Bridging Retirement Income Gaps

Bridging Retirement Income Gaps By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist What happens if you retire before you’re officially "supposed" to? Whether you’ve decided to "hang up your boots" early or life "threw you a curveball", retiring before age 60 or 65 could leave a bit of an income gap. That’s because you can’t fully tap into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) until you’re at least 60, and Old Age Security (OAS) doesn’t kick in until 65. So, how do you pay the bills during those bridge years without surrendering a fortune to the taxman? It all boils down to looking at the big picture. Instead of stressing about a single year, your goal should be to manage your taxes over your entire lifetime. Think of these "gap years" as a special transition window where you get to creatively design your own income stream. Here’s a game plan that may work for most people: Lean on your RRSPs First - If you don’t have much employment income coming in right now, your RRSPs can be your best friend. Yes, any money you pull out of an RRSP is taxable. However, since your overall income has dropped, withdrawing the money now means you’ll be taxed at a much lower rate. There’s a highly strategic reason to do this, too. If you leave your RRSP completely untouched, letting it grow into a massive nest egg by the time you turn 71, it legally must be converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF). Once that happens, the government forces you to make minimum withdrawals every single year. If your account has grown too large, those mandatory withdrawals will be massive, and they’ll be heavily taxed. By proactively "melting down" your RRSP during your low-income gap years, you effectively flatten out your lifetime tax bill. You might even want to make a calculated withdrawal at the end of the year just to take full advantage of your basic personal tax exemption. Leave Your TFSA Alone - While it might be tempting to pull money from your Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) because it won’t trigger an immediate tax bill, try to hold off. It’s usually much better to keep your TFSA intact to use as an emergency fund for sudden, unexpected expenses. Furthermore, TFSAs are fantastic vehicles for transferring wealth to your family, because they can be passed down to the next generation completely tax-free. The Power of Patience with CPP and OAS - Just because you retired early doesn’t mean you should immediately claim your government pensions. In fact, there can be significant benefits to waiting until you’re 65, or even 70, to take your CPP. Delaying these benefits guarantees you a significantly higher, inflation-protected payout for the rest of your life. Ultimately, it’s all about pacing yourself and orchestrating your streams of income mindfully. While you wait for your government pensions to reach their maximum value, use your RRSPs to bridge the gap. Then, once your CPP and OAS cheques finally start rolling in, you can slow down your RRSP withdrawals–keeping your retirement comfortable and your taxes firmly in check. Keep your option open and ask questions before you make any change or commitments to withdrawing any funds.

Test Of Time

Test Of Time By Wayne and Tamara I have been lucky in life, growing up in nice neighborhoods, going to good schools, with parents who are very successful financially. I am about to finish my bachelor’s degree and work full-time at a good job. I am 20 and things are going great. My wonderful boyfriend is 22 and has been less lucky. He was raised by an amazing single mother who has worked two jobs to support her four children; they are from a low-income, mostly Latino community, where the schools are poor. As a result, life has been harder for him. Unlike my parents who have given me money to save, he has had to work full-time, often living paycheck to paycheck. Because of this he had been out of school but just started working on his degree again. My boyfriend and I couldn’t be happier. We are living together and know that we want to spend the rest of our lives together. We can’t imagine it any other way. In fact, we are treating the economic downturn as a great opportunity and are hoping to buy a small house at the end of the year. The problem is my parents consistently make nasty remarks about him and our relationship. They say he’s riding my coat tails, taking advantage of me, and once we’ve cohabitated long enough, will take half of what I have. The things they say come off as classist and even racist, and my mother and father know these remarks hurt me deeply. Should I tell my parents to take a hike? Keely Keely, you can’t imagine your life without your boyfriend, but at 20 you can’t imagine a world with rotary telephones. At 40 you won’t be able to imagine what you did at 20. Let’s take a step back and try to decide if it’s fair to tell your parents to take a hike. A universal characteristic of humans is that we prefer our own group to other groups. As primatologist Frans de Waal says, “Identification with the home team comes easily to group animals like ourselves.” We might call this preference prejudice, but ultimately it is grounded in our biology. Aside from this innate preference, how might things look to your parents? They know marriages of young people are the marriages most at risk. At 20, you are five or six years below the average age of women marrying in the U.S. That is cause for concern. In addition, almost everyone getting divorced thought they were marrying for life. Everything has gone well in your life so far. It’s hard to imagine things not going well. But statistically speaking, you are on a lucky streak. You have been shined on. Research shows all of us are more likely to believe bad events will happen to someone else, not us. We don’t doubt your boyfriend’s sincerity, but from your parents’ point of view, he has every reason in the world to want you. You are a shining star. He may genuinely think he loves you, but the package is so attractive it may have him dazzled. On your part, your parents may wonder if you are confusing admiration and altruism with love. Parents fear for their children, and you are scaring them. They see you buying a house and his whole family moving in. They see you responsible for five lives and the whole trajectory of your life plummeting. Do 20 plus years of nurturance and raising you mean nothing? No, they count for a lot. Some people your age have found the one for them. Only time will tell. It is fair to tell your parents to stop with the racist remarks, but telling them to take a hike is going too far. If you are right about your boyfriend, if he is everything you claim he is, his deeds and character will in time win them over. Wayne & Tamara

Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process?

