There’s No One Medical Truth

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

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired

In a Sea of AI-Slop, Authenticity is the Currency That'll Get You Hired By Nick Kossovan I've said it before, and I'll say it again: job seekers are often their own worst enemies; an obvious example is how they utilize AI lazily. By mass-applying and copying-pasting AI output to their prompts without editing, job seekers hoping for shortcuts and to lessen their job search efforts are flooding employers with what amounts to 100% Grade A AI-slop, creating an irony similar to drowning in a flood caused by leaving the taps running to see if the drains work. Job seekers flood employers with resumes and cover letters they didn't even write for jobs they aren't qualified for, adding to the deluge of applications and forcing employers to increasingly aggressively use ATS software to filter them, which job seekers complain about. Do job seekers not think that their misuse of AI wouldn't have consequences? When job postings receive 1,200 applications within six hours—95% of which are clearly AI-generated—recruiters and hiring managers don't look harder; instead, they rely more on the very technology job seekers are trying to outsmart because job seekers have made it nearly impossible to find a genuine person in the digital flood they're causing. What does "AI-slop" look like? It's word salad that tries to say everything and yet says nothing. I see it every day, resumes claiming the job seeker's a "visionary leader leveraging synergistic solutions," yet failing to list a single actual result you've delivered. Cover letters that recycle the company's 'About Us' page like reconstituted paper pulp. In an article titled How AI Slop Took Over Hiring and How to Sound Human Again, published by Artisan Talent, Katrina Kibben, CEO of Three Ears Media, states bluntly: "Faster doesn't mean better; it means faster. AI is replicating trends and problems into these new resumes because their training data is a sample of old information that wasn't good to begin with." Simply put, when you lazily use AI to "help" you with your job search, you become just like all the other job seekers who also lazily use AI. Two types of AI misuse are job search killers: 1. Mass Applying. Increasingly, job seekers are using AI tools to auto-tailor their resume and apply 24/7 to job postings the AI finds on job boards and company websites. While their resume(s) incorporate keywords effectively, they lack a clear career trajectory, relevance, and, most importantly, proof that they've positively impacted their previous employer's profitability. It's unlikely that a resume like this would pass an employer's ATS; however, if a human were to lay eyes on it, the lack of "value-add" would be glaring. 1. Ghostwriter. AI tools are widely used by job seekers to write what they think is the perfect cover letter and to answer screening and knock-out questions. As well, job seekers are employing 'whispering bots' during video interviews. Perhaps one day AI will be able to mimic your personality, problem-solving, and strategic thinking; however, as of right now, it can't. Mike Wolford, author of THE AI RECRUITER: Revolutionizing Hiring with Advanced GPT-Powered Prompts, noted: "We've gained infinite words but lost specificity—and that's why everything, from resumes to job posts, sounds the same." Employers hire candidates they believe will serve their self-interests; therefore, not using AI lazily and showing employers evidence of your value to your previous employers is the best job search strategy a job seeker can adopt. Here are three examples of comparing "AI-slop" against high-impact, human-written value: · AI-Slop: Managed a customer service team and ensured high levels of customer satisfaction through effective leadership. · Human Value-Add: Managed a 45-agent inbound call centre operation averaging over 50,000 calls per month. In my first 6 months, I reduced average handle time by 12% and increased first-call resolution from 78% to 89%. · AI-Slop: Improved internal workflow and organizational efficiency by collaborating with cross-functional departments. · Human Value-Add: Eliminated redundancies in procurement workflows to save $240,000 annually and accelerated by 15% project turnaround. · AI-Slop: Experienced in growing sales and market share through strategic outreach and maintaining strong relationships with stakeholders. · Human Value-Add: Generated $1.2M in new recurring revenue through targeted B2B acquisition, which expanded regional market share by 8% in 2025. In a job market flooded with AI-slop, a well-written, results-oriented resume is a revolutionary act. Refusing to use AI lazily gives you a competitive advantage. While the job seekers you're competing against are prompting AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Teal, trying to sound 'professional,' your job search strategy should be identifying an employer's specific pain points and proving, quantitatively based on past performance, how you have the skills and experience to address them. Next time you're angry at the job market, ask yourself how much AI-slop you're contributing to employers' inboxes. Recruiters and hiring managers aren't searching for someone who can "beat the machine." They're looking for the person who'd be a value-add to their profitability, who's serious about their career and is willing to put in the effort that a machine can't replicate. Every time you copy-paste an AI-generated response, you're basically saying, "I don't care enough about this role to write three original sentences." If you don't care, then don't expect employers to care about hiring you.

Are Oshawa Events Becoming Pay to Park Festivals?

