Dear Fellow Canadians

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

Fighting Cancer With Precision

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

Practicing Water Conservation

Practicing Water Conservation by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ After reading that the Colorado River is experiencing severe low water levels, it’s a reminder that Canadian waters need our safeguarding. If you haven’t already begun, by making small changes to conserve water in your home, your water bills will be lower as well. The family chefs can become water efficient when rinsing fresh produce. Place these foods in a bowl of water rather than running the tap. Add a little salt or vinegar and let the vegetables sit for several minutes to help remove pesticide residue. Vegetable stock that is used to create soups can also be poured over oats to make porridge or used to boil rice. Save pasta water to thicken soups. Allow frozen foods to thaw in the fridge rather than immersing them in running water, unless the instructions on the package state otherwise. Run your dishwasher when full. If washing dishes by hand, rinse them first in a bowl of warm water to keep your soapy water clean and hot. Soak sticky pots and pans overnight. Cooking with a steamer or pressure cooker uses less water than boiling veggies in a pot. Place a jug of water in the fridge so that you don’t have to run the tap for a cold drink. Aerators can be installed on faucets. They will mix air with water which reduces the flow rate without water pressure being compromised. Be on the lookout for leaks and dripping pipes. Opportunities also exist in the bathroom by simply turning off the sink’s tap while shaving, brushing teeth, and soaping hands. Taking showers with cooler water saves energy and has been noted to boost muscle recovery, increase circulation and energy levels. Installing low-flush or dual-flush toilets and water-saving shower heads will reduce water usage. In the laundry room, wash full loads in cold water. If you are able to catch rinse water, use it to wash matts, slippers, or to wipe floors. Wear clothes more than once, thus reducing the amount of laundry. Use a bucket of water rather than a hose to wash the car. Strive for low maintenance landscaping that includes native plants. Replace some grassy areas with a ground cover. Obtain a rain barrel. Water your lawn with grey water. Retain water in your garden by composting and placing mulch around plants. Watering your garden in the early morning reduces evaporation loss and prevents fungal growth by allowing leaves to dry. Sweep walkways, steps, and driveways rather than using a hose. When using a hose, control the flow with an automatic shut-off nozzle. Avoid water toys that require a constant stream of water. If going to a spa, take your own robe and towels. It’s such a waste to see these being washed after a single use. Small challenges and awareness! These simple acts will help retain our waterways.

Try These ‘Offbeat’ Job Search Tactics to Shorten Your Job

Try These ‘Offbeat’ Job Search Tactics to Shorten Your Job Search By Nick Kossovan In 2026, being 'qualified' is merely the price of entry into the job market. A major challenge for job seekers is that hiring managers are inundated with AI-slop, creating 'all the same' applications that are not only uninspiring, but also render a candidate's qualifications invisible. Nowadays, job seekers need a job search strategy that catches the attention of recruiters and hiring managers; to do this, they must 'be different.' Being different involves thinking creatively about how to showcase your skills and enthusiasm to contribute to the company's profitability, which is often more important than your qualifications. Here are some 'offbeat' tactics to get an employer's or recruiter's attention. Compile a Failure Portfolio It's through failures that meaningful lessons emerge and wisdom grows, which is why I'm drawn to comeback and 'here's what I learned' stories. Employers are terrified of risk, and, as a 2025 Harvard Business Review article noted, hiring managers are increasingly seeking "psychological safety through candidates who've already survived their biggest mistakes." Create a one-page document that shows you've learned from your mistakes. List your three biggest professional 'train wrecks,' the lessons you've gained, and the safeguards you now have in place to avoid repeating them. Use this document to demonstrate you're a reliable candidate because you've 'been there, done that.' Before Your Interview, Send a '30-60-90 Day Action Plan' I favour proactive candidates because they demonstrate their ability and willingness to self-manage. Prepare a 30-90-Day Action Plan detailing how you'll approach your new job, integrate with your new colleagues, and become a valuable employee as quickly as possible. As with a Failure portfolio, the key is to submit your action plan before your interview. Doing so shifts the conversation from "Do you have the skills?" to "How do you plan to make an impact?" and shows you aren't just looking for a paycheck. Mail a Physical 'Technical Brief' With 99% of communication being digital, a physical object arriving on a desk feels revolutionary. Print a coil-bound' Technical Brief' that discusses a challenge the company is facing, such as a decrease in customer satisfaction scores or a slow product rollout, and how you'd address it. This document, to be sent by registered mail to your potential boss, provides evidence that you understand the company's pain point and possess the qualifications to address it. Create a 'Video Proof of Concept' In a job market rife with bad actors, claiming you can use Salesforce or use Solver to create predictive models often elicits skepticism. Prove you're the real deal! Record a two-minute screen share showing how you'd optimize Salesforce or media spend allocation using Solver. Video proof shifts the decision to hire you from mere trust to tangible evidence, eliminating the 'onboarding anxiety' that often slows hiring decisions. In the words of tech leaders, "The demo is the deal." Review the Hiring Manager's Public Statements and Offer a Critique Flattery is cheap and easily ignored. Instead, find a recent article, podcast, or LinkedIn post by the hiring manager and send them a professional, assertive critique or an 'extension' of their idea via email. For example: "When you were a guest on Austin Becak's podcast 'The Dream Job System Podcast,' you spoke about your thoughts on call centre churn, but you overlooked the impact of tiered incentive structures on Tier 2 agents." Sharing your opinions, ideas, or perspectives positions you as a peer rather than a subordinate and demonstrates that you have the confidence to speak up rather than be another 'yes-man,' which often turns hiring managers off. Treat the Job Posting as a Request for Proposal (RFP) Who's a less risky hire: a full-time employee, taking on a long-term financial liability, or a contractor with no long-term liability? In case you missed the memo or haven't been paying attention to all the layoffs happening, employees are essentially free agents, so why not start acting like one? The next time you see a job posting for a role you believe you're qualified for, instead of applying, consider submitting a proposal as if you're a consultant (free agent). Include sections like 'Terms of Service,' 'Projected Deliverables,' 'Cost-Benefit Analysis,' and 'Length of Contract.' Proposing a consultant arrangement not only offers the employer a low-risk, cost-effective alternative to hiring a full-time employee, but also encourages the hiring manager to evaluate you on business grounds rather than against an HR checklist. Offer to Do the Work An employer's biggest concern is hiring someone who isn't the right fit or lacks the necessary skills. Ease that concern by offering to do an hour of actual work—such as identifying a process bottleneck, troubleshooting a live technical issue, or outlining a plan for vendor negotiations. Say: "Don't take my word for it; let's spend sixty minutes solving a live problem." A 'try-before-you-buy' approach—walking your talk—is very appealing. Playing it "safe" keeps you invisible and unemployed. The aforementioned offbeat tactics do more than make you different; they show employers you have the grit and initiative most job seekers lack. As Henry Ford once said, "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got."