Who Do You Think Owns the Hiring Process? (Hint: It's Not the Job Seeker) By Nick Kossovan Desperation-monetizing career grifters, better known as self-proclaimed career coaches, sell the comforting fiction that the job seeker is at the centre of the hiring process. They peddle platitudes such as "interviewing the company" and "knowing your worth" to keep their predatory billing engines humming. It is a seductive, fragile illusion of control, but a dangerous one to believe. What these grifters never acknowledge is that the hiring process is the employer's exclusive prerogative. The employer owns their business; hence, they own their hiring process—designing it as they see fit—and make the final decisions. The job seeker, who bears none of the financial or operational risk that the employer is responsible for, is in no position to dictate how an employer should hire or what constitutes "being qualified." Behind the polite performance of the interview, your interviewer is seeking clinical answers to the questions bouncing around in their head: ● Are you qualified or overqualified? (Being overqualified comes with many hiring risks.) ● Are you a fit? (No manager wants to police a culture clash.) ● Are you someone they can trust? ● Are you someone whom they believe? (You aren't just talking a “good game.”) ● Are you teachable? ● Are you someone who'll be easy to manage? ● Are you someone who'll stick around, or will you bolt the moment the going gets tough? ● Can you be relied on, or are you fragile and will ask for a mental health day because it's raining? ● Are you a team player or will you utter the toxic phrase, "It's not my job”? How you describe yourself on your resume or in an interview is nothing more than your curated opinion of yourself. Employers don't hire opinions. They don't care that you self-identify as a "motivated self-starter" or a "dynamic leader." They hire predictable results. This is why you must show quantitative metrics, such as average deal size, contract renegotiation savings, budgets managed, revenue growth, audience reach, or customer retention rates, to support your claims. Employers hire candidates they believe will protect, and ideally enhance, their profitability without disrupting workflows or upsetting the current team. This is where the divide between the perpetual job seeker and the successful candidate widens into a chasm. Vague job seekers get ignored. Specific ones get hired. When you use vague, generalized language, you're expecting hiring managers to do the heavy lifting of figuring out what you actually do and the value you bring. This expectation is a form of passive entitlement. Hiring managers and recruiters are not in the business of solving riddles. A vague resume says, "I'm a hardworking communications professional." A specific resume says, "I managed a team of four to deliver three provincial marketing campaigns that increased inbound leads by 22%." Specificity removes the guesswork, replaces opinion with evidence, and respects the employer's time. While the final decision always rests with the employer, you are far from powerless. You can't force an employer's hand, but you can heavily stack the deck in your favour. Your qualifications are for the employer to judge, but how you're perceived by recruiters and hiring managers is entirely your responsibility. Tilting the odds in your favour starts with mastering three foundational pillars that shape how you're perceived. The first pillar is your professional image and digital footprint. If your resume piques an employer's interest, they'll Google you and scrutinize your LinkedIn profile and online activity to determine whether you're interview-worthy. If your online presence is non-existent, inconsistent, or worse, controversial, you're not getting called. Make no mistake, in 2026, curating and maintaining a clean, professional, and consistent digital footprint is required to get green-lighted for an interview. The second pillar is profitability. Every hire is an investment, and in business, investments must yield a return. The employer must believe you'll deliver results that positively impact their bottom line. Whether you're in sales, operations, or administration, your job is to show how your presence either makes the company money, saves the company money, or optimizes the time of those who do. The third and final pillar is proving you're a low-risk hire. Hiring's an expensive, time-consuming, and risky endeavour. A bad hire can disrupt team morale, hurt productivity, and make the decision-maker look bad, a fear that shouldn't be underestimated. Hiring isn't about finding the perfect candidate; it's about risk mitigation. Because the hiring process is a process of elimination, recruiters and hiring managers actively look for reasons to eliminate you. As a job seeker, your job is to present yourself as reliable, adaptable, easy to manage, and resilient, making you a safe bet to hire. The job market is an employer's market by design; an asymmetrical relationship in which those writing the paycheques dictate the terms. Always has been, always will be. Accepting this structural reality isn't a capitulation; it's a calibration. Once you've abandoned the illusion of control over who gets hired and focus entirely on managing your image, demonstrating you'll positively influence the bottom line, and lowering hiring risk, you'll stop being a job seeker begging for a job and become the candidate employers can't afford to miss out on.

Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet

Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE The greatest threat to democracy isn't always found at the ballot box. Sometimes it's found in the council chamber. Every election brings hope. New candidates knock on doors, attend debates, and make promises to the people they hope to serve. They speak passionately about lowering taxes, fixing neglected infrastructure, improving public safety, protecting neighbourhoods, increasing transparency, or restoring common sense to local government. The voters listen. They compare ideas. And then they choose. Election night is not simply about replacing names on office doors. It is about giving citizens a voice through the people they elect. But for too many newly elected representatives, something changes after they're sworn in. The campaign signs come down. The congratulations fade. And then the pressure begins. "Be a team player." "That's just how we've always done things." "Don't rock the boat." "Vote with the group." Those four phrases have quietly silenced more elected officials than any opponent ever could. Democracy was never intended to produce obedient followers. It was designed to elect independent thinkers. There is an enormous difference between cooperation and conformity. Cooperation means listening, debating, compromising when appropriate, and respecting opposing views. Conformity means surrendering your convictions simply because the majority expects it. That is not leadership. That is political intimidation wrapped in polite language. The public did not elect you to become another vote in someone else's bloc. They elected you. They chose your judgment. Your experience. Your courage. Your willingness to ask difficult questions when everyone else has become comfortable. Perhaps the greatest danger in municipal politics is something I call the slow surrender. It doesn't happen overnight. One vote here. One compromise there. One issue you decide isn't worth fighting. One uncomfortable question left unasked. Until one day you look back and realize the person sitting in that council chair no longer resembles the candidate who stood on doorsteps asking for the public's trust. History has taught us an important lesson. Mob rule has never been a reliable substitute for principled leadership. The majority can be right. The majority can also be wrong. That is why democracies require independent representatives—not rubber stamps. The easiest vote in politics is the one everyone else is casting. The hardest vote is the one your conscience demands. If you were elected because you promised to protect taxpayers, then protect taxpayers. If you promised to improve infrastructure, fight for infrastructure. If you promised accountability, demand accountability. Never apologize for keeping the promises that earned you the confidence of the voters. There will always be pressure to fit in. Pressure to stay quiet. Pressure to stop asking difficult questions. Pressure to avoid making colleagues uncomfortable. Ignore it. The people who elected you did not send you to town hall to become popular inside the building. They sent you there to represent the people outside it. Remember this every time you're asked to support the team. Your team isn't the voting bloc. Your team isn't the political establishment. Your team isn't the group sitting beside you around the council table. Your team is the taxpayer who believed your word meant something. This October, many new councillors will walk into municipal offices for the first time. My message to each of them is simple. Don't let your gunpowder get wet. Stand your ground. Ask the difficult questions. Challenge bad ideas—even when they're popular. Vote according to your principles, not according to pressure.Because if the people wanted another member of the old majority... They wouldn't have elected you.

Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival

Canada’s Food and Energy Security Is Now a Matter of National Survival by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is one of the most resource-rich countries on Earth. We possess vast agricultural lands, abundant fresh water, enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, world-class uranium deposits, rare earths, hydroelectric capacity and growing renewable-energy potential. Yet Canadians continue to face rising grocery bills, vulnerable supply chains, regional energy shortages and uncertainty about whether our governments understand the strategic importance of the resources beneath our feet and on our farms. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, including the expanding conflict involving Iran, have delivered a warning that Canada cannot afford to ignore. Food and energy security are no longer ordinary economic policy files. They are essential components of national security, economic sovereignty and social stability. The war in Ukraine demonstrated how quickly war can disrupt global supplies of grain, fertilizer, natural gas and oil. Ukraine had long been one of the world’s most important grain exporters, while Russia and Belarus were major suppliers of fertilizer and energy. The conflict disrupted production, damaged transportation infrastructure and forced countries to compete for essential commodities. The consequences were felt far beyond Europe. Higher fertilizer, fuel, shipping and insurance costs eventually reached Canadian farms, processing plants, supermarkets and household budgets. The lesson was clear: even a food-exporting country such as Canada is not insulated from international shocks. The conflict involving Iran and the wider instability of the Middle East have reinforced that lesson even more dramatically. The Strait of Hormuz, not the “Street of Hormuz,” is a narrow maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. It is one of the most important energy corridors in the world. Around one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passed through the Strait in 2025, and alternative routes have only limited capacity. A significant share of internationally traded liquefied natural gas also depends on this passage. The current war and shipping disruptions around Iran have shown how easily this strategic chokepoint can be threatened. Vessel traffic has been severely affected, insurance and transportation risks have increased, and oil markets have reacted sharply to renewed fighting. A prolonged closure or serious restriction of the Strait of Hormuz would affect much more than gasoline prices. Oil and natural gas are embedded throughout the modern food system. Farmers require diesel for tractors, combines and irrigation equipment. Natural gas is essential to the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Energy is needed to operate greenhouses, barns, food-processing plants, refrigeration systems, trucks, trains and grocery stores. When energy becomes more expensive or unreliable, food inevitably becomes more expensive as well. Canada should be better protected than most countries. We are a major energy producer and agricultural exporter. Nevertheless, our ability to move resources across our own country remains inadequate. Eastern Canada can still be exposed to imported energy, while Western Canadian producers face transportation constraints and limited access to overseas markets. This is an unacceptable strategic contradiction. Canada produces more than enough energy to meet its needs, yet insufficient pipelines, refining limitations, regulatory uncertainty and regional political disputes continue to weaken national resilience. Energy security does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility. It means recognizing that reliable energy must come before economic activity can occur. Canada needs a balanced energy strategy based on oil, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectricity and economically sound renewable generation. Our conventional resources will remain essential for decades, particularly for heavy transportation, agriculture, aviation, manufacturing and national defence. Canadian oil and natural gas are also produced under higher environmental, labour and transparency standards than supplies from many authoritarian regimes. Canada should therefore build the infrastructure required to move Western energy eastward and to export liquefied natural gas and other resources to democratic allies. Every shipment of Canadian energy that replaces dependence on hostile or unstable suppliers strengthens both our economy and the security of our partners. Nuclear energy must also become a central pillar of Canadian policy. Canada possesses uranium, engineering expertise, an established nuclear industry and experience with CANDU technology. Ontario’s nuclear fleet has demonstrated the value of dependable, low-emission baseload electricity. Small modular reactors may eventually provide additional options for remote communities, industrial projects and regions seeking reliable power. Food security requires the same strategic seriousness. Canadian farmers are efficient and productive, but they face high costs for fertilizer, machinery, fuel, seed, crop protection, labour and financing. Farm Credit Canada projected that Canadian crop producers could spend approximately $22.5 billion on imports in 2026, with fertilizer alone approaching $10 billion. Governments must stop treating farmers as an unlimited source of new regulatory obligations. Environmental improvements should be pursued through research, incentives, modern technology and cooperation and not through measures that undermine production or make Canadian agriculture uncompetitive. Canada must also protect prime farmland from uncontrolled urban expansion. Once productive agricultural land is paved over, it rarely returns to cultivation. Provinces and municipalities need stronger policies to preserve farmland while directing new housing and industrial development toward appropriate locations. Domestic food processing is equally important. Canada exports large quantities of raw agricultural products but often imports more expensive processed goods. Expanding Canadian slaughterhouses, mills, canneries, cold-storage facilities and food-manufacturing plants would create jobs and shorten supply chains. The federal government’s recently announced National Food Security Strategy includes support for year-round production, greenhouses, vertical farming and domestic processing. These are constructive measures, but they must complement and not replace traditional farms and open-field agriculture. Canada also needs strategic reserves of essential goods. Governments should examine whether emergency stocks of fuel, fertilizer, seed, veterinary medicines and selected food staples are sufficient for a prolonged crisis. Hospitals maintain emergency supplies. Armed forces maintain ammunition and equipment. A serious country should also prepare for disruptions to the systems that feed and power its population. Critical infrastructure must be protected against cyberattacks, sabotage and foreign interference. Pipelines, ports, electrical grids, railways, food-processing facilities, telecommunications systems and water networks are all potential targets in a period of geopolitical confrontation. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are not distant events without consequences for Canadians. They are reminders that international stability can deteriorate rapidly and that strategic dependencies can become national vulnerabilities almost overnight. Canada has the resources to feed itself, power itself and help sustain its allies. What it lacks is not capacity, but coordinated political determination. Food and energy security must become permanent national priorities. Our objective should be straightforward: Canadian families must have access to affordable food; Canadian farms and industries must have reliable energy; and Canada must never become dependent on unstable or hostile foreign powers for the essentials of national life. In an increasingly dangerous world, sovereignty begins with the ability to keep the lights on, the economy moving and food on the table.

BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE

BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE By Joe Ingino I have an open question to corporate Canada. Primarily to Bell and Rogers. Have you lost your sense of customer service? Have you no concern for your customers? Let me explain: Bell and Rogers apply the same care towards customers. They don’t. It appears that in their world. It is all about profit. All about saving money and making billions. Sadly we all pay. We are all subject to their tyrant policies and their ridiculous policies. The other day I had to call BELL. The general phone number takes you right to accounts receivable. An automated system does not welcome you as a customer. But instead reads you the riot act.... ie: It asks you to authenticate yourself. It claims it is for the clients security, (bull). Once you wasted five minutes... it tells you it is looking up your account. Then it gives you your balance and asks how you like to pay. I was calling for billing cause they over charged me... After the initial 10 minutes wasted with the automated system.... telling me that most of my concern can be dealt with some online automated system.... It gives you the option to press a key for a live person. As this happens. The automated system tell you that you are being recorded for your safety and that of the BELL “Specialist”. You got to be kidding me. In this particular case. After a 15 minute wait. I got this very rude woman. “Hi, my name is Petra, your BELL specialist. Could I have your name.” I tell her. Joe Ingino. She then proceeds to say, “Hello, Mr. Joe. (Mr. Joe!!!! I thought proper syntax: Mr. followed by last name) May I authenticate your account for your security?” I told her. I already did. Why did BELL waste 20 minute authenticating me if I had to do it with her. She rudely tells me, “I am sorry Mr. Joe, but that is BELL policy”. I openly asked her. Where is this call center? She said, “India”. I explained that I was over charged and wanted to talk to someone about it. She then said, “Oh, Mr. Joe. I am going to have to transfer you to a customer service specialist. Please hold. There may be a bit of a wait.” Another 20 minutes. Here come Abri on the line. With a heavy accent that was barely deciphered. She does not even identify herself. It was as if I was calling down to Loui’s bar and grill. I asked her is this BELL? She then identified herself. She was so rude and unprofessional. I asked her where in the world was this call center. She said,”Morocco”. She then proceeds to ask me to authenticate myself once again. I told her this was the third time. She pretty much answered, “I don’t care that is our policy”. Super rude. I had no choice so we authenticated once again. She then listened to my concern. She agreed there was an over payment... and she outright asks me. “What do you want me to do about it.” I was shocked. I asked her that she had horrible customer service skills. She did no seem to care. I then told her. It is your job to deal with customers is it not? I then requested she transfer me to someone in Canada as I was not impressed by her customer service skills. She then openly admits. “I am sorry but there is no one in Canada that can help you. No one in Canada wants to work for what they pay us here in Morocco.” I was shocked. This is a BELL employee? This truly pissed me off. How dare BELL farm out jobs that Canadians desperately need. All in the name of not having to pay benefit and taxes. We the consumers pay top dollar for cheap services. I say cheap.... because phone lines once they are laid out there is little or no real maintenance other than the usual interruptions. So then why are we paying a premium every month for something that has 10% value of what you are paying. Well, I guess the Golden Goose that lays the Perennial egg, generally means lasting for a long time, enduring, or constantly recurring. In everyday contexts, it describes situations, problems, or habits that happen repeatedly or exist continuously. Then the question remains.... Why are we paying top dollars to BELL?We as consumers have become to complaisant. We surrendered our ability to question. Bell/Rogers have caught on... and they charge what they want and set their own policy to dictate protocol. Pay or get cut off. Pay, pay, pay as you have no real choice. They are one of the same

