Today’s approach to Debt?

By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Today the traditional approach to debt means that each month millions of Canadians jump through financial hoops to meet their final obligations, paying their bills, cover borrowing costs and try to put something away into savings, investments, and retirement. Most Canadians manage their finances by doing two things: 1. Deposit their income and other short-term assets into chequing and saving accounts 2. Borrowing when they need to, through mortgages, lines of credits, personal loans, and credit cards. Sounds simple enough, Unfortunately, they usually receive low or no interest on money they deposit, while they pay high interest on money they borrow. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the deposit and borrowing were combined? Why not have every dollar you earn pay down your debts until you need to spend that money? All in One account. This this the most efficient ways to manage debt and cash flow. This account is where you can have your saving directed and applied to your debt. In using this account your savings and income automatically reduce your debt to save you interest. You can have a combination of borrowing with a fixed rate and another portion of your debt in an open line of credit. The fixed rate accounts can help provide payment certainty in arising environment. This approach can reduce interest costs and lower the risk of overspending in the account. You can create a tailored debt management system based on your needs: · Income · Lifestyle · Cashflow Surplus · (undesignated money left over at the end of the month) · Interest rate risk tolerance · Understanding a good debt versus overwhelming debt Fixed or variable mortgages rates – which on is right for me? If you are looking for a traditional mortgage, you may not completely understand between fixed rates and variable rate mortgages. Each has is own benefits and your choice will depend on your situation and your personal preference. Your best options are to shop the marketplace and ask your advisors questions to ensure the plan you are getting meet all your need. Chequing vs savings Instead of juggling between a chequing and a saving account, why not have an option where you can enjoy the best of both? Most banks want you to operate with multiple banks. It important to know that you are not maximizing your money by using separate chequing and saving accounts. There are solutions that can help you benefit from higher intertest rates of a saving account along with the liquidity of a chequing account. Always ask questions, never accept the plans until you are 100% satisfied this will do what you want it to do for you. Remember Comprehensive, Diversified Strategic Planning.

When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear

When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear By Nick Kossovan When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer. I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to. 1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job. 2. Intellectualizing their experience. Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value. When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility. An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable. Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by: · Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes. · Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder). Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?” · "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel." · "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative." · "Results-driven leader with a proven track record." Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill. Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)? · In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community. · Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%. · Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease. · Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo. · Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations. Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes. The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address. For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume. Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.”

Building A Culture Of Control

Building A Culture Of Control As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region. No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent. Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion. I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch. Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended. Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach. Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway. The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it. This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation. Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch? Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance. The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.

63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...

63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them... By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS. That they would make such a statement public in the first place... But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa. Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”, as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked. The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa. In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa. Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa. This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it. Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain. If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands. It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars. I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows. You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer. In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee.  I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics. Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....

Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job

Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has released a new defence industrial strategy. It is ambitious. It is overdue. However, it will fail unless Parliament is prepared to confront the structural dysfunction that has plagued our defence policy for decades. I write this not as a commentator from the sidelines, but as a former Member of Parliament who sat on the defence committee and witnessed firsthand the recurring cycle of announcements, consultations, delays, cost escalations, and strategic drift. We have seen white papers come and go. We have seen procurement “resets.” We have heard promises of reform. The problem has never been the absence of strategy documents. The problem has been the absence of execution. The new strategy recognizes something fundamental: defence is no longer simply about purchasing equipment. It is about sovereignty, industrial capacity, and geopolitical credibility. It correctly links military capability with economic resilience. It acknowledges that Canada cannot continue to outsource critical security functions and remain strategically relevant. However, here is the uncomfortable truth: strategy without structural reform will simply produce another decade of underperformance. The Procurement Paralysis - During my time on the defence committee, one issue resurfaced constantly: procurement paralysis. Projects that should take five years take fifteen. Requirements are rewritten repeatedly. Risk aversion becomes policy. Accountability diffuses across departments until no one is responsible for outcomes. Canada’s allies move. Canada studies.- Meanwhile, the men and women of the Armed Forces wait. We ask them to deploy to Bosnia, Afghanistan and recently Latvia, patrol the Arctic, assist in domestic emergencies, and contribute to NATO reassurance missions. Yet too often we equip them with platforms at the end of their service life, delayed replacements, or capability gaps papered over by temporary fixes. No industrial strategy will fix this unless we tackle the governance architecture itself. Procurement in Canada remains fragmented among multiple departments, each with distinct mandates and incentives. Public Services prioritizes process integrity. Treasury Board prioritizes cost control. National Defence prioritizes capability. Innovation departments prioritize industrial benefits. Each objective is legitimate. Together, they often produce gridlock. If the new defence strategy is serious, it must be accompanied by a structural consolidation of procurement authority with clear lines of responsibility and measurable timelines. Parliament must demand quarterly reporting on delivery milestones — not aspirational targets, but actual equipment in service. Sovereignty Is Not a Slogan - The strategy’s emphasis on “Build–Partner–Buy” is sound in principle. Canada must build more at home. We must partner intelligently with trusted allies. We must reduce overdependence on any single supplier. However, sovereignty is not achieved by rhetoric. It is achieved by capacity. Do we have domestic ammunition production sufficient to sustain high-intensity operations? Do we have secure supply chains for critical minerals essential to advanced weapons systems? Do we have cyber resilience robust enough to withstand coordinated state-backed attacks? Do we have Arctic infrastructure capable of sustained presence? In too many cases, the answer is: not yet. - The war in Ukraine exposed Western ammunition shortages. The pandemic exposed supply-chain fragility. Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are no longer hypothetical. And the Arctic is no longer geopolitically quiet. Canada cannot assume that allies will always have surplus capacity to compensate for our deficits. In a crisis, every country prioritizes its own national interest. That is not cynicism. It is reality. - NATO Commitments and Strategic Credibility For years, Canada struggled to meet NATO spending benchmarks. We debated percentages while capability gaps widened. The issue was never merely the 2 percent target. It was credibility. Alliances are sustained by contribution. Influence flows from commitment. When Canada underinvests, we reduce our voice at the table where strategic decisions are made. If we aspire to shape NATO policy, Arctic security frameworks, or Indo-Pacific engagement, we must demonstrate that we are serious. Defence spending is not charity to allies. It is an insurance policy for Canada. The Arctic Is the Test No region will test the new strategy more than the Arctic. Climate change is transforming northern geography. Shipping lanes are emerging. Strategic competitors are increasing activity. The Arctic