When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore

When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore By Dale Jodoin Columnist Have you noticed how quickly people are labeling each other now? It shows up in conversation, online, and in how people describe who they are. It may seem harmless at first, even helpful, but it carries a risk that should not be ignored. Because once labels take hold, judgment follows. There are no official cards being handed out in Canada. No one is lining up to receive papers that define them. But in a different way, something similar is starting to appear. Labels are being worn openly, almost like identity cards. Not in your wallet, but in how you present yourself and how others decide where you belong. That should give people pause. History has shown what can happen when societies begin sorting people into fixed groups. In the Soviet Union, citizens were classified by class. Worker. Farmer. Enemy. These were not just labels. They shaped lives and limited opportunity. In the People's Republic of China during the Cultural Revolution, people were judged by family background. Good class or bad class. Those labels followed individuals for years and often defined their future. Most Canadians would agree those systems went too far. And today, there is no formal version of that here. But the warning is not about what exists on paper. It is about what is forming in practice. The shift begins quietly. Words like privilege and victimhood are used more often. People are grouped before they are understood. In many cases, the goal is to address real issues such as inequality and fairness. Those are important conversations. But something changes when the focus moves from helping people to defining them. The label comes first. The individual comes second. Critics say the New Democratic Party reflects this shift, with messaging that focuses on groups defined by disadvantage or privilege. Supporters call it fairness. Critics say it risks turning people into categories first, citizens second. That concern is part of a wider shift, not just one party or one idea. And that is where the warning becomes clear. Because once a society becomes comfortable assigning identity based on group, it becomes easier to assume things about the person in front of you. It becomes easier to judge. It becomes easier to divide. A man standing in line at a grocery store is not thinking about labels. He is thinking about the price of food. But in the wider conversation, he may already be placed into a group before anyone knows his story. That is where the disconnect begins. Across communities, people are saying similar things in plain language. I just want to be treated fairly. I work hard, but I feel judged before I even speak. No one sees my situation. These are real voices. Some, especially men of European background, say they feel they are being viewed through the lens of the past rather than their own actions. They hear conversations about history and feel that weight placed on them, even though they had no role in those events. At the same time, others point out that history still shapes the present. Access to jobs, education, and opportunity has not always been equal. Ignoring that would also be a mistake. Both realities can exist at once. You cannot inherit guilt. But you can inherit circumstances. The problem begins when those realities turn into fixed labels. Because labels are simple. Too simple. They reduce complex lives into single categories. They overlook effort, struggle, and personal story. They replace understanding with assumption. And once that happens, something changes. Trust weakens. Conversations break down. People stop listening to each other. History shows that this kind of shift does not happen overnight. It builds slowly. One label at a time. One assumption at a time. That is why this moment matters. Most people in Canada still see themselves as Canadian. They are not thinking in categories. They are focused on daily life. Paying rent. Buying groceries. Raising their children. Trying to move forward. Many newcomers feel the same way. They are grateful for the opportunity to be here. They want to work, contribute, and build a stable life. That is the quiet majority. But there is also a smaller group that pushes these ideas more strongly. They speak loudly about identity and categories. They try to define people before those people can define themselves. That is where the concern grows. Because once people accept labels without question, they begin to see others through them. And that changes how people are treated. It changes how decisions are made. It changes how a country sees itself. The danger is not in recognizing problems. The danger is in deciding who a person is before you know them. Because that decision can be wrong. It can be unfair. And it can close the door to understanding before it even begins. This is why the idea of a modern card system, even as a metaphor, matters. Not because cards exist. But because the thinking behind them can grow quietly. And when it does, it shapes everything. It shapes language. It shapes judgment. It shapes how people treat each other. So this is the warning. Be careful with labels. Be careful when you apply them to yourself. Be careful when you apply them to others. Because the moment you decide who a person is before you understand them, you step into something dangerous. And that danger does not stay in one place. It spreads through conversation, through assumption, through everyday life. Until one day, the label matters more than the truth. Canada works best when people are judged as individuals. Not as categories. Not as assumptions. Just people. So stay aware. Watch how people treat you. Watch how you treat others. Because the real danger is not the label. It is the moment you stop questioning it.

STRONG MAYOR POWER CARRIES TO REGION

STRONG MAYOR POWER CARRIES TO REGION Strong Mayor Powers Ontario have just made their way to the Regional Municipality of Durham — and with them comes something far more consequential than most people realize. This isn’t just governance reform. This is the beginning of the end of regional government as we know it. The Shift No One Is Talking About The Province is moving to: - Appoint the Regional Chair - Grant strong chair powers - Centralize authority at the top On paper, it looks like efficiency. In reality? It’s an admission that the current system doesn’t work. Mr. X’s Position (On Record) I made a recommendation to the Province of Ontario: - Eliminate regional councillors - Convert the Chair into a Speaker of the House - Let Mayors vote with weighted authority This isn’t theory — it’s already been accepted in principle at the Regional Municipality of Niagara. And it works. The Core Problem: Duplication & Dysfunction Regional government today is: - Redundant - Politically bloated - Structurally inefficient You have: - Local councils doing local work - Regional councils duplicating governance layers - Staff reporting through parallel systems The result? Delay, cost, and zero accountability. What Strong Chair Powers Really Mean The Province isn’t “empowering leadership.” They’re trying to: - Force decisions - Override gridlock - Streamline approvals But here’s the truth: If you need strong mayor powers at the regional level… The structure itself is broken. The 4-Year Warning Regional government has 4 years to prove it can justify its existence. If it doesn’t: - It will be dismantled - Or fundamentally restructured The Only Path Forward Regions must become a Services Board — Nothing More That means: - Eliminate duplication - Focus ONLY on: - Water / wastewater - Major roads - Transit - Mandated services under the Municipal Act, 2001 (Ontario) Everything else? Gone. The Real Future Model - Mayors run the show - Weighted voting replaces regional councillors - Chair becomes procedural, not political This is not radical. It’s inevitable. Final Word The Province didn’t just change legislation. They sent a message: “Fix it — or we will.” Regional governments can either: - Reinvent themselves as lean, service-focused bodies OR - Go down as one of the most inefficient governance experiments in Ontario history Mr. X Verdict: This is not reform. This is a countdown.