We are in a tax emergency

We are in a tax emergency By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering Canada introduced federal income tax in 1917 through the Income War Tax Act. It was brought in during the First World War and presented as a temporary wartime measure. It was never intended to become a permanent, ever-expanding system that would grow generation after generation. Yet here we are. Today, personal income tax generates more than $234 billion annually and represents nearly half of all federal government revenue. What began as a temporary solution has evolved into one of the largest and most powerful financial mechanisms and employers in Canadian society. And the same mindset has spread throughout every level of government, including municipal government. Property taxes rise. Fees rise. Utility costs rise. Development charges rise. The cost of living rises. Every year, governments find new reasons to spend more money, create new programs, launch new initiatives, hire more staff, commission more studies, and expand their responsibilities further into our lives. But taxpayers are not an unlimited resource. At some point, we have to ask a simple question: Can people actually afford this? Sustainability is bigger than one conversation Sustainability is not just about climate change. Sustainability is not just about infrastructure. Sustainability is not just about technology. Sustainability is also about whether families can afford to raise children. Whether seniors can remain in their homes. Whether young people can buy a home. Whether workers can get ahead. Whether small businesses can survive. Whether citizens can maintain their economic independence and keep enough of what they earn to build the future they want. Without economic sustainability, every other form of sustainability eventually fails. Every promise has a cost As we approach this municipal election, voters are going to hear countless promises. New projects. New programs. New initiatives. New spending. But every promise has a cost. The question is not what politicians want to do. The question is whether taxpayers can afford it. For too long, governments have measured success by how much they spend rather than how effectively they spend it. Growth has become the default answer. More programs. More bureaucracy. More regulation. More taxation. Very few people stop to ask where it ends. This is why transparency matters. This is why accountability matters. This is why fiscal discipline matters. Because government was created to serve the public, not to continuously expand its footprint while asking taxpayers to carry an ever-increasing burden. Electing leaders who understand limits We should not be electing leaders based on who can promise the most. We should be electing leaders who understand limits. Leaders who understand that taxpayers are not an endless source of revenue. Leaders who are willing to ask not only "What should government do?" but also "What should government stop doing?" Leaders who recognize that every dollar spent was earned by someone who worked for it. What this election is really about This election is not simply about roads, parks, development, housing, or any single issue. It is about sustainability. Not just environmental sustainability. Economic sustainability. The sustainability of families. The sustainability of businesses. The sustainability of communities. And ultimately, the sustainability of a society where people remain free, independent, and able to keep the rewards of their own hard work. If we fail to have that conversation now, we may eventually discover that the greatest threat to our future was not what government failed to do. It was what government never stopped doing. Most politicians are more than happy to push the gas pedal, but who's got the brass to push the brakes?

Au Naturel

Au Naturel By Wayne and Tamara Ever since my boyfriend and I moved in together, things have gotten complicated. We rarely have sex anymore. I don't know what “rarely” means to anyone else out there, but let's just say I'm feeling rejected. Now it's a few times a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. When we saw each other once a week, he was all over me. I thought when we lived together, we'd have more sex, not less. When we do, it's great. I know I love it, and he seems to be into it, so I'm having a hard time understanding his reluctance. Over the past months, I've tried in various ways to entice him, seduce him, or propose a quickie if he's busy. Just as often, I give him his space. I bring it up in a gentle way. "Wouldn't it be great if we made a little more time for each other? We could start here," uttered in the bedroom, with a smile and playful tone. His response is always something like, "I need to pull another all-nighter for tomorrow's work deadline, and sex makes me want to fall asleep. And hey, remember last week, when we went two days in a row? Hey, hey, not bad!" Then he'll hug me guiltily and be off again to work in the dining room. Maybe we have different libidos. He was a virgin until we met; not to say all late-bloomers have low sex drives, but maybe there's a reason he waited so long to do the deed. As for me, I'm not exactly a man-eater, but I've been in a sexual relationship before and I love that aspect of connecting. The last thing I want is for sex to be an obligation. Maybe I'm asking too much, and the idea that young happy couples sleep together more than once a week is a media myth. Who knows? All I truly know is how I feel: humiliated, inadequate, and scared. About a week ago, after he rebuffed me so he could work again, I checked the history on our computer. Turns out he'd been up all night, watching documentaries and reading news--which has nothing to do with his job. I almost wish it had been porn, which would suggest he's horny, just not about me. Instead, it's pure intellectual research. I confronted him in a calm manner, but he said he reads the Internet to stay awake as he works. I get that, we're the multitasking generation. But still, since then, he's been online almost every night, for hours and hours, reading about everything under the sun. Except sex. I have told no one. Everyone thinks we're happy. My single friends envy us, and my married ones tell us to milk pre-marriage while we can. My dad calls him "Romeo." I would love to try therapy for both of us, but he rejects the American idea of "outsourcing" mental health care to strangers. Is this a phase, or is he just not that into me? Paris Paris, if you buy a house in the wrong location, remember one thing. It will always be in the wrong location. Licensed professionals cannot make all relationships work, and we doubt this is even a mental health issue. He is simply different from you. People who are right for us should be right for us in their natural state. If we want people to be authentic, we can’t continue in a relationship with someone who has to alter themselves so much they are not themselves anymore. If he acquiesces to your wishes, the changes are not likely to be permanent, and two things may follow. You will come to disrespect him, and he will realize you don’t love him for who he is. At that point he will scream, “Enough!” That may happen before the wedding, after the honeymoon, or after the two kids are born. Wayne & Tamara