Are Oshawa Events Becoming Pay to Park Festivals? By Dale Jodoin Columnist You can usually tell when a city starts losing touch with regular people. It rarely happens all at once. It starts with little things. A fee here. A fine there. A new rule that sounds harmless inside a meeting room but feels very different once families actually have to deal with it. Now some Oshawa residents are beginning to wonder if that is exactly what is happening at the city’s waterfront. Starting this year, more public events and activities have started being pushed toward Lakeview Park and the lakefront area. Concerts, cultural festivals, food trucks, weekend gatherings, and family celebrations are becoming more common near the water. Even the long running Labour Day event many people connected with Memorial Park has now shifted toward the lakefront area. And residents are noticing something else. A lot of these changes appear to be happening after the Oshawa City Council gave city staff more authority to decide where events should be held throughout the city. That decision may have made organizing events easier on paper, but some residents now wonder if it is slowly concentrating too much activity at the waterfront while creating new parking headaches at the same time. On paper, the lakefront probably looked like the perfect choice. The lake is beautiful. The sunsets are incredible. During the summer, families fill the waterfront trails while kids ride bikes and people sit near the shoreline eating ice cream or watching boats drift across Lake Ontario. The problem is not the lake. The problem is what comes with it. Parking. And for many residents, that problem is starting to leave a bad taste in their mouth. Because while more events are moving toward the waterfront, parking restrictions and permit enforcement already exist in many nearby areas. Residents without Oshawa parking permits or lakefront stickers can face fines depending on where they park. City officials will likely point out that residents can apply for parking passes through City Hall, and technically that is true. The passes are meant to help Oshawa residents access waterfront parking throughout the year. But many people already know how these things usually go. Something that starts free today often becomes another fee tomorrow. And even if the pass remains free, residents still have to take the time to go through City Hall, apply for it, wait for approval, and keep renewing it. For busy working families, seniors, or people already juggling daily life, that becomes one more thing added onto an already stressful system. That raises a pretty uncomfortable question. Are Oshawa events slowly turning into pay to park festivals? People already pay taxes to support public spaces like Lakeview Park. Property taxes continue climbing year after year while families struggle with rising grocery prices, gas costs, rent, mortgages, hydro bills, and insurance. Now imagine packing the kids into the car for a public event and spending half the evening wondering whether there will be a parking ticket waiting when you get back. That changes the entire mood . Nobody drives to a community celebration hoping to play parking roulette. And this issue goes much deeper than parking tickets. For years, Oshawa spread events throughout the downtown core and Memorial Park area. During festivals, families walked downtown streets, grabbed coffee, visited restaurants, and stopped in local stores. Downtown businesses benefited from the crowds and the city centre felt alive. Now more and more activity is being concentrated near the waterfront. That may sound good inside planning meetings at City Hall, but real life works differently. Lakeview Park already gets crowded on warm weekends. Add thousands of extra people during large public events and parking quickly becomes stressful. Parents drag strollers, coolers, lawn chairs, and tired children across long distances. Seniors struggle to find close parking spots. Visitors from outside Oshawa often have no idea where permit zones begin or end. Some people risk it anyway. Others simply stop coming. And that is the real danger. A visitor does not remember the music, fireworks, or food trucks if the last thing they see is a parking ticket tucked under the windshield wiper. People talk. Families post complaints online. Social media spreads bad experiences fast. Once a city develops a reputation for making events stressful or expensive, it becomes very difficult to reverse public opinion. That should concern everybody because these events matter to Oshawa. Summer festivals bring tourism money into the city. Vendors, musicians, artists, restaurants, and food trucks all depend on strong attendance. Community events create energy. They bring people together during a time when many families already feel isolated and financially exhausted. But attendance only stays strong when people feel welcome. Right now, many residents are not demanding special treatment. They are asking for common sense. If the city wants more events at the waterfront, then parking during major celebrations should be simple, clear, and affordable. Maybe there should be temporary free parking during large public events. Maybe parking enforcement should ease during holidays and festivals. Maybe signs should be larger and easier for visitors to understand before they unknowingly park in restricted areas. Because right now, many people simply do not know the rules. And confusion creates frustration. Families are not angry because of one parking ticket. They are angry because everything now feels like another bill. Families are already cutting back on restaurants, entertainment, vacations, and weekend outings because life costs too much. Community events were supposed to be the affordable escape. A place where ordinary people could still bring their children, relax for a few hours, and enjoy the city they already pay taxes to support. That is why this issue matters more than some officials may realize. This is not really about parking spots. It is about whether public spaces still feel public anymore. The waterfront belongs to the people of Oshawa. Community celebrations belong to the people too. Once residents begin feeling nervous, confused, or financially punished for attending public events, something important starts breaking between the city and the public. Maybe Oshawa officials are not trying to hurt attendance. But this is exactly how attendance slowly gets hurt anyway. Not through one giant decision. Through dozens of small frustrations that slowly teach families it is easier to stay home than deal with the hassle. And once people stop showing up, the crowds shrink, local businesses lose customers, the music gets quieter, and the spirit of a city slowly fades one empty parking spot at a time.

POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROLWhen Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item?

POLICING COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL When Did Public Safety Become a Luxury Item? Across Ontario, municipalities are being crushed under the weight of rising policing costs. Every year, local councils are told the same thing: policing budgets must increase, capital projects are essential, and taxpayers simply have no choice but to pay more. And every year, taxpayers are expected to quietly accept it. But at some point, someone has to ask the uncomfortable question: How did policing become one of the largest and fastest-growing financial burdens on municipal governments? Across Ontario, municipalities are now facing police budgets that consume enormous portions of their annual operating budgets. New headquarters, satellite facilities, specialized units, fleet expansions, technology upgrades, and administrative growth have all become normalized. Meanwhile, taxpayers are struggling with inflation, mortgage payments, rent increases, food costs, and property taxes that continue to rise year after year. The disconnect between municipal reality and taxpayer reality has never been greater. What makes this even more frustrating is that when we compare policing infrastructure models in parts of the United States, we often see a completely different philosophy. Many American jurisdictions continue to operate effectively out of older but functional buildings. Resources are directed toward frontline policing rather than monumental capital projects designed to resemble corporate campuses. In Ontario, however, it increasingly feels as though every growing municipality requires a brand-new police palace complete with massive construction budgets, expensive land acquisitions, and long-term financing obligations that taxpayers will carry for decades. Nobody is arguing against public safety. Strong policing matters. Communities deserve professional officers, effective emergency response, proper training, and modern investigative capabilities. But there is a difference between responsible investment and unchecked expansion. Municipal taxpayers deserve transparency. They deserve to know: • Why costs continue escalating far beyond inflation. • Whether all capital projects are truly necessary. • Whether alternative service delivery models have been explored. • Whether existing infrastructure can be modernized instead of replaced. • Whether administrative growth is outpacing frontline service needs. Most importantly, they deserve elected officials who are willing to ask hard questions instead of automatically approving every increase placed before them. The problem is that too many councils are afraid to challenge policing expenditures publicly. The moment anyone asks legitimate financial questions, they risk being accused of being “anti-police,” which is both unfair and intellectually dishonest. Fiscal accountability is not anti-police. Taxpayer protection is not anti-police. Demanding efficiency is not anti-police. In fact, ensuring that police services remain financially sustainable is one of the most pro-community positions any elected official can take. Because if municipalities continue down the current path, policing costs will increasingly crowd out other essential services: • Roads and infrastructure. • Recreation. • Housing initiatives. • Community services. • Economic development. • Transit. • Long-term capital planning. And taxpayers will continue paying more while receiving less elsewhere. Ontario municipalities are entering a dangerous financial era where operating costs are rising faster than taxpayer capacity. Councils cannot continue pretending that unlimited growth in every department is sustainable. Everything must now be examined through the lens of affordability and long-term sustainability. That includes policing. The public deserves honesty. The public deserves accountability. And the public deserves elected officials with enough courage to ask whether the current model is truly sustainable before taxpayers are pushed beyond the breaking point once again.