TWO OUT OF ELEVEN AIN’T BAD

TWO OUT OF ELEVEN AIN’T BAD From The Bottom Of The Corporate Sea By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Most of you reading this can relate to Meat Loaf song, TWO OUT OF THREE AINT BAD. A romantic song that speaks of a man love for a woman.... relatable to taxpayers for the love of the City of Oshawa. Unfortunately. In this case... It is two out of eleven ain’t bad.... Baby (Oshawa), we can talk all night But that ain't gettin us nowhere (thank god for 2026 elections) I told you everything I possibly can (council members do not return phon calls) There's nothing left inside of here (we are over taxed and no one cares) And maybe you can cry all night (it does not make a difference on the huge tax increases) But that'll never change the way that I feel (taxpayer’s been screwed for way to long) The snow is really piling up outside (the needs of the city are real and no one is doing anything) I wish you wouldn't make me leave here (things will be different in 2026 with your vote) I poured it on and I poured it out (the people have spoken you have failed to listen) I tried to show you just how much I care (citizens have been ignore for way to long) I'm tired of words and I'm too hoarse to shout (false promises and wasteful spending ‘parks’) But you've been cold to me so long ( 8 years of diminishing quality of life in Oshawa) I'm crying icicles instead of tears (tired of waiting for different outcomes and left to pay) And all I can do is keep on telling you (deaf years) I want you (I want you) (to listen to the people) I need you (I need you) (I need you to do what you are elected to do) There ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you (The suffering is to great in our city) Now don't be sad (don't be sad 'cause) (do something.. as your empty excuses have not worked) 'Cause two out of three ain't bad Now don't be sad ('cause) 'Cause two out of three ain't bad The ending of this song should be 2 out of 11 aint bad... No one can argue that our city under this current Carter leadership is a mess. From our drug, homeless and crime infected downtown to the quality of life in many of your neighborhoods. Thank God Carter is not returning... but wait. There are rumors that he may be appointed Regional Chair by the Province. God Help Us All. If it was left up to me. I start by getting rid of both Ward 1 councillors. Councillors that have allowed for farm lands to be raped into modern day Ghettos. There is no excuse. Neil has been in office for numerous terms... what has he produced? Rosemary McConkey, the same. What has she accomplished for her ward? They have to go. Ward 2 councillor both have to go. Jim Lee, the newly elected council member had potential but sat on his hands. He rather join the ‘good old boys club at city hall than represent the constituents. He has to go. Then we have Tito-Dante Marimpietri a long standing council member. Now running for mayor. I have a question. What has he accomplished for all the years he has sat in office? Now we the taxpayers are expected to pay him more to do more of nothing. In my opinion he is no Mayoral material. Ward 3 - Chapman has been in municipal office for way to long. Can anyone please list his accomplishments for the betterment of Oshawa? He needs to be retired in 2026. Bring in new blood to that ward. No on the other hand we have Bradley Marks I keep. In my opinion a diamond in the rough. A person with the right intellectual scruples that has been forced silenced. I think he would make a great Mayor of Oshawa. His talents have not yet come through as he recognizes the perils of speaking out of rank in the old City of Oshawa boys club. Ward 4 - The front line of the battle ground over Oshawa’s downtown core. Rick Kerr has pushed the arts for way to long and the city keeps looking like a third world country. NO MORE. We have to replace him with someone that is ‘PRO’ business downtown. How are we to expect wonders when he has never owned a business in the core. The we have Derek Giberson. A disaster politician. He according to rumors was responsible for the drug trade in the core as he sat on the board responsible for the actions that took place out of a church downtown Oshawa. A church that encouraged open drug use. He has to go. Ward 5 - Brian Nicholson has to go. His attitude and his support for local business is shameful at best. Once a political dynamo. Today nothing but a bitter voice that has allowed GM to walk out. Now John Gray. I keep him. He has proven to have what it takes... as he works the issues in the best interest of the people. 2 out of 11 ain’t bad. What’s your take?

Remembering the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 109 Years Later

Remembering the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 109 Years Later by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East There are moments in history when a nation does not merely act—it becomes. For Canada, that moment came on the cold, scarred heights of Vimy Ridge in April 1917. Between April 9 and 12, more than 100,000 Canadians fought together for the first time as a unified corps. They faced a fortified German position that had defeated previous Allied assaults and was widely considered impregnable. Yet, through meticulous preparation, disciplined execution, and collective resolve, the Canadians did what others could not: they took the ridge. Vimy was not simply a battlefield victory. It was the forging of a national identity. The cost was staggering. Canada suffered over 10,600 casualties in just four days, including 3,598 killed. April 9 remains the bloodiest day in Canadian military history. These were not professional soldiers alone—they were citizens in uniform. Farmers, labourers, students, immigrants. French and English Canadians, Indigenous soldiers, and newcomers all fought side by side. In their shared sacrifice, they revealed the essence of Canada before it fully knew itself. Historians have long argued that Vimy marked the moment Canada stepped out from Britain’s shadow and asserted its own capability and confidence on the world stage. Brigadier-General Alexander Ross famously described witnessing “the birth of a nation.” That phrase endures not because it is poetic, but because it captures a profound truth: Canada emerged from Vimy more unified, more self-assured, and more conscious of its destiny. Yet the lesson of Vimy is not found in symbolism alone. It lies in how the victory was achieved. The Canadian Corps did not rely on luck or sheer courage. They rehearsed relentlessly. They mapped every trench, studied every metre of terrain, and coordinated artillery with unprecedented precision. The creeping barrage—moving in timed increments ahead of advancing troops—allowed infantry to follow closely behind a curtain of fire. This was not reckless sacrifice; it was disciplined innovation. That Canadian approach—thorough, methodical, intelligent—became a hallmark of subsequent victories. Under the leadership of Arthur Currie, Canadian forces refined tactics that emphasized planning over impulse and effectiveness over spectacle. From Hill 70 to Amiens, the Canadian Corps earned a reputation not just for bravery, but for competence. And that may be Vimy’s most enduring lesson. Because today, Canada faces a different kind of battlefield—one shaped by geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, and shifting global power dynamics. The war in Europe has shattered illusions about lasting peace on the continent. The Middle East remains volatile. Great power competition is intensifying. The rules-based international order, long taken for granted, is under strain. At home, Canadians are grappling with economic pressures, housing challenges, and questions about national resilience. We are no longer insulated from the turbulence of the world. Geography alone cannot protect us. History reminds us that complacency is not a strategy. Just months after Vimy, the world was struck by the Spanish influenza, which claimed millions of lives globally and deeply affected Canada. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global systems and tested national cohesion. Each crisis—military or medical—has reinforced the same truth: resilience is built before the crisis, not during it. Vimy teaches us that success is never accidental. It is the product of preparation, unity, and leadership. Today, that means strengthening Canada’s defence capabilities—not as an act of aggression, but as a responsibility in an increasingly dangerous world. It means investing in our armed forces, modernizing our infrastructure, and ensuring that Canada can contribute meaningfully to collective security alongside its allies. But it also means something deeper. The soldiers at Vimy did not fight as isolated individuals. They fought as Canadians—with a shared sense of purpose and duty. That civic responsibility must not be lost in our time. A strong nation is not built solely through policy; it is sustained through the character of its citizens. We must rediscover that sense of collective obligation—to one another and to the country we share. In an age of division and uncertainty, unity is not a luxury. It is a necessity. As we reflect on Easter 1917, we should remember not only the courage of those who advanced across that shattered ridge, but the discipline and preparation that made their success possible. We should remember that nationhood is not a fixed achievement, but an ongoing responsibility. And we should ask ourselves a difficult but necessary question: are we living up to the legacy they left us? Are our leaders demonstrating the foresight and resolve required for the challenges ahead? Are we, as citizens, prepared to shoulder our share of responsibility? The answers will define the Canada of tomorrow. Because Vimy is not just history. It is a standard. A reminder that in moments of uncertainty, Canadians have risen—not through rhetoric, but through action. Not through division, but through unity. Not through chance, but through preparation. The men who fought at Vimy Ridge did their duty. Now, the question is whether we are prepared to do ours. Lest we forget.

FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering There has been a lot of discussion about intensification across Pickering from Altona Road to the Brock, triggering concerns raised about the impact it will have on our aging limited infrastructure and already congested roads. While it’s fact that Pickering Planning has processed or is actively reviewing (33) development proposals that collectively include (103) towers exceeding seven storeys in height. These proposals represent a mix of high-density mixed-use buildings, retirement residences, long-term care facilities, and a hotel. It’s also fact, that these proposals are at various stages of the planning and building permit approval process, ranging from the initial review of Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment applications, to projects that have received planning approvals, only a limited number are under construction with several towers currently on hold or inactive. In the spirit of transparency , City Planning Staff at my request prepared a breakdown of the current status of towers in the development approval process: -On hold / inactive development proposals (16 towers) -Appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (20 towers) -Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment under Review by the City (30 towers) -Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment approved by Council (19 towers) -Site Plan Applications under review (11 towers) Of this total, only (7) Building permits have been issued and are currently under construction. The following towers have received all required planning approvals and building permits and are currently under construction: • Two high-density mixed-use towers by CentreCourt at Shops at Pickering City Centre. • Two high-density towers by Chestnut Hill Developments at Universal City (UC6 & UC7). • Two mixed-use high-density towers by Tribute at the VuPoint project. • One 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare, which was approved through a site-specific enhanced Ministers ’Zoning Order Contrary to the belief that Pickering is on the verge of becoming a concrete jungle, only (7) of the (103) proposed towers are currently under construction. Of these, (6) are for high-density mixed-use developments located in the City Centre, while the remaining tower is for a 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare on Valley Farm Road. While additional towers may proceed in the future, City staff anticipates that up to (11) more towers could be constructed over the next 5 to 10 years. Development of the remaining towers is long-term and uncertain, and will depend on many external factors that caused the current condo market to crash, and unlikely to recover for many years. These same developers that saw yesterdays boom as a winning lottery ticket will need to find new ways that meet the new realities of today and into the future.

Hard Lessons

Hard Lessons By Wayne and Tamara I know this is all my fault. I know I had the right to say no, but I didn’t because everyone deserves a chance. The thing that hurts most is he knew the complications he was bringing into my life. My parents believe in arranged marriage, and they disapproved of this man. But I felt terrible thinking he knew I was intentionally not returning his calls, when he called five or six times every night. Gradually I gave in. During one of our conversations he told me what I now doubt really happened. His story was he loved a girl since high school, but she cheated on him. It didn’t end there. He kept stressing the disappointments that came his way, his hard childhood, and the betrayal that always followed him. I treated him with care, and he stressed that I could trust him no matter what. As things progressed he started nagging me to sleep with him, and that was my biggest mistake. I became emotionally sealed to him, and whenever he made the suggestion to meet for sex, I no longer fought it. Everything was good until I asked him what he would do if his parents decided to arrange his marriage. I was shocked when he told me that he wouldn’t fight it. Prior to this he told me he goes by his own rule. He even asked me to continue being with him until his parents arranged his marriage. One day I saw his car at the hotel we went to. I peeked through the keyhole and saw him and a girl naked. I can’t get that image out of my mind. When I confronted him, he treated me worse than a dog. I called his mother. His mother’s reaction still has me baffled. She was totally cold, like she just didn’t give a damn what happened to me, or what he might do to another girl. I want him to pay, but I have resolved to leave him and his mother in the hands of God. Throughout high school I fought peer pressure only for this to happen. I have decided not to tell my parents, and I have reached out to a few friends. I am undecided as to whether I should fulfill the promise I made about helping out with his study materials. I talked to a religious friend, and his opinion is promises should be fulfilled. I always wanted to live life without regrets, but thanks to my stupidity, I can no longer do that. Eva Eva, this man used two stratagems against you. He portrayed himself as a victim to evoke pity, and he insinuated himself into your life. He is a predator who stalked you, knowing all along what he wanted. Don’t give him the study materials. That promise was elicited through lies, and despicable behavior should never be rewarded. Aristotle viewed anger as a legitimate reaction to injustice. He felt anger protects us from making excuses for wrongdoing. You have every reason to be angry with this man, but don’t turn that anger inward. You were tricked. That happens to people at different stages of life, and they must be able to forgive themselves and move on. We cannot go through life attributing the best of intentions to others, and we cannot go through life attributing the worst of intentions to others. We must respond to others in a way appropriate to who they are. When we encounter predators, the wisest course is eliminating all contact. The wise thing now is to continue with your plans as they were before you encountered this man. You are a young woman with your life in front of you. It is easy, when we are young, to think some event has ruined our life. But life has many ups and downs, and it is in mastering the ups and downs that we master life. Wayne & Tamara

LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT

Leading the Life You Want Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones There’s something quietly heartbreaking about waiting too long to start living the life you might have had all along. An 83-year-old reader wrote to me recently. For decades, this person lived with social exclusion, low self-esteem, and fear. Then, just last year, they did something about it. They signed up for modern line dancing at a local community centre. I don’t know if it was a decision taken after a lot of soul searching, or if it was a whim, something more frivolous. But the same result, either way. Everything changed. Some things were evident right away. Others came over time, and they were physical, mental, emotional, and social. Enough for the reader to report, with a sense of regret, “It makes me want to start life over again… and do things differently. Better. With more enjoyment.” That last line lingers. It invites the question. Why do people wait? Not everyone does. Hopefully not long-time Gifford-Jones readers. But my suspicion is that a lot of people do. They wait until retirement to travel. They wait until illness to value health. They wait until loneliness becomes noticeably painful before reaching out. They wait for permission to be a little bit different than everyone has come to expect. Well, guess what? That permission is not coming. Years ago, I heard a story about a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. He asked an older, wiser fellow for advice. The answer was stark. “Go to the beach. Sit there. Look at the ocean. And don’t come back until you know.” The suggestion to go away and think deeply about it sounds absurd in today’s lightening-paced, hyperconnected world. But it’s not that hard to do, in fact. Just put the phone down and shut away any other distractions. Schedule time for focused thinking in blocks of two or three hours. Set up a spot for thinking – someplace not too comfortable, but attractive. Then go there and do your thinking – for as many sessions as it takes. You’ll figure something out soon enough. And then you have to go for it. We don’t give ourselves the time or the discomfort needed to think clearly about what we want. We fill every quiet moment with noise and distraction. And so the years pass, not in crisis, but in drift. Research in psychology has long shown that novelty and social connection are powerful medicines. Trying something new. Even something as unassuming as line dancing can stimulate the brain, improve balance and cardiovascular health, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s not just about the activity. It’s about stepping outside the box quietly built around ourselves. At 83, you can still change your life. At 63, you can still change your life. At 23, you can still change your life. The difference is how much time you have left to enjoy it. But if you are at the older end of the spread, you know it’s not all about duration. Quality of experience, even if flirting, can last a lifetime, even retroactively. So here’s the drill. Take a step. A small one is enough. Sign up for something. Call someone. Go somewhere. And if you truly don’t know what you want? Find your own “beach.” Sit quietly. Think deeply. And don’t get up until you know. I did just this upon the passing of my father several months ago. And now I’m writing this column. It’s an intensely high-quality weekly experience that I hope will last for a long time.