There’s Good Reason for an Afternoon Snooze

There’s Good Reason for an Afternoon Snooze Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Winston Churchill once said, "Nature has not intended mankind to work from eight in the morning until midnight without that refreshment of blessed oblivion.” He was justifying his habit of an afternoon nap, a practice he said that gave him "two days in one." Many hot climates around the world have embedded some form of shuteye during the midday heat. Spain and Mexico’s siesta. Italy’s riposo. Greece has quiet hours. In China, the midday sleep is widely accepted. And the Japanese have the practice of inemuri, literally “being present while sleeping.” Dozing off is seen as evidence of hard work, not laziness. But in North America, napping has an image problem. The adulation we have for snoozing babies and toddlers turns to scorn when teenagers put their feet up. Office workers risk being fired if they put their heads down. Good luck finding a spot in school and college settings where students can have a safe snooze. There’s a widespread conviction that we need to power through the day, and that doing so is the definition of industrious. Churchill thought differently, and he wasn’t alone. Leonardo da Vinci slept in short bursts throughout the day. John F. Kennedy was known to retreat for a brief afternoon sleep. Albert Einstein reportedly slept about ten hours at night and still enjoyed daytime naps. They were hardly lazy men. Researchers in Japan showed that even a short daytime nap measurably improves alertness, mental performance, and fatigue. Waking at just the right point in the nap reduced the grogginess many people complain about after sleeping too long. European researchers studying older adults in both China and Europe found napping wasn't good or bad. Like Goldilocks, it seemed to be "just right" when it was neither too short nor too long. Moderate naps were associated with better cognitive performance, while marathon afternoon snoozes offered no reward. Neuroscience can explain it. The brain is like a busy office. All morning, papers pile up, phones ring, and sticky notes cover every surface. A short nap is the cleaning crew. Memories are sorted. Unimportant information is discarded. New learning is filed where it can be found later. Meanwhile, stress hormones decline, and the nervous system shifts into a more restorative gear. That's one reason people often wake feeling clearer, calmer, and more creative. The sweet spot appears to be about 20 to 30 minutes in the early afternoon. That's long enough to recharge without descending into deep sleep, where waking can leave you feeling as though you've been hit by a truck instead of refreshed. Of course, there is an important caveat. If you're routinely sleeping for hours every afternoon because you're exhausted, that's another matter. Long or frequent naps can sometimes signal poor nighttime sleep, sleep apnea, medication effects, or underlying illness rather than helpful restoration. In health and sickness, context always matters. I'll admit, a nap still feels like an indulgence. It even feels wrong to relax when many people around the world are lurching from one crisis to the next. It's hard to settle in for forty winks knowing so many people are worrying about war, paying the rent, or simply getting through another day. I'd enjoy a midday snooze more if I knew everyone had the same carefree opportunity. But guilt has never been a substitute for sleep. And the evidence is clear: a short afternoon nap is one of the healthiest habits many people forego. We all should do it more. So if anyone accuses you of laziness, simply tell them you're following the latest international research. Then nodded off in the recliner.

Making Your Job Search Public Doesn't Do You Any Favours

Making Your Job Search Public Doesn't Do You Any Favours By Nick Kossovan Every day, my LinkedIn feed is filled with posts and comments from job seekers expressing frustration and anger, criticizing recruiters, blaming employers, and claiming victimhood. A large percentage of LinkedIn has become an online group therapy session, minus privacy and confidentiality. Recently, I saw a post from someone I know announcing that, out of sheer desperation, they'd subscribed to an AI tool to mass-apply on their behalf. This person should know better; making their job search a public spectacle wasn't doing them any favours; in fact, it was prolonging their unemployment. Searching for a job was never meant to be a public event; effective job searching requires absolute discretion. I long for the days when you'd meet a friend over a few beers to moan about the uphill battle of job hunting. Whether it was you or the other person searching, the other was always there to lend an ear, and the conversation stayed strictly between you. It was a private release valve, not a public broadcast. Today, job seekers vent online, naively believing (or not caring) that employers won't Google them or check their social media, especially LinkedIn, to determine if they're interview-worthy. If you're part of the "I have the right to say what I want!" camp, understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. How recruiters and hiring managers perceive you is your responsibility. The venting online follows a predictable, tiresome script: "I've applied to 500 jobs," "The hiring system is broken," or, what's become an urban myth, "The ATS keeps rejecting my resume." Unemployment is undoubtedly emotionally challenging; however, turning your job search into a public grievance campaign isn't a job search strategy; it's a surefire way to repel employers. Employers don't read displays of bitterness and resentment as passion. They see someone with an entitlement mentality who can't control their emotions when things don't go their way. There's a direct correlation between a candidate's digital maturity and their job search success. Often, job seekers blame technology for rejecting their applications. It's a comforting excuse that sidesteps personal accountability. The reality is more mundane: your resume either fails to demonstrate immediate value, lacks relevant keywords, or is poorly formatted. Employers use technology to manage volume, not to maliciously exclude candidates. Publicly attacking an employer's hiring tools and process shows you prefer complaining over self-reflection. Then there are the job seekers who evangelize working from home, a privilege, as an absolute right. Publicly demanding remote flexibility signals entitlement rather than collaboration. What does a hiring manager think when reading an "I shouldn't have to step foot in an office" rant? They see someone who feels entitled to dictate to employers how to run their businesses, an attitude they're unlikely to hire. Before you publish a post, pause and ask yourself: "How will recruiters and hiring managers perceive this?" In case you haven't been reading the room, LinkedIn has become a validation platform. Along with auditing your LinkedIn activity to determine whether you're contributing valuable industry content and whether you're a thoughtful professional who understands your industry's community, or simply adding to the negativity, they'll also cross-check your resume against your LinkedIn profile to verify your identity. In order to maximize LinkedIn's ability to attract recruiters and employers, rather than turning them off, ensure your behaviour on the platform focuses on value creation, not complaining. You establish a professional reputation by sharing insightful commentary on industry news, highlighting a peer's successful project, or offering constructive feedback that demonstrates your expertise. Every digital interaction either builds or diminishes your professional brand; hence, you build your professional reputation by consistently providing value and engaging in thoughtful conversation. The main reason to job search discreetly is to avoid posting anything hiring managers and recruiters might misinterpret, which will never be in your favour. Broadcasting your tactics, such as announcing you're going to "spray-and-pray" or venting about being ghosted or supposedly having been disrespected by your interviewer, signals a lack of professionalism. Employers judge your maturity and, by extension, your professionalism, by what you choose to communicate publicly. Keeping their sense of entitlement and the frustration and anger it generates off social media is one of the smartest moves a job seeker can make. The damage to one's job search from emotional oversharing is evident in a benchmark CareerBuilder screening study, which found that 70% of employers actively research candidates online and that more than half have rejected an applicant solely because of social media red flags, such as public complaints and "bad-mouthing" previous employers or hiring practices. The job market is a marketplace, not your personal diary. Instead of getting upset about rejections, critically assess how you approach recruiters and hiring managers; the problem almost certainly lies there. Quantify your impact on your former employers' profitability, sharpen your networking strategy, and ensure your LinkedIn profile aligns with your resume. Be a positive contributor online, not a negative one. Discuss your job search frustrations only with family and friends. Don't make your job search a spectator sport; doing so will only prolong it.