The World We Live In Now: A Test of Nerve and National Purpose

The World We Live In Now: A Test of Nerve and National Purpose by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world we live in now is marked by uncertainty, acceleration, and growing instability. Nations are confronting simultaneous geopolitical, economic, technological, and social transformations, all unfolding at a speed that challenges governments and institutions alike. This is not simply another difficult period in international affairs. It is a transition into a new global reality. The assumptions that shaped the decades following the Cold War are steadily eroding. For years, many Western societies believed globalization would naturally expand prosperity, strengthen democratic governance, and reduce the likelihood of major conflict. That optimism has faded. The recent conflagration in Europe shattered the illusion that large-scale war in Europe belonged to the past. Instability in the Middle East continues to threaten global security and economic stability. Meanwhile, the strategic competition between the United States and China is evolving into the defining geopolitical contest of the twenty-first century—extending beyond military power into trade, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and access to critical minerals. The international system is becoming more fragmented, more competitive, and less predictable. For middle powers such as Canada, geography alone no longer guarantees security or prosperity. The Arctic is emerging as a zone of increasing strategic importance. NATO allies are demanding stronger burden-sharing. Supply chains once considered dependable have proven vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and global disruptions. At the same time, democracies themselves are under pressure from political polarization, disinformation, and declining public trust. Yet the challenges facing nations today are not only external. Domestically, many Canadians feel the social contract itself is under strain. Housing affordability has become one of the defining issues of our time. Young families increasingly question whether home ownership remains achievable Healthcare systems are struggling with shortages, long wait times, and burnout among professionals. Infrastructure expansion often moves at a pace that no longer matches demographic and economic realities. Canada also faces a productivity challenge. Despite vast natural resources, technological potential, and a highly educated population, the country continues to struggle with regulatory complexity, internal trade barriers, and slow project approvals. The world we live in now rewards speed, coordination, and strategic focus. Unfortunately, democratic systems often move cautiously precisely when decisiveness is required. Overlaying all these pressures is the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced automation. AI is not simply another technological innovation. It represents a transformational force capable of reshaping labour markets, military operations, education, public administration, and the very nature of information itself. For the first time in history, societies must confront the possibility that machines may outperform humans across a growing range of intellectual tasks. This creates enormous opportunities for innovation and growth, but also profound risks related to employment displacement, surveillance, cybersecurity, and social cohesion. Governments are racing to adapt, yet regulation consistently trails innovation. Citizens are exposed daily to manipulated information, synthetic media, and increasingly sophisticated forms of digital influence. Truth itself is becoming contested terrain. And yet, despite these pressures, this period should not be viewed only through pessimism. History demonstrates that disruption can also produce renewal and reinvention. Nations that emerge stronger are those capable of recognizing reality early and responding with strategic clarity rather than complacency. For Canada, this moment demands serious reflection about national priorities. First, defence and national security must once again be treated as core responsibilities of the state. Investments in military readiness, Arctic sovereignty, cybersecurity, and defence industrial capacity are no longer optional. Credibility among allies matters in an increasingly dangerous world. Second, Canada must address its internal economic fragmentation. Provincial trade barriers weaken competitiveness and productivity. A truly integrated Canadian economy would strengthen national resilience at a time of rising global uncertainty. Third, infrastructure development must become a strategic national mission. Energy systems, transportation corridors, housing construction, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure are all interconnected components of economic sovereignty. Countries that fail to modernize will gradually lose investment and talent. Fourth, education and workforce development must adapt rapidly to technological transformation. Future competitiveness will depend not only on resources, but on the ability to train highly skilled workers capable of operating in advanced technological sectors. But beyond economics and policy lies something equally important: civic responsibility. Democratic societies cannot function effectively without a shared sense of purpose. One of the greatest dangers facing modern democracies is the gradual erosion of trust—in institutions, expertise, and sometimes even in one another. History reminds us that nations endure difficult periods not simply because of government programs, but because citizens themselves maintain confidence in the larger national project. Canada has faced moments of uncertainty before. During the world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a willingness to work toward common objectives despite political differences. That spirit remains essential today. The world we live in now does not permit complacency. It requires leadership capable of thinking strategically rather than electorally. It requires institutions prepared to modernize rather than simply preserve outdated systems. And it requires citizens willing to engage seriously with the challenges of our time instead of retreating into cynicism or division. This is not an era that rewards passivity. It is an era that demands competence, resilience, and national purpose. How do you think we can achieve that? And what can we as individuals do to help?