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice By Dale Jodoin Columnist I am a columnist . I deal in facts, not noise. And here is a hard one to sit with. Most Canadians are not part of the fight you see every day. They are trying to survive. That is not a slogan. That is the reality showing up at kitchen tables across this country. Bills stacked. Phones buzzing with payment reminders. People doing the math in their heads before they even get out of bed. Something has shifted. You can feel it. This is not just about politics anymore. It is about pressure. The kind that builds slowly, then all at once. The kind that makes people pull back from everything except what keeps them afloat. Rent is high. Food costs more than it should. Gas prices jump without warning. One week it feels manageable. The next, it does not. A simple drive to work turns into a quiet stress you carry all day. People are not arguing about big ideas. They are asking simple questions. Can I afford groceries this week.Can I fill the tank. Can I keep the lights on. That is where the country is sitting right now. And while that is happening, something else is going on at the same time. There are voices with time, energy, and support pushing hard for attention, for change, for recognition. Some of that is fair. Some of it is needed. But it is loud. Constant. Hard to ignore. And then there is everyone else. The majority. They are not pushing anything. They are not organizing. They are not showing up to every debate. They are working. Raising families. Looking after aging parents. Trying to hold their lives together. They are not silent because they do not care. They are silent because they are overwhelmed. That difference matters. When you are stretched thin, you do not take on extra weight. You drop what you can. And for many Canadians, what gets dropped is the larger conversation. Not out of anger. Out of survival. But silence has consequences. When the majority steps back, the conversation does not stop. It shifts. The loudest voices fill the space. Policies get shaped. Narratives get built. Decisions move forward. And the people who stepped back look up one day and think, when did this happen That is where the unease starts. It is not loud anger. It is something quieter. A feeling that things are moving without you. That your daily struggle does not count the same way. That your problems are too ordinary to matter. Because being able to pay your bills is not seen as an urgent policy. But it is urgent to the people living it. Look at the systems people rely on. Education is under strain. Parents worry about what their kids are learning, but also about what is missing. Classrooms are stretched. Teachers are doing what they can, but it feels like something is slipping. Then there is health care. This is where the fear turns real. People are afraid to go to the hospital. Not because they doubt the people working there, but because they know what they might face. Long waits. No doctors available. Hours that turn into a full day sitting in a chair, watching the clock. And it is worse when it is not you. It is your father struggling to breathe. Your wife is in pain. Your child with a fever that will not break. You sit there, waiting, hoping nothing gets worse before someone can help. That stays with people. It changes how they think. It changes what they fear. So when another debate starts, when another issue demands attention, people look at their own lives and think, I cannot carry that too. That is how the quiet majority is formed. Not by choice. By pressure. At the same time, there is a growing push to tell people how they should think, what they should say, what they should support. Even when the intention is to help, the delivery can feel forced. That creates a quiet resistance. People do not argue. They do not protest. They step back further. They nod, stay polite, and return to their lives. But here is where it gets dangerous. When the majority steps away, even for good reason, it leaves the direction of the country in fewer hands. Not necessarily bad hands, but fewer. That is how imbalance grows. A small group, driven and active, can shape the path. A large group, tired and silent, can lose its influence without even noticing. And over time, that gap widens. The country starts to feel unfamiliar, not because it changed overnight, but because most people were not part of the change as it happened. That is the quiet shift happening right now. It is not loud. It is not dramatic. It is slow. And that is what makes it harder to see. Most Canadians are not extreme. They are not hateful. They are not looking for conflict. They want stability. They want fairness. They want a chance to live without constant pressure closing in on them. They wake up tired. They go to work. They come home and try to make things work again the next day. If you listen, really listen, you hear the same line everywhere. I do not have a problem with anyone. I just want to live my life. That should mean something. But right now, it is getting lost. Because systems do not respond to quiet. They respond to pressure. So the people who are struggling the most, the ones holding everything together, are also the ones least heard. That is not just unfair. It is risky. A country cannot stay balanced if its majority is too tired to take part. It cannot stay steady if the people carrying the weight feel like they are not part of the direction. Eventually, something gives. Not all at once. Not with a bang. But slowly. People disconnect. Trust fades. The sense of shared ground weakens. And when that happens, it becomes harder to bring things back together. This is not about picking sides. It is about recognizing what is happening before it goes too far. The quiet majority is not the problem. But if it stays quiet for too long, it may not recognize the country it helped build.And by then, speaking up will feel a lot harder than it does today.

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox A comprehensive Ontario municipal finance white paper on Development Charge rates, housing supply, and long-term fiscal sustainability 1. Introduction Ontario municipalities rely on Development Charges (DCs) to fund growth-related infrastructure. While intended to ensure that growth pays for growth, Development Charges can unintentionally suppress development activity when set beyond optimal levels. This paper explains the Development Charge Paradox using an adapted Laffer Curve framework. 2. Ontario Development Charge Framework Development Charges are governed by Ontario’s Development Charges Act and implemented through municipal background studies. Recent reforms, including Bill 23, reduced recoverability, introduced mandatory discounts, and constrained indexing. These changes increase development sensitivity to DC rate decisions. 3. The Development Charge Paradox At a Development Charge Rate of zero, Development Charge Revenue is also zero. As rates increase, revenue initially rises. Beyond an optimal point, higher DC rates suppress housing development faster than per-unit charges increase, resulting in declining Development Charge Revenue. 4. Equal Revenue, Unequal Outcomes The curve demonstrates that the same Development Charge Revenue can be achieved at two different Development Charge Rates. A low-rate, high-growth environment produces strong housing delivery and assessment growth. A high-rate, low-growth environment produces stagnation, even if short-term revenues appear similar. 5. Benefits of Lower Development Charge Rates Lower Development Charge Rates improve project feasibility, accelerate housing starts, support missing-middle and rental housing, and broaden the long-term municipal tax base. 6. Risks of Development Charge Rates Set Too Low If Development Charge Rates are set too low, municipalities may face infrastructure funding timing gaps. These risks can be managed through capital phasing, debt financing, and improved growth planning rather than suppressing development. 7. The Optimal Development Charge Rate The peak of the curve represents the optimal Development Charge Rate. At this point, Development Charge Revenue and housing delivery are maximized simultaneously, aligning municipal revenue objectives with housing supply goals. 8. Laissez-Faire Economics and Necessary Government Intervention Development Charge policy should generally follow laissez-faire economic principles, allowing market forces to determine pricing, supply, and investment decisions. However, where Development Charges are reduced to stimulate housing delivery, a degree of targeted government intervention is necessary to ensure that these reductions are reflected in housing prices rather than being absorbed entirely into developer margins. 9. Consequences of Excessively High Development Charge Rates Excessively high Development Charge Rates delay or cancel projects, encourage land banking, shift growth to other municipalities, and ultimately reduce Development Charge Revenue. 10. Long-Term Municipal Fiscal Impacts Development Charges are a one-time revenue source, while property taxes are recurring. Municipalities that prioritize long-term assessment growth over short-term DC maximization achieve greater fiscal sustainability. 11. Conclusion The Development Charge Paradox demonstrates that higher Development Charge Rates do not guarantee higher revenue. Optimal outcomes occur when Development Charges balance infrastructure funding with housing supply, economic vitality, and long-term municipal prosperity.