When Deflection Replaces Leadership

When Deflection Replaces Leadership By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE One of the oldest tricks in politics is simple: when you can't defend your record, change the subject. Throughout history, governments and politicians of every stripe have relied on deflection when faced with uncomfortable questions. Rather than addressing the issue itself, they attempt to redirect public attention toward something more emotionally charged. We're seeing that happen again. Across our community, residents have raised legitimate concerns about allegations of animal abuse, enforcement of existing laws, transparency, and the willingness of elected officials to show leadership. These are real issues that deserve real answers. Instead, too often the conversation shifts. Rather than debating the evidence, the focus becomes accusations of racism, Islamophobia, or intolerance. Let me be clear. If someone engages in racism or religious hatred, they should be called out. There is no place for hatred in a civil society. But neither should legitimate questions about public policy, animal welfare, or the enforcement of our laws be dismissed simply by attaching labels to those raising concerns. In a democracy, difficult conversations are not silenced by accusations. They are resolved with facts. Animal welfare is not a racial issue. The rule of law is not a religious issue. Leadership is not a partisan issue. These are community issues. The public has every right to ask whether municipal leaders are providing the leadership expected of them. When citizens raise concerns supported by evidence, elected officials should respond with transparency—not distraction. As we approach this municipal election, voters have an opportunity to decide what kind of leadership they want. Do they want leaders who engage directly with difficult issues? Or leaders who avoid uncomfortable conversations by changing the subject? The choice belongs to the voters. Whatever your political views, don't allow yourself to be distracted from the issue that brought you to the discussion in the first place. Stay focused. Demand facts. Demand accountability. And above all, remember that elections are how democracies correct their course.

Ontario's Municipal Elections: Taxpayers Deserve Better

Ontario's Municipal Elections: Taxpayers Deserve Better by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East When Ontarians vote in the municipal elections on October 26, they will do much more than elect mayors and councillors. They will decide what kind of communities they want to live in and, equally important, whether they still have confidence that local government is delivering value for the taxes they pay. Municipal government is often described as the level of government closest to the people. It is also the one that has the greatest impact on everyday life. It is responsible for roads, bridges, drinking water, public transit, waste collection, policing, fire protection, parks, libraries, recreation facilities, planning, and economic development. When municipalities perform well, citizens notice. When they do not, the consequences are impossible to ignore. Across Ontario, municipalities face genuine challenges. Population growth has accelerated demand for housing, transportation, water systems, and community services. Inflation has driven up construction and labour costs. Aging infrastructure requires billions of dollars in renewal. These pressures are real, and no responsible observer should underestimate them. However, acknowledging these challenges does not excuse poor financial discipline or weak accountability. Over the past several years, property taxes have increased substantially in many Ontario municipalities. For countless homeowners, seniors on fixed incomes, and small businesses, these increases have become increasingly difficult to absorb. Yet many taxpayers look around their communities and ask a reasonable question: Why are we paying more but seeing so little improvement? Roads continue to deteriorate. Traffic congestion worsens. Infrastructure projects are delayed. Public confidence in local government has weakened. In some communities, concerns about homelessness, public disorder, and declining downtown business activity have become more visible despite steadily increasing municipal budgets. The issue is not whether municipalities require revenue. They do. The issue is whether taxpayers receive value for the money they contribute. Good government is measured not by the amount it spends but by the results it delivers. Every municipal budget should be judged according to measurable outcomes, clear priorities, and transparent reporting. Every major project should demonstrate value for money. Every department should be expected to pursue continuous improvement and operational efficiency. Municipal elections should therefore become elections about performance. Candidates should not simply promise additional spending or pledge to keep taxes low. They should explain how they intend to modernize municipal administration, eliminate duplication, improve procurement, use technology more effectively, and ensure that every tax dollar produces tangible benefits for residents. Housing affordability will understandably dominate the campaign. Yet approving thousands of new homes without ensuring adequate infrastructure merely postpones today's problems until tomorrow. Growth must be accompanied by investments in roads, transit, schools, water systems, and community facilities. Planning must be integrated rather than reactive. Infrastructure renewal also demands leadership. Ontario's municipalities face billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. Bridges, water mains, storm water systems, and public buildings cannot be ignored indefinitely. Strategic long-term planning is essential if future generations are not to inherit even larger financial burdens. Public safety is another defining issue. Residents expect neighbourhoods that are safe, clean, and welcoming. This requires effective policing, but also cooperation with healthcare providers, mental health professionals, and social service agencies. Complex problems demand comprehensive solutions rather than political slogans. Economic development must also return to the forefront. Municipal governments should become partners in attracting investment, supporting entrepreneurs, and creating employment opportunities. Excessive bureaucracy and lengthy approval processes discourage investment and ultimately reduce economic growth. Another challenge is the relationship between municipalities and Queen's Park. Ontario municipalities carry increasing responsibilities while relying primarily on property taxes for revenue. A modern discussion is needed about municipal finance, one that provides local governments with sustainable resources while demanding greater accountability for how those resources are spent. Perhaps the greatest concern of all is voter apathy. Municipal elections routinely attract disappointing voter turnout, despite affecting the services citizens use every day. Democracy cannot flourish when participation declines. Every eligible voter should recognize that decisions made at city hall influence daily life as much as, and often more than, decisions made in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. Ontario's municipalities do not simply need larger budgets; they need better management. Before asking taxpayers to contribute more, every municipality should demonstrate that it has examined every opportunity to improve productivity, eliminate duplication, modernize procurement, embrace digital technologies, and streamline administrative processes. Families and businesses are expected to do more with less every day. Municipal governments should be held to the same standard. The October 26 municipal elections should therefore be about more than electing new councils. They should mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility, measurable performance, transparency, and service excellence. Citizens deserve local governments that spend wisely, plan strategically, and deliver visible results. Ontario's future will not be shaped only in Ottawa or at Queen's Park. It will be shaped in city halls, regional councils, and township offices across the province. Strong municipalities build a strong Ontario. When voters consider who to vote for this October, they should ask every candidate one simple but fundamental question: If you are asking me to pay more in taxes, what specific improvements will I see, when will I see them, and how will you measure your success? Those who can answer that question with honesty, evidence, and a realistic plan deserve the public's trust. Those who cannot should not expect taxpayers to continue writing blank cheques. Candidates nomination date deadline is 21 August 2026. More to come on this subject as the municipal election approaches.