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS Joe Ingino coined (and popularized) the phrase “I live a dream in a nightmare world.”He uses it as his personal tagline/signature at the top or bottom of nearly all his newspaper columns, blog posts, social media writings, and publications. It appears consistently in his work for the Oshawa/Durham Central Newspaper and related outlets. Key Details:It functions like a branding motto for his commentary series (often called the “‘I Live a Dream in a Nightmare World’ series”). No credible evidence shows the exact phrase being used before Ingino adopted it — searches for earlier uses turn up nothing significant. He has referenced it for years in his role as editor/publisher, making it strongly identified with him locally in the Durham Region / Oshawa area. In short, it’s his signature catchphrase — he created and popularized it through his extensive writing. "I live a dream in a nightmare world" is Joe Ingino’s personal motto and signature tagline. Meaning (as used by him)It expresses a personal philosophy about navigating life in a flawed, often chaotic or disappointing reality:"I live a dream" — He pursues ideals, optimism, personal vision, integrity, and what should be (e.g., better community standards, accountability, common sense in politics and society). "in a nightmare world" — Acknowledges that the actual world around him frequently feels broken, corrupt, hypocritical, or nightmarish — filled with declining standards, political failures, social issues, media problems, and human shortcomings. In essence, it captures the tension between aspiring to something better while being grounded in (and commenting on) a imperfect, frustrating reality. He uses it at the top or bottom of almost every column, post, and article as a framing device for his often critical, outspoken commentary on local Oshawa/Durham issues, politics, society, and human behavior. It functions similarly to how other writers or commentators use a recurring slogan to brand their worldview — part idealism, part realism/cynicism. Ingino has not given one single "official" paragraph-long explanation, but the phrase consistently appears alongside his critiques of the world as it is versus how he believes it should be. Here are clear examples of Joe Ingino’s philosophy, drawn directly from his columns and writings. His core outlook — captured in “I live a dream in a nightmare world” — contrasts personal idealism, traditional values, and calls for accountability against what he sees as a hypocritical, declining, and unfair society. 1. Human Nature, Hypocrisy, and Societal Decay“We are nothing but animals with the fortunate ability to communicate and socialize like no other animal. ... The difference in humans is in the way we interact and live in a system of hypocritical beliefs that hamper our success in life. ... We go for the first 20 years of our lives living a code of ethics and morals that slowly ravels with the realities of living in a society that rewards unfairness... governed by laws that oppress and prosecute the innocent. ... Good people that live a dream in a nightmare world of constant struggle.” Philosophy takeaway: Society starts with good intentions and moral upbringing but erodes into hypocrisy, where systems reward the wrong behaviors and punish or exploit the good. 2. Loss of Traditional Values and “Salvajes” (Wild/Savage) Society. In a column on why peace is difficult, Ingino contrasts his childhood in Uruguay — where people upheld social norms, civic duty, religion, and nationalism to avoid being “Salvajes” (those living wild without rules) — with modern multiculturalism and declining standards:He argues that mixing cultures with lower standards has turned society into a “jungle of uncivilized beings.” Strong unified culture, fear of God, and strict codes once built strong nations; today’s lack of these leads to fragmentation and lowered standards. Philosophy takeaway: Strong societies require shared values, discipline, and higher (often Western/traditional) standards. Without them, we regress into chaos. 3. Criticism of Local Politics and Leadership Ingino frequently attacks Oshawa/Durham politicians as opportunists lacking business experience, focused on pensions or vendettas rather than results. Examples:He calls for removing most of Oshawa council, criticizing them for downtown decay, high taxes, crime, and homelessness while ignoring taxpayers. Downtown councillors are labeled inexperienced “punks” or “dream catchers” who fail businesses and residents. Philosophy takeaway: Leaders must have real-world credentials and put people first. Most current ones are ineffective insiders who worsen quality of life. 4. Optimism vs. Harsh Reality (The Motto in Action)He pairs sharp critiques with motivational closers like:“Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. — ONE DAY AT A TIME —” This reflects living ideally (“the dream”) while confronting daily struggles (“the nightmare”). Overall Themes in Ingino’s Philosophy Idealism vs. Reality — Pursue better standards, accountability, and common sense despite corruption and decline. Traditional Values — Hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, unified culture, and moral codes (often tied to religion or nationalism). Anti-Hypocrisy — Calls out systems, politicians, and society for pretending to help while failing or exploiting good people. Local Populism — Strong focus on practical improvements in Oshawa/Durham: lower taxes, safer streets, pro-business policies, and competent leadership. His style is blunt, opinionated, and repetitive — using his newspaper platform to voice what he sees as common-sense truths ignored by the establishment. This aligns with why some observers note a populist or “Trump-like” flavor in his approach, though he is very much his own local character. Over all it appears that some may see him as a mad man is proven to be a respected genius in his community and his profession.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES Ontario’s municipal elections are coming this October, and if there was ever a time for voters to wake up, pay attention, and hold politicians accountable, this is it. Municipal government impacts your life more than almost any other level of government. Property taxes. Roads. Water. Development. Infrastructure. Emergency services. Housing approvals. Garbage collection. Recreation. Your local government touches virtually every aspect of your day-to-day life. And yet municipal elections continue to have embarrassingly low voter turnout. People complain about taxes. They complain about traffic. They complain about overdevelopment, poor planning, endless delays, lack of accountability, and political insiders running the show. But then election day comes, and many either stay home or vote based on name recognition, slogans, or empty campaign promises. That has to stop. The public needs to start paying close attention not just to what candidates say during campaigns — but to what they actually do once elected. Because far too often, politicians campaign one way and govern another. In Clarington, residents have seen this firsthand. Many will remember the statements made by Mayor Adrian Foster and Councillor Willie Woo regarding the incinerator issue before election campaigns — only for positions to later shift once elected and in office. Whether one supported or opposed the project itself is almost secondary to the larger issue: public trust. When elected officials say one thing to secure votes and then proceed in a completely different direction afterward, it damages confidence in the democratic process. And once trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild. This election cannot simply be about personalities, signs, slogans, or social media photos. It needs to be about accountability. Voters need to ask difficult questions: Has this person been accessible to the public? Have they answered tough questions? Have they been transparent? Have they voted consistently with what they promised? Have they demonstrated integrity over time? Have they represented the people — or protected insiders and political allies? And perhaps most importantly: Do they deserve another term? Not every incumbent should be removed. Some elected officials work extraordinarily hard for their communities. Some are accessible, honest, responsive, and accountable. Those individuals deserve recognition and, where earned, reelection. But others have built careers on carefully crafted talking points, selective memory, political maneuvering, and saying whatever is necessary during campaign season. The public needs to stop rewarding that behavior. Democracy only works if voters have memories longer than campaign flyers. This October, the electorate must do three things: First — get out and vote. Second — pay close attention to who is running and what they truly represent. And third — stop re-electing politicians who have repeatedly misled the public or demonstrated questionable integrity over time. Municipal politics should not be a lifetime appointment. If elected officials lose the trust of the people, they should lose the privilege of governing them. The ballot box is the ultimate accountability mechanism. Use it.