I didn’t do it for fame or power

I didn’t do it for fame or power Last year I served on Pickering City Council and worked every day for the people who elected me. I didn’t do it for fame or power — I did it because I believe in truth, transparency, and accountability in local government. My compensation for that service was about $15,000 plus benefits for the year — far less than many residents make in a month and certainly not life‑changing. Contrast that with ongoing conversations about compensation paid to Pickering’s mayor and councillors — a conversation that shouldn’t be dismissed because it touches on something real and deeply felt in our community. A recent post and social media discussions have cited figures suggesting that the total compensation for Pickering’s mayor — including salary, benefits, pension, committee fees, and allowances — was about $318,000 in 2025. The mayor himself publicly acknowledged that some of those totals were overstated by roughly $58,000 compared to his base salary and official disclosures, but even so, figures well over $250,000 for a municipality that can’t officially claim the higher mayoral powers assigned to municipalities of 100,000 or more are raising eyebrows for residents watching every dollar they spend. Pickering’s population is often cited as “close to 100,000,” but that number only recently crossed that threshold — a threshold that grants expanded powers and authority under the Municipal Act. For years we governed below that number. That’s important because the Municipal Act specifically attaches additional powers to municipalities once they reach a population of 100,000. And yet here we are, discussing compensation packages that rival much larger cities. Let’s put it in perspective: Pickering’s population is allegedly 100,000, yet we still function with the same core municipal responsibilities as all smaller cities across Ontario. Toronto’s population is over 3 million people — more than 30 times larger than Pickering — yet the Mayor of Toronto’s base compensation sits significantly below the totals being discussed for our mayor when all remuneration is included. At the same time, all members of Pickering City Council — both at the city and regional level — draw compensation and, in many cases, allowances and reimbursements for meetings, travel, and committee work. Members of Durham Regional Council also collect regional remuneration and expense payouts on top of their municipal compensation. These are public servants, yes — but they are paid roles funded by taxpayers. Here’s what troubles many residents: it often seems that people who follow the status quo at council are rewarded, while those who speak up about what they see as wasteful spending, lack of transparency, or misleading information are punished. In my experience — and in the experience of many citizens across municipalities now — there is a troubling trend where elected officials who raise difficult questions or challenge the majority face not reasoned debate but code of conduct complaints and political pressure. This isn’t just about numbers. It’s about how power is exercised. Right now, municipal leaders in Ontario are considering changes to the Municipal Act that would expand the authority of integrity commissioners and councillors to remove an elected member of council — effectively taking away the democratic rights of the people who voted for that person. If you don’t follow the status quo, your own council colleagues could file complaints with an integrity commissioner, and the same council could vote to have you removed from office. That isn’t democratic — that’s a warning sign for anyone who cares about real representation. This is not unique to Pickering. Across Ontario and beyond, we’re seeing local officials who speak openly about what they see — wasteful spending, lack of accountability, decisions that don’t reflect taxpayers’ priorities — being targeted with conduct complaints, legal threats, and political pushback. It sends a chilling message to anyone thinking about public service: Speak up, and you may pay a price. Stay quiet, and the status quo stays in place. That’s not how democracy is supposed to work. Local government should be a place where serious issues are discussed openly and where accountability isn’t just a buzzword but a lived practice. Residents deserve clarity on how compensation is calculated, what’s included in “total compensation,” and — most importantly — whether these compensation levels reflect the priorities of the very people who pay the bills. So here’s the question taxpayers in Pickering and all of Durham Region should be asking: Should a mayor in a city of just over 100,000 people — with councillors at both the city and regional level drawing additional allowances — see total compensation approaching or exceeding what leaders in cities with millions of residents earn? And should the Municipal Act be changed so that elected officials can be removed by council and an integrity commissioner rather than by the voters who elected them? This isn’t just about a number on a pay stub. This is about fairness, democracy, and trust. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve answers. And they deserve leaders who aren’t afraid to ask difficult questions without being silenced.

PARBUCKLING THE HMS METROLAND

PARBUCKLING THE HMS METROLAND From The Bottom Of The Corporate Sea By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I have been stating this for months: internet posting is dead. First, too many people are posting and calling themselves media. Second, there is no sustainable revenue in online advertising. The internet operates on statistics designed deceive the average business, and this is evident in the lack of advertising revenue among many online outlets.. Without revenue, maintaining a viable online presence becomes nearly impossible—despite the fact that many simply copy and paste news releases. I have known for months that Metroland’s online operations were struggling. I have spoken with members of the small staff maintaining their online presence, and they indicated that conditions were deteriorating. In what appears to be corporate greed or desperation, Metroland eliminated a significant portion—if not all—of its print publications. This decision left workers, communities, and advertisers in a state of uncertainty. It sent a troubling message across the industry. The move was, in many respects, morally questionable and executed without adequate consideration for the communities affected. Now, there appears to be an attempt to “parbuckle” the sunken HMS Metroland—from the depths of the bankruptcy protection sea in an effort to revive the brand for what may be one final attempt at advertising revenue in two of their most lucrative former markets. Parbuckling: A specialized technique used to roll a capsized or sunken ship upright. Namely bring back the METROLAND brand for one final dig in the pockets of nostalgia? Can a sunken ship be raised? Yes, a sunken ship can be raised, but it depends on the vessel's depth, structural integrity, and the cost of the salvage operation. Here is where the HMS METROLAND may find itself in dangerous waters. Do they believe former advertisers will return after previously disengaging due to poor performance metrics? Is the structural integrity of the brand still buoyant? One hopes advertisers are not so naive. Metroland has lost its distribution networks and now proposes a monthly publication schedule. This risks becoming another Corporate “Titanic”—an avoidable failure. Recently, a letter circulated stating: As a 25-year veteran of community news, I have been witness to and at the forefront of changes large and small. In 2023, one of those changes was to stop printing and delivering WhitbyThis Week and Oshawa This Week, focusing solely on digital news and information at durhamregion.com. A complete failure in some industry critics eyes. This move put them under bankruptcy protection and destroyed their distribution networks... leaving them with NO READERSHIP. THIS TRANSLATED TO THEIR ONLINE... AS PEOPLE LOST CONFIDENCE. What didn’t change was our priority to provide you the local information you’ve told us you need and the community journalism you can’t find anywhere else. But, in the past two-plus years, we’ve heard from many of our readers that you missed the ritual of reading a physical newspaper. We missed that connection too. This move to online only had a huge cut back on people they employed. Affecting the livelihood of many. They did not care. And so, I am thrilled to share with you the return of Whitby This Week and Oshawa This Week as monthly publications. This exciting change is rooted in our commitment to Whitby and Oshawa and the knowledge that local journalism is essential to a democracy and a healthy community. or could it be that it is an election year and think they can negotiate advertising revenue through campaign advertising. This failing to recognize that both of those municipalities have opted to go electronic and that they have alloted no money in their budgets for newsprint advertising. Maybe they are counting on the many department heads with their hands out to re-kindle old kick backs schemes for advertising? It is also about the future. We are investing in the next generation by hiring 20 new editorial interns in newsrooms across Ontario. These fresh voices will work alongside our veteran reporters to cover the stories that matter most to you. It is not about the future as they claim. It is about their bottom line. A line that is at the bottom of reality sea. 20 interns... Why don’t they hire all the one’s they let go. Instead they still disrespect the community by hiring cheaper interns.. What an insult to the community. We are also proud to relaunch "Metroland Gives Back." Every issue will provide free advertising space to a local charity. It is our way of supporting the organizations that make our neighborhoods a better place to live. We hope you enjoy this return to print, and that it gives you a stronger connection to us and our community. Sincerely, Lee Ann Waterman Group Publisher and Vice-President, Editorial. Advertisers... be aware of the past. Learn from our history and don’t waste your dollars on a Parbuckled vessel that has left port and previous left you behind. No distribution = No readership. Free publications by their own admission have no readership. Are you prepare to waste good advertising dollars on nostalgia of proven to fail? Think about it.

