stop. There, with no notice, was a parked car. Of course, my first thought was, what in the world are you doing parked in a live lane of traffic? Unbeknownst to me the City had put not one but three or four parking spots right there in the curb lane. They put in the parking spots, but they did not have any signage that would indicate the lane was coming to an end. After about a week there was some signage put up but really, to reduce the lanes right in the heart of the downtown. It just seems to me that there has been little to no planning for parking in our downtown core. The parking is the worst I’ve seen in any of the local municipalities, and something needs to change. They have made Athol Street a nightmare with cement barriers for bicycles along with metal rods that stick out of the ground forcing you to park a certain way but not leaving nearly enough room for cars to pass each other safely in opposite directions because it’s so narrow. Having the Tribute Centre there in the middle of this is just adding to the traffic nightmare the City has created in our downtown. On Bruce Street behind the Tribute Centre is a danger zone on event days with cars parked right up to Drew Street. If you are travelling along Drew heading toward King Street you cannot see if there are cars coming at all because the cars are so overparked, they completely block your view. Another very frustrating parking issue in our downtown area is the fact that people now seem to use the left-hand turn lane on Simcoe approaching Bond as a parking lot. I cannot tell you how many times I have pulled into the left-hand turn lane behind someone just to have them stop, put on their four ways and go into the Money Mart. Why is this being allowed to happen? I have also seen cars just flat out parked with no driver in sight. This is not an occasional thing; it is all the time. Why aren’t there fines being handed out for this type of infraction? It’s almost like the downtown core of Oshawa is an anything goes area. People just stop and park anywhere they want. I am tired of having to wait in one long line of traffic on King to get up to Centre because there is one random car parked in what used to be a live lane of traffic up to Centre Street. This City needs to do better. They are aware of the growth and it’s time they started planning for it properly.

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better

Employers Are Not Rejecting You; They Are Choosing Better By Nick Kossovan In terms of hiring, I have this, admittedly somewhat idealistic, holistic view: STEP 1: Candidates apply to a job opening. STEP 2: Candidates who applied according to the employer's application instructions and based on their resume, appear qualified are selected for further assessment. STEP 3: The selected candidate's LinkedIn activity and digital footprint are reviewed to assess their online behaviour. If no controversial behaviour is found, they're scheduled for a telephone screening call. STEP 4: Those who pass the screening call are scheduled for face-to-face interviews (a maximum of three). STEP 5: The candidate most likely to be the best option, often considered the least painful, is hired. "Sometimes all you can do is choose the least painful option." - Michael Kouly, Journalist As a side note, my hiring philosophy is to accept candidates as they present themselves and hire them if they belong. Looking back, most of my hiring mistakes have been in giving candidates the benefit of the doubt. "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time." - Maya Angelou Choosing [whatever] is simply selecting the best available (keyword) option you have at the time. At any stage of an employer's hiring process, especially during telephone screenings and face-to-face interviews, an employer may decide not to pursue an applicant's candidacy because they've identified other applicants whose qualifications, experience, and potential better align with the role's specific requirements and desired outcomes. The candidate's personality is also considered. Those seen as a good match for the company culture and team are preferred. Ultimately, employers aren't eliminating candidates; they're searching for and selecting the candidate they feel is the optimal fit to achieve the position's goals without disrupting their culture or the team. This hiring dynamic offers several perspectives: · Hiring is a relative comparison. Job seekers tend to forget they're being compared to other candidates. In 2026, given the complex economic climate employers face, hiring, as it has been for quite some time, isn't about finding a candidate "who'll do"; it's about finding the best match from the available pool of candidates, which is quite large. Employers can't afford to make bad hires. While you might be a highly qualified candidate, if another applicant presents themselves as a closer match—someone more in sync with the company and industry, easier to manage, and more relevant—the employer is likely to choose them. · Recruiters and hiring managers are increasingly focusing on a position's expected results and the value those results add to the company's profitability. A "position value"—the impact on company goals and revenue, along with the cost of labour versus productivity gain—is the primary factor, more than the skills and experience required, that determines the compensation package offered. · Assessing candidates for cultural and team fit has become paramount. The fit needs to be glove-like. Employers, understandably risk-averse, want to avoid hiring candidates who'll be challenging to manage, underscoring that, as an employee, being a good soldier is often the best strategy for long-term employment. · The degree to which a candidate demonstrates interest in the job and in joining the company (e.g., by including a compelling cover letter, sending a thank-you note after every interview) strongly influences hiring decisions. Employers regard genuine interest and enthusiasm as signs of long-term commitment and motivation. Job seekers keep refusing to acknowledge that they aren't the only game in town, that there's always someone younger, hungrier and more qualified than them. When your interviewer says they'll get back to you, it means they're not concerned about losing you. If you aren't formally notified of being rejected within a week, assume that you've been placed in the "keep them warm" pile, or that you've been ghosted, and the employer is okay with losing you. You may have been solid, but you didn't "blow them away." I've seen this happen time and time again. It's common for employers to leave a position open until the right candidate is found, especially if the role isn't critical to profitability. Speed doesn't beat finding the perfect candidate. A job seeker's best job search strategy today is to demonstrate to an employer that they're an excellent option by showing: · They can follow instructions. · They don't harbour a sense of entitlement. · They're friendly and cooperative, and easy to manage. · They want to contribute to the employer's business profitability. · They're a lifelong learner. Two final candidates. One role. Both interviewed well and are qualified. Who gets hired if not for the candidate's resume, LinkedIn profile and "perfect" answers? The candidate who asked questions that showed they were more interested in what they could do for the employer than what the employer could do for them. The candidate who followed up after every interview. The candidate who showed genuine interest in the employer's products and/or service offerings and challenges. The candidate who appeared more interested in contributing to the company's success than just seeking a job. When job hunting, keep in mind that employers evaluate you based on the signals you send through your resume, application, digital footprint, and interview behaviour. Employers use your signals to determine whether you'll be the least painful option.