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget By Dale Jodoin Columnist Raising a family when money is tight can quietly break your spirit. Not all at once. It happens in small ways. You say no to dinner out. No to the movie. No to the weekend trip. No to the new restaurant everyone is talking about. After a while, you start feeling like the bad guy in your own house. Then friends talk about going away with their family, or trying some place where the menu looks like a car payment. You smile and say, “I have to work.” That sounds better than saying, “I can’t afford to take my family.” That part hurts. Nobody wants to say it out loud. But here’s the truth. A tight budget does not mean your family has to live a small life. Across Canada, more families are feeling the squeeze. People are working long hours and still going to food banks. Seniors are counting every dollar. Parents are choosing between gas and groceries. It’s not rare anymore. It’s everyday life for a lot of people. And yet, something else is happening too. People are learning how to live differently. Not louder. Not flashier. Just smarter. Take a picnic. It sounds simple. Maybe even a bit boring. But it works. Stop at a grocery store. Grab buns, some deli meat, maybe a bit of fruit. Skip the expensive drinks and mix your own. Pack it into a bag or a cooler. Bring a blanket, or whatever you have, and head out. I remember watching a dad once, sitting on a park bench, quietly counting change before walking back to his kids with a couple of drinks. The kids didn’t notice. They were too busy laughing, chasing a ball, falling over themselves in the grass. To them, it was a great day. Give it ten minutes once you’re there. The air feels different. The pressure eases. It’s not about what you spent. It’s about being present. In a place like Oshawa, there are more options than people think. Parks, open fields, trails. They’re there for everyone. You just have to use them. The same goes for sports. You don’t need a ticket to enjoy a game. Local leagues are everywhere. Baseball, soccer, cricket, and more rugby. Just show up. Stand near the fence or sit on the grass. Watch. Cheer a little. Lacrosse is another one people forget about. Fast, tough, and exciting. Many local games are open to the public. The same goes for school sports. Places like Ontario Tech University and Durham College often have games and events, especially in the summer. Bring your own food. A couple of sandwiches. Some drinks. You sit there together, and for a while, nothing else matters. Transit can open things up too. Not everyone drives, and gas adds up fast. A simple bus ride can take you somewhere new. A different park. A lake. A spot you forgot about. If there’s water nearby, even better. Bring a towel. Let the kids swim if it’s safe. Sit back and take it in. Those are the moments that stay. And don’t overlook what’s already around you. A pickup soccer game. Kids playing baseball. A cricket match in a field. You don’t need to join. Just being there can make you feel part of something again. Local newspapers and city websites are worth checking too. They list events most people skip past. Small festivals. Community days. Local gatherings. Many are free or low cost. You just have to look. Here’s something that matters more than most people realize. Kids don’t measure their childhood by how much money you spent. They measure it by time. By attention. By whether you showed up. You can spend a lot and still miss that. Or you can spend almost nothing and get it right. That doesn’t mean things are easy. They’re not. Working hard and feeling stuck is frustrating. Prices go up. Pay doesn’t always follow. It wears people down. But inside that, there’s still a way forward. For seniors, it might mean asking for a discount and not feeling bad about it. For families, it might mean choosing fast food over a sit down place because tipping just isn’t possible. For others, it might mean skipping one thing so you can enjoy something else. You start to see your city differently. Not as a place full of things you can’t afford, but as a place full of things you can still enjoy. And that changes things. Money can be short. The fridge can be thin. The bills can sit on the table like they own the place. But your kids don’t need rich parents to have good memories. They need time. They need laughter. They need a parent who still tries, even when things are hard. A sandwich in the park can matter. A bus ride to the lake can matter. Watching a free game can matter. Taking pictures on your phone can matter. Because one day, your kids may not remember what you couldn’t buy. They’ll remember that you showed up. And that is how a family finds a way to have fun on empty.

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The Easiest Thing to Fix in a Struggling Healthcare System No country has it perfect. But a few give us envy. Switzerland combines universal health coverage with rapid access and strong patient choice. People are required to buy private insurance, but the system is tightly regulated, and wait times are generally far shorter than in Canada by comparison. The Netherlands is another standout. It has universal coverage, strong primary care, and insurers compete within strict public rules. It ranks high for patient satisfaction and access. Germany is praised for its social insurance model – broad coverage, quick specialist access, and a large hospital network. Singapore is admired for efficiency and outcomes. It spends far less of GDP on health care than many Western countries while maintaining excellent results, though its system relies more heavily on personal savings and individual responsibility. Among Nordic countries, Denmark is praised for integration and digital health systems, while Sweden is respected for quality but can struggle with wait times. Canada adheres to the principle of universal access. No one should go bankrupt because they got sick. But universal coverage is nothing to celebrate if you can’t see a doctor. And Canadians are frustrated by access delays, and increasingly, by service quality too. In the U.S., money talks. Those with means can get world-class care. For those without insurance, and there are many, it’s a lot harder and the statistics tell a grim story.Regardless of where in the world, or socioeconomic status, no senior citizen should wait 14 hours in emergency with a fractured wrist. No individual with chest pain should sit in a hallway because there are no beds. No one should have to wait eight months to see a specialist, only to be told they need another referral because the original one expired while waiting. We hear promises of “transformational reform” when parts of our systems breakdown. Yet patients continue to experience delay, frustration, and the sense that no one is in charge. What’s the one thing we could easily fix? That would be communication. What drives people to frustration is often not the illness itself but feeling invisible inside the system. Even when right in the middle of it. Medicine has become highly technical, but healing still begins with a person looking you in the eye and explaining what is happening. Patients want two things from a physician: competence and caring. They hoped for the first, but they remembered the second. And caring means diligent communication – in both directions, with give and take, until there is a common understanding. Hospitals measure everything – wait times, readmissions, staffing costs, infection rates. All important. But do we measure whether families are actually informed? Whether discharge instructions are understood? Whether patients know who is responsible for their care? Imagine if every emergency department had one person whose sole role was to keep patients and families informed. Not to provide treatment, but to explain delays, next steps, and realistic expectations. There is an old saying in medicine: “Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.” We seem to have forgotten the last part. Comfort is not a complex concept. It is clarity. It is dignity. It is the assurance that someone sees you not as a chart number, but as a human being who may be frightened and trying to make sense of what comes next. Can communication alone fix health care? Of course not. But if we are looking for the easiest place to start, it may be right there. For a lot of things in life, it might help to lay it out. “Here is what is happening, and here is what happens next.”