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada’s housing crisis is no longer a market fluctuation. It is a structural failure, one that now tests the country’s economic credibility, social cohesion, and political leadership. For too long, housing was treated as a local issue, shaped by municipal zoning and market forces. That approach has collapsed under the weight of reality. Population growth has surged, supply has lagged, and affordability has deteriorated to the point where even middle-class Canadians are under strain. What we face today is not simply high prices. It is a system that no longer delivers fairness. Recent signals from policymakers suggest that governments are beginning to understand the scale of the challenge. The economic framing associated with Mark Carney and the more assertive supply-side actions of Doug Ford point in the right direction. However, direction alone is not enough.Execution is what will matter. Canada’s housing shortage is the result of years of underbuilding relative to population growth. Immigration—vital to our economic future—has increased demand, but without a matching expansion in supply. The consequences are visible across the country. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for younger Canadians. Rent consumes a growing share of income. Skilled workers are priced out of the very cities that depend on them.This is no longer just an affordability issue. It is a question of whether Canada still offers a viable path to stability and upward mobility. Mark Carney’s recent interventions have helped reframe the debate. Housing is not merely a private asset; it is core economic infrastructure. Canada has been highly effective at attracting capital. But too much of that capital has flowed into existing real estate, inflating prices, rather than into new housing supply. The policy implication is straightforward: we must redirect incentives. Governments should prioritize purpose-built rental construction, support long-term institutional investment, and reduce the distortions that reward speculation over building. If we treat housing as infrastructure—like transportation or energy—we begin to understand the scale and urgency of what is required. At the provincial level, Doug Ford’s approach has targeted a long-standing obstacle: municipal gatekeeping. Zoning restrictions, slow approvals, and local opposition have limited density in precisely the areas where it is most needed. Ontario’s efforts to mandate housing targets and streamline approvals reflect an uncomfortable truth. Left to their own devices, many municipalities will not approve enough housing.These measures are not without controversy. But the alternative is continued paralysis. Canada cannot solve a national housing crisis if local constraints consistently override national priorities. The central weakness in Canada’s response remains a lack of coordination.The federal government sets immigration levels and provides funding. Provinces control planning frameworks. Municipalities regulate land use. Each operates within its mandate, but the system as a whole lacks alignment. This fragmentation produces predictable outcomes: delays, inefficiencies, and missed targets. A credible strategy would link these elements. Immigration levels should be aligned with housing capacity. Federal funding should be conditional on municipal performance. Provinces must enforce timelines and accountability. Without coordination, even the right policies will fail. Housing is not just an economic issue. It is the foundation of social stability. When working Canadians cannot afford to live where they work, the consequences are far-reaching. Healthcare systems struggle to recruit. Businesses cannot find employees. Commutes lengthen, productivity declines, and inequality deepens. More fundamentally, public confidence erodes. A country where effort no longer leads to security risks losing the trust that underpins its institutions. Canada has faced national challenges before. Each required leadership willing to move beyond incrementalism. We need to build at scale, not at the margins. We need to rebalance incentives toward supply, not speculation. More importantly, we need governments prepared to confront local resistance when it conflicts with national interest. The early signals from leaders like Mark Carney and Premier Doug Ford suggest that the diagnosis is improving. However, diagnosis is not delivery. The real test is whether Canada can translate intent into action which is coordinated, sustained, and ambitious. Because in the end, this is not just about housing. It is about whether Canada remains a country where opportunity is attainable—or becomes one where it is quietly out of reach. What do you think?

Together We Can Fly..

. By Wayne Ellis Treasurer of COPA FLIGHT 70 This past week, I presented four Cadet Squadrons with a very special surprise. Normally, each Cadet Squadron receives one hour of flight time. I felt that was not enough, so I took the initiative to do something about it. I approached various companies and solicited their help. At first, I was a little reluctant, as it felt unfamiliar. Soon enough, I found out that many people are willing to step up and help. With my efforts, along with the generosity of those I approached, I was able to secure 20 hours of flight time for cadets. This is great news, as the more cadets we can get into an airplane, the better it is. These are young minds who sign up to better their lives through the science of flight. I felt it was the only honorable thing to do—and it worked. This past week, we held our presentation ceremony. It was there that I met the Editor and Publisher of The Central. As soon as I told him what I had accomplished, he wanted to get involved. He wanted to take part in this great effort that is taking off like wildfire. Mr. Ingino was so impressed by the initiative that he invited me to write a column to share my experiences and my role as Treasurer of COPA Flight 70. He was so supportive that he extended a partnership with a proposed fundraising target of $12,000. This would allow us to provide 40 more hours of flight time. This is tremendous news. This new initiative in the paper allows local businesses to take out a 3x5 ad. Normally, one week would cost $400. Mr. Ingino is offering two weeks for $400 plus tax, and in turn, he will donate $200 to COPA toward the $12,000 target. I believe Mr. Ingino has shown great leadership through this partnership with COPA. We need more local business owners to take the initiative and get involved. I am a retired educator, and I know first hand the developmental stages of a young mind—their insecurities, their dreams, and their aspirations. As a former school principal, I saw that every student had the potential for greatness. Many, with the right coaching and motivation, can achieve it. Others, however, fall to the side due to many factors—economics, family circumstances, and unforeseen challenges that can impede academic growth and development. As a member of COPA, I see these cadets enter the program with great aspirations—open minds and the spark of hope to one day take to the sky.As it stands, due to the cost of flight time, access has been limited to only a few. The goal is to leave no young mind behind—to give them the opportunity to experience flight first hand. I can tell you from personal experience as a pilot: there is no greater feeling than taking flight. To feel the freedom and the ability to control an aircraft in the air is something truly special. I remember when I purchased my first aircraft and had to fly it a long distance home. I was scared, tired, and concerned—but I could not have been happier. To be in my own aircraft for hours, flying home, is a feeling no one can ever take away from me. This is, in part, why I started this initiative. I am grateful to all who have been generous enough to donate and contribute so far, and I am thankful for this new partnership with The Central Newspaper. Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can truly take off and fly wherever our imagination leads us. There is no limit to the possibilities. There is no limit to our ability to dream. If you can help, we would greatly appreciate it. The cadets will be forever grateful. Thank you.

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist In highschool, it can feel almost impossible to be your authentic, full self. Students are constantly influenced by peer pressure, social standards, and comparison to others. It is evident when you walk into a classroom and see every girl in the same leggings and uggs, every guy with the same haircut and sweater. The similarities are clear, however the source of the standard is untraceable. The ending is unclear, as these similarities are not limited to just high school, following us throughout our entire lives. From a young age, we are often taught who we are supposed to be. Friends, family, teachers, and peers all have their own perspective on how you should act, and who you should be. As a kid, your friends may influence you to be louder, funnier, and more social, while a teacher may praise you for being quiet and introverted. None of these influences are directly wrong or negative, they are all trying to form a well-rounded individual. However, it can be confusing and make it difficult to distinguish what you really want from the loudest influences. When everyone around you has a different idea of who you should be, it becomes difficult to hear your own voice and your own wants. You start to wonder if your choices are really yours, or just reflections of others. As you get older, these contrasting expectations don’t disappear, they evolve. You become more aware of the “social norm,” a combination of expectations that seems impossible to avoid. In elementary school, the norm might be as simple as liking certain games or fitting into friend groups. In high school, it becomes more intense, and rigid; what you wear, how you act, who you hang out with, and what you post can feel like they define your entire life. If you make one mistake, reject what is defined as “normal” one time, your entire social life feels endangered. This norm even follows into adulthood, where its focus shifts to success, relationships, career paths, and lifestyle. There is always an unspoken standard which defines behavior, even if we cannot directly see it. The ironic part is, nobody perfectly fits the social norm. It’s an illusion, a constantly moving target which changes based on who you’re around. Since the rule is always changing, we’re all exceptions to a rule that doesn’t truly exist. This just increases the confusion which began at a young age, the question if you are your own person or a combination of the expectations which surround you. It creates a lifestyle of uncertainty and confusion instead of confidence and certainty. The norm isn’t something anyone naturally is, it’s a performance. Both online and in person, there is a constant trend of people being called performative or fake due to their fashion, interests, or behavior. However, it’s all hypocritical, as we are all performing to some capacity. Trying to change ourselves, even if it seems in the smallest way, is the show we cannot escape. Whether it be online or with a social group, it is practically impossible to not let ourselves be changed, especially when it is hard to understand your authentic self in the first place. Social media only intensifies the pressure and performance. Instead of trying to keep up with the standards of the people directly around us, we are now trying to keep up with the standards of thousands of people. We see the carefully curated versions of other people’s lives through a screen, and try to match it to seem trendy or likeable. The result is a constant feeling of falling short, unable to keep up with an online highlight reel. It is clear we are all a little performative, influenced by the norms we cannot control or escape. We adjust how we act depending on where we are and who we’re with. That doesn’t make us fake or ingenuine, it makes us human. The goal isn’t to completely reject the idea of social norms, which is an expectation even harder than keeping up with the norms themselves. Instead, the challenge is to recognize standards without completely losing yourself to them. The first step to moving past the norm is to figure out which parts of yourself feel real when no one is watching. It’s about choosing which standards to keep and what to let go of. Through this, it’s easier to learn about yourself and the interests, new and old, that feel the most “you.” Finding your authentic self isn’t about escaping influence entirely, an impossible goal. Social pressure is something which exists from the second we are born, starting with our parents and evolving into the opinions of everyone we surround ourselves with. These influences are not always negative, and that's important to remember. So, instead of avoiding the influence and standard, the goal is to learn how to exist within the expectations, without letting them define you altogether.