Bird E-Scooter Pilot Review: My Experience, What I Learned,

Bird E-Scooter Pilot Review: My Experience, What I Learned, and Where We Go From Here By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering When Pickering launched its Bird e-scooter pilot, opinions quickly became polarized. Some residents loved the added transportation option, while others raised legitimate concerns about safety, sidewalk riding, underage users, clutter, and enforcement. Rather than forming an opinion from social media posts alone, I wanted to understand the program firsthand. So I met directly with Bird’s Durham Region management team, toured their local operations, rode the scooters throughout Pickering, asked dozens of difficult questions, and listened carefully to feedback from residents on both sides of the debate. One thing became very clear: not every scooter people see around the city is a Bird scooter. Private e-scooters, many of which have no speed limits, no GPS tracking, and no accountability, are frequently mistaken for Bird units. That’s an important distinction because the rules, technology, and enforcement options are very different. I was encouraged to learn that Bird operates far more sophisticated technology than many people realize. Every scooter is GPS tracked, allowing Bird and the City to monitor usage patterns, parking locations, and compliance. Geofencing allows speeds to be automatically reduced in sensitive areas and can even prevent scooters from operating in prohibited zones. Bird also operates a 24-hour support line and maintains crews that collect, charge, inspect, and reposition scooters on a daily basis. The company has also implemented measures to discourage misuse. Riders who repeatedly park improperly or violate program rules can receive warnings, temporary suspensions, or permanent bans from the platform. That said, technology alone is not enough. Many of the concerns raised by residents are absolutely valid. I have personally witnessed scooters left in inconvenient locations, riders ignoring traffic laws, people riding on sidewalks, and what appear to be underage users operating scooters. Whether those incidents involve Bird scooters or privately owned devices, the public experiences them the same way. In my view, the success of this pilot depends on three things: education, enforcement, and communication. Many residents simply don’t know the rules. Ontario law requires riders to be at least 16 years old, and those between 16 and 17 must wear a helmet. Riding responsibly and parking properly should be clearly communicated before and during every ride. Enforcement is equally important. Rules without enforcement quickly become suggestions. Dangerous behaviour should have consequences, whether that involves Bird removing riders from its platform or police enforcing provincial and municipal regulations when necessary. Communication also needs improvement. Many residents don’t know who to contact when they encounter a problem scooter or have concerns about the program. Making reporting easier would help address issues much more quickly. I also believe Council should rely on data, not assumptions when evaluating the pilot. The City has access to extensive information about ride volumes, usage patterns, parking compliance, safety incidents, and other performance metrics. Those facts should guide future decisions far more than emotion or speculation. After completing my review, I don’t believe the answer is simply to ban the program, nor do I believe it should continue unchanged. Instead, I support a balanced approach that strengthens enforcement, improves public education, increases transparency, and holds both the operator and riders accountable. If the pilot can demonstrate that problems are being addressed and that the benefits outweigh the risks, then it deserves fair consideration. If it cannot, Council should not hesitate to make changes. Good policy isn’t about choosing sides. It’s about gathering facts, listening to residents, asking tough questions, and making informed decisions.

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

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

The Traditions We Never Meant to Start

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

How Difficult Can It Get?

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

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

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

The Press's Obsession with Prime Minister Mark Carney

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

Putting the Story Back Together

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