When Other People Start Weighing In

Dead and Gone…

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a point where the circle around a family starts to widen. It doesn’t happen all at once, but over a day or two, word spreads, calls are made, messages go out, and people begin to reach in. Friends, extended family, neighbours, people who have been through something similar before. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that this is a natural part of what follows. People care, and most are simply trying to be helpful in the only way they know how. But something else begins to happen at the same time. As more people enter the conversation, more opinions begin to surface. Suggestions are offered, sometimes gently, sometimes more directly. Someone shares what they did when they went through it. Another mentions what they think is expected. Someone else focuses on keeping things simple, while another leans toward something more traditional. None of this comes from a bad place, but when it all starts to arrive at once, it can be harder to sort through than people expect. I have seen families reach that point, even if they don’t say it out loud. The decisions are still theirs, but the space around those decisions starts to feel more crowded. It becomes less about choosing what feels right, and more about trying to reconcile everything that has been said. That can create a kind of pressure that doesn’t come from any one person, but from the accumulation of voices. It can leave people second-guessing themselves before they’ve even had a chance to think things through together. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady in that moment. Not closed off, not unwilling to listen, but grounded enough to recognize the difference between hearing someone out and feeling like they need to follow what’s being suggested. It’s reasonable to take in ideas. It’s reasonable to consider what others have experienced. But it’s also reasonable to step back and ask, quietly and honestly, what feels right for the people who are actually making the decisions. One of the things that makes this more complicated is that people tend to speak from their own experience. They remember what mattered to them, what felt meaningful at the time, what they wish they had done differently. Those reflections are real, and they often come from a good place, but they don’t always translate in the same way for another family. Every situation is different, and what brought comfort to one person may not carry the same meaning for someone else. I have spoken with families afterward who said this part surprised them. Not because they expected people to stay silent, but because they didn’t realize how much outside input could influence the way they were thinking. Some found themselves leaning in a direction that didn’t quite feel like their own, simply because it had been suggested more than once. It wasn’t intentional, but it was noticeable once they stepped back and reflected on it. If I were gone, I would want my family to trust themselves enough to come back to each other before making any decisions. To take a moment, even briefly, to ask what feels right between them, without the noise of other opinions layered on top. That doesn’t mean ignoring people or shutting anyone out. It simply means recognizing that the final decisions don’t belong to the wider circle. They belong to the people closest to the situation. In the end, what tends to stay with families isn’t what others thought they should do. It’s how they felt about what they chose. Whether it reflected the person they lost, and whether it felt honest to them in the moment. If I were gone, that’s what I would want for my family - not certainty, not perfection, just a sense that what they decided felt like their own. Next week, I will write about something that often becomes clearer once that space settles again: how to recognize which decisions truly matter, and which ones don’t need to carry as much weight.

Meeting Them in Their Game

Meeting Them in

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Video games have a reputation – and not a good one, at least among parents. For years, I kept my distance. “Brain rot” some experts say. I’ve said it myself, often and with conviction. I’ve worried as my four children have grown up, eyes glued to screens. But over the recent holiday weekend, I caved. My now adult children – gamers, all of them – convinced me to join them. When I sensed their genuine excitement at the possibility that I might finally enter their world, how could I refuse? The game was Minecraft, where players explore, build, and survive in a blocky, pixelated universe. Think digital Lego meets wilderness survival, with a dash of engineering. Before I could begin, however, there was the small matter of getting set up. This, I discovered, was no small matter. Out came an assortment of computer equipment that had been gathering dust in closets. A screen, keyboard, and headset. I was instructed to wear ear pods underneath the headset so that I could simultaneously hear a voice chat on my phone and the game’s audio through the computer. There followed a symphony of muting and unmuting on the phone, on the computer, and on the headset. I was assured not to worry. “We’ve got this,” they said. I did not. But soon enough, there I was: seated, wired, and ready. My grown children, now giggling playmates, were scattered across three different cities, with one just down the hall. Yet we were all together in the game. I could literally see their characters running circles around me. Then the real test began. “Click here, Mom.” Easy enough. Except that was merely the beginning of what felt like a neurological stress test. First, I had to grasp perspective. With the click of a button, I could switch from seeing the world through my character’s eyes to viewing my character from the outside. Then came movement. To walk, I had to use the W, S, A, and D keys with my left hand while my thumb hovered over the space bar to make me jump. My right hand controlled the mouse, which required sliding, clicking left and right, and scrolling with the middle finger. This was no walk in the park. My brain and coordination were being tested. At one point, I was tasked with making an iron pickaxe. “Simple,” they said. Except it wasn’t. First, you need to get wood for a handle. Then you must craft a furnace. Next, the mining, for coal and iron ore. Then comes the crucial insight: coal goes in the bottom of the furnace, iron ore in the top. The game requires players to use reason, but I would have been helpless without my kids telling me how to survive. There was laughter. Lots of it. Belly-bursting laughter. There we were: a family spread across distances, connected by technology, having a blast. But I was thinking about the health benefits. Mental agility, hand-eye coordination, memory, and perhaps most importantly, social connection. Most researchers don’t focus on games like Minecraft; they use cognitive-training tests that miss the elements found in the family fun I’m talking about. So they report modest improvements in attention, reaction time, and memory. But my guess is that a little bit of Minecraft among people of my generation goes a long way in boosting cognitive flexibility, spatial reasoning, and the wholesome happiness factor. Will I play again? I’m counting on it. Much as I love a good book or a quiet walk in the woods, I’m intrigued by the potential for games like Minecraft to keep me sharp as I age.