If You Were the Devil, How Would You Destroy A Society?”

If You Were the Devil, How Would You Destroy A Society?” I asked artificial intelligence a simple question: If you were the devil, how would you destroy a society? The answer I received wasn’t dramatic or theatrical. It didn’t involve chaos in the way most people imagine. It was far more subtle—and far more unsettling. The answer was this: you wouldn’t destroy a society outright, you would confuse it. You would blur the line between truth and lies until people could no longer tell the difference. You wouldn’t need to erase truth; you would simply surround it with so many competing narratives that it becomes indistinguishable from opinion. Facts would become “perspectives,” and certainty would be treated as extremism. Over time, people wouldn’t just disagree—they would lose the ability to agree on reality itself. And once that happens, a society becomes easy to destabilize. You wouldn’t silence people through force, either. That’s outdated. Instead, you would create an environment where speaking carries a cost. You would make examples of a few—label them, discredit them, isolate them—and everyone else would get the message. The result is not imposed silence, but chosen silence. People begin to censor themselves, not because they’ve changed their beliefs, but because they’ve calculated the risk of expressing them. You would also ensure the population remains in a constant state of emotional reaction. One controversy after another, one crisis layered on top of the next—just enough to keep people engaged, but never enough to bring resolution. People become consumed by outrage, but it is directionless. They argue, they react, they exhaust themselves—but they don’t organize, they don’t unify, and they don’t hold anyone meaningfully accountable. They are simply too distracted. At the same time, you would divide them. Not just politically, but socially and culturally. You would turn disagreements into personal conflicts, and differences of opinion into moral battles. People would begin to see each other not as neighbours, but as adversaries. And while they are busy fighting one another, they stop paying attention to who is actually making decisions and shaping outcomes. You wouldn’t destroy institutions outright either. You would allow trust in them to erode slowly—enough contradictions, enough double standards, enough visible failures that people begin to question everything, but without offering anything better in its place. The result is a population that trusts nothing, and a population that trusts nothing is far easier to influence than one that is grounded in shared truth. And if you wanted lasting impact, you wouldn’t focus on adults at all. You would focus on children. You would shape how they understand truth, identity, and reality from the beginning. You would normalize ideas early so they are never questioned later. Because whoever shapes the next generation doesn’t just influence the future—they control it. The uncomfortable part is not the theory—it’s the recognition. Because when you step back and look at the world today, these patterns are not difficult to see. Whether by design, ideology, or institutional drift, the outcome is the same: a society that is increasingly confused, deeply divided, emotionally reactive, and under growing pressure to stay silent rather than speak the truth. This is no longer about political sides. It is about whether truth itself can still be spoken clearly and without fear. Because once a society loses that, everything else becomes negotiable—reality, rights, and even accountability. If there is a way forward, it is not found in escalating the noise. It is found in rejecting it. In choosing clarity over confusion, truth over convenience, and courage over comfort. In remaining grounded while everything else pulls toward chaos. Because in a time where everything feels uncertain, the most powerful thing a person can be is not louder, but clearer. And clarity, right now, is the one thing that cannot be compromised. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"

How Do You Even Start That Conversation?

Dead and Gone… How Do You Even Start That Conversation? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a conversation many families think about having. And then don’t. Not because it isn’t important. But because it feels uncomfortable to begin. If I were gone, I would not want my family to carry the weight of guessing what I would have wanted. And yet, I understand why these conversations get delayed. They rarely start easily. No one sits down at the dinner table and casually says, “Let’s talk about what happens when I die.” It feels heavy. It can feel out of place. Sometimes it feels like saying it out loud might somehow make it happen sooner. So people wait. And often, they wait until it is no longer possible to ask. I have spoken with many families who told me the same thing afterward. “We meant to talk about it.” “We just never found the right time.” If I could leave my family one small piece of guidance, it would be this: There is no perfect moment to start this conversation. There is only a gentle way to begin it. It doesn’t have to be formal. It doesn’t have to be detailed. And it doesn’t have to be finished in one sitting. Sometimes it starts with something small. A comment after attending a service. “I liked how simple that was.” Or, “That felt a bit overwhelming.” Those moments open the door without forcing it. They allow people to speak in a way that feels natural, not planned. If I were sitting with my family, I would not want it to feel like a checklist. I would want it to feel like a conversation. Not “Here is everything I expect.” But “Here are a few things that matter to me.” Because most people are not looking to control every detail. They are trying to remove uncertainty. There is a difference. I would want my family to know a few simple things. Whether I would prefer burial or cremation. Whether I would want something quiet or something that brings people together. Whether there is anything that would feel important to include - or just as important, to leave out. That’s enough to guide them. The rest, I would trust them with. There is another part of this that people do not always expect. These conversations are not only about logistics. They are about reassurance. I have seen families feel a sense of calm simply knowing they had talked about it. Not because every detail was decided. But because nothing felt completely unknown. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel that steadiness. Not perfection. Just a little more clarity than silence would have left behind. I would also want them to know this. It is okay if the conversation feels a bit awkward. It is okay if someone changes the subject the first time. It is okay if it takes a few attempts before it feels natural. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. It just means it’s human. Sometimes the hardest part is not the conversation itself. It’s starting it. If I could offer one way to begin, it would be this: Make it about helping each other. Not about death. Something as simple as, “I’ve been thinking about this lately - I don’t want you to have to guess if something ever happened to me.” That changes the tone. It becomes an act of care, not discomfort. And that’s what it really is. Because at its core, this conversation is not about endings. It’s about making things a little easier for the people we leave behind. If I were gone, that is what I would want most. Not a perfect plan. Not every decision made. Just enough understanding that my family would not feel alone in figuring it out. Next week, I will write about something that often follows these conversations, or sometimes replaces them entirely: what happens when nothing has been discussed at all, and families are left to make decisions without any guidance.