Collateral Damage

Collateral Damage By Wayne and Tamara I am writing during a trying time in my life. I am a 35-year-old mother of three children and just recently lost my husband. My siblings and I have been dealing with an alcoholic mother since we were born. There were harsh and horrible memories, but I believe we have all forgiven her. My father who did not drink, but worked two full-time jobs, divorced her when the youngest of us kids was a teenager. My mother has gone through ups and downs ever since. Two years ago she was arrested again for drunk driving. After realizing she’d be facing prison time, she attempted suicide many times. The worst time my mother landed in intensive care for a week on a respirator, unconscious, while her children, sister and brother sat vigil by her bedside. We were told if paramedics arrived 10 minutes later she would have died. Each time she attempted to kill herself, she called one of us kids to let us know and say goodbye after taking all the pills. Well, she ended up doing the time assigned by the court and came out at first a calm and happy person, but she wasn’t given her old job back. She has a fear of working in public, so she won’t take a cashiering job close enough to walk to. As a result she is about to be evicted from her apartment. Since I lost my husband, who was also an alcoholic, I’ve found a cheaper apartment for myself and my children. It has an extra bedroom I’d like to use as a playroom. My uncle offered my mother a place to stay, but she says she doesn’t like his rules. She is demanding to move in with me. She still drinks and has mood swings that explode at the drop of a hat. I don’t believe it would be good for my children so I told her no. I told her to stay with her brother. She told me not to consider her my mother anymore. Her last words were, “I’ll never hate you, but I’ll never speak to you again.” I feel guilty, but I also know my children come first. They are still dealing with their father’s death, as it happened just four months ago. I feel hurt and angry my mother cannot understand what she is doing to me at such a painful point in my family’s life. Marti Marti, you cannot comprehend why a drunken woman doesn’t understand what she is doing to your family. For people not raised in an alcoholic household that is not even a question. They would be astonished if your mother didn’t attempt to destroy your family’s life. When you were young, your mother prepared a cocktail for you and your siblings. She mixed normal with what is normal only in alcoholic households. One result is you can say “I married an alcoholic” as casually as another woman might say, “I was raised Lutheran, so I married a Lutheran.” Every aspect of your life, and now it appears your children’s lives, has been affected by alcohol. You say your kids come first. That’s only believable if you eliminate alcoholism from their home life. That you feel guilty about not bringing your mother into your home suggests you haven’t grasped the full extent of her abuse. Legal and medical professionals who deal with people like your mother couldn’t help her. You can’t either. But you can get professional help to grow past the trauma you were raised in. The last thing you want to do is replicate the horror of your childhood for your children. Living under your uncle’s rules may be the last chance your mother gets to put her life in order. Her life suggests families need to move away from saving the drunkard to saving the six or 16 lives around the drunkard which are being mutilated. Wayne & Tamara

7 Expectations Job Seekers Need to Let Go Of

7 Expectations Job Seekers Need to Let Go Of By Nick Kossovan Expectations are resentments in the making. Many job seekers today enter the job market with an inflated sense of entitlement, expecting employers to prioritize their self-interests over their own. Instead, they're experiencing a fiercely competitive environment where emotions are decimated, and proving your value to an employer's profitability is your only currency for getting hired. The sooner you realize that the world owes you nothing—not a job, not a reply, and definitely not a career built around your "passions"—the sooner you'll start working strategically on your job search. Success doesn't come from expecting what you think you deserve, which, as I mentioned, is nothing; it's achieved by what you're willing to accept—akin to Rocky Balboa's "You gotta be willing to take the hits!"—by maintaining a more resilient mindset than the job seekers you're competing against, who, for the most part, are busy whining about employers' hiring practices. Job search success in today's job market requires a disciplined focus on what you can control and an indifference to what you can't. It's imperative to let go of the following expectations: Expectation of Communication Silence is communication. You submitted your résumé, had a second interview, and then silence. Ghosting is no longer a breach of etiquette; instead, it's become a social norm. Today, recruiters and hiring managers conservatively receive over 500 applications per role and therefore need to rely on technology that reduces candidates to data points. Silence isn't poor manners or unprofessional; it's the message. Socially or professionally, ghosting is regarded as an efficient way for someone to let you know they've moved on, and you should do the same. Expectation of Feedback In a litigious society like ours, expecting feedback is naive. An employer giving feedback to a candidate they didn't select risks liability issues. In an era of 'strip-mall lawyers' looking for a payday, a single wrong word about 'culture fit' can lead to a discrimination lawsuit. A prudent strategy to avoid giving candidates ammunition for a lawsuit is to refrain from providing feedback to rejected candidates. Expectation of a Fast Hiring Process Corporate bureaucracy is a slow, grinding machine, and the cost of a bad hire, both culturally and financially, is exorbitant. As bad actors flood the job market with AI-generated résumés and exaggerated qualifications, employers are conducting more due diligence than ever. "Hiring is not a democratic process; it is a risk-mitigation exercise. Companies would rather leave a seat empty for six months than fill it with a liability." — Lars Schmidt, Founder of Redefine Work. If you're frustrated by waiting, remember that the employer cares about protecting its culture and bottom line, not your bills. Expectation You Don't Have to Sell Yourself The belief that your "experience" speaks for itself is a form of laziness. Job searching is a sales activity; an interview is a sales meeting. Your résumé isn't a trophy case; it's a marketing brochure. It's not what you did that matters to employers; it's what you can do for them by the end of the next quarter. Unless you clearly explain in your résumé, LinkedIn profile, and especially during interviews, how you'll positively impact the employer's business to make it more profitable, you should expect a lengthy job search. Expectation of Human-Only Reviews Complaining about Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) is like complaining about the weather; it's pointless and changes nothing. AI is a necessity for companies to sift through the thousands of mostly unqualified applications they receive. "AI isn't the enemy of the job seeker; it is the filter for the unprepared. If you can't speak the language of the machine, you'll never get the chance to speak to a human." — Jan Tegze. When the application process shifted from a handshake to an online portal, the "human touch" vanished. It's what it is. The Expectation of Guaranteed Networking Help No one is obligated to help you. Today, thanks to digital fatigue and heavy workloads, a stranger owes you nothing; someone you've neglected to stay in touch with owes you even less. When you haven't consistently added value to a relationship, don't expect to receive a favour when you need one. With a sense of entitlement widespread, most job seekers think pestering strangers and people they've lost contact with for "a job" counts as networking. Don't be that job seeker! Having expectations of others is more than just a recipe for chronic resentment and anger; it's a self-imposed hindrance that anchors you in a victim mentality. You can't change how a recruiter, hiring manager, or anyone else behaves, and quite frankly, it's not your responsibility to try. Your only job is to manage your own behaviour. The biggest obstacle between you and a paycheque isn't how employers choose to hire or being ghosted; it's your expectations. Conducting a job search with the expectation that employers will acknowledge your potential, without any effort on your part, to boost their profitability or hire you on your terms, is why many job seekers are frustrated and angry. The most effective job search strategy a job seeker can adopt is to lower their expectations of what's out of their control to nearly nothing and expect more from themselves.

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council In theory, municipal democracy runs on rules. In practice, it runs on whether those rules are applied consistently — or selectively. And lately, at the Municipality of Clarington Council, the line between the two is starting to blur. The Illusion of Order You’ll often hear references to Robert's Rules of Order — the gold standard of meeting procedure. It sounds reassuring. Structured. Fair. Democratic. But here’s the truth most residents don’t know: Clarington doesn’t actually run on Robert’s Rules. It runs on its own Procedural By-law, under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001. Robert’s Rules are, at best, a guideline of last resort — not a free pass for improvisation. So when they’re invoked loosely, or selectively, something else is happening. The Referral Motion Loophole Let’s talk about referral motions — the procedural equivalent of “send it back for more work.” On paper, these motions are simple: - Where is the matter going? - When is it coming back? That’s it. They are not supposed to be: - A second debate on the issue - A political soapbox - A workaround to revisit arguments already made But at Clarington Council, something different is unfolding. When “Where and When” Becomes “Whatever You Want” Repeatedly, we’re seeing: - Members speaking at length on the substance of issues - Arguments being re-litigated during referral motions - The Chair allowing broad commentary far beyond procedural scope And here’s where it gets uncomfortable: That latitude is not always applied equally. Some are cut off. Others are given the floor. Same motion. Different rules. Why This Matters (More Than You Think) This isn’t about technicalities. It’s about control of the meeting. Because when procedural rules are bent: - Debate can be extended or suppressed at will - Outcomes can be influenced without formal votes - Certain voices can be amplified — others muted That’s not governance. That’s procedural engineering. The Real Rule Being Broken Let’s be clear — this isn’t about misquoting Robert’s Rules. It’s about something far more serious: Inconsistent application of the Procedural By-law And under Ontario law, that raises real questions: - Are decisions being made fairly? - Is the process transparent? - Is the Chair exercising discretion — or bias? Because once rules become flexible depending on who is speaking… They stop being rules at all. The Consequence No One Talks About Here’s the part they won’t say out loud: When procedure is applied inconsistently, it creates: - A record of procedural unfairness - Grounds for formal complaints - And in extreme cases, exposure to legal challenge That’s not political theatre. That’s administrative risk. So What Happens Next? There are only two paths forward: 1. Apply the rules consistently - Limit referral debate to process - Enforce scope equally 2. Continue down the current path - And accept that the legitimacy of decisions will be questioned Because once the public starts to see the pattern… They don’t unsee it. The Bottom Line Procedure is supposed to protect democracy. Not be used to shape it. And at Clarington Council, the question is no longer whether the rules exist. It’s whether they’re being used as a framework — or as a tool.

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE…’

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE...’ 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 seen firsthand the economic struggles many people are facing today—from those on the brink of eviction for unpaid rent, to families losing their homes to financial institutions unwilling to grant even a short extension. Across the country, the overall quality of life appears to be declining. Concerns about crime are rising, and the number of Canadians experiencing homelessness continues to grow at an alarming rate. This week, an announcement drew attention: Pickering to host an accommodation site for asylum seekers.According to Durham Region, a former hotel in Pickering is being converted into temporary housing for asylum seekers. The federal government has provided funding for the purchase of the property; however, neither the total investment nor the projected operating costs have been publicly disclosed. The site will serve as the Durham Reception Centre.Let me be clear—I have no issue with immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I came to this country with the same goal shared by many others: to build a better life, respect the laws of the land, and contribute meaningfully to Canadian society.I recall being asked as a child what I wanted to be when I grew up. My answer never changed. I was inspired by the uniform of the RCMP and the idea of serving a country that had given my family so much. To contribute to that legacy felt like both an honour and a responsibility. Today, however, I sometimes question whether that same sense of purpose is as widely shared. Canada has long been a nation built on diversity, but it has also relied on a shared commitment to integration, mutual respect, and civic responsibility. Increasingly, there are concerns about whether that balance is being maintained. At the same time, local governments are making significant financial commitments—such as the reported $7 million allocated toward a reception centre in Durham Region. This raises difficult but important questions: how do we balance support for newcomers with the urgent needs of Canadians who are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and housing? Behind these issues are real people—our neighbours, our families, our fellow citizens. These are conversations worth having, and perspectives worth sharing.

Why the Information Doesn’t Always Match

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

Anger Is Its Own Illness

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

Tailor Your Answers to the Employer’s Needs

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

FAZIO - THE LEGEND DIES… WHO WILL BE NEXT?

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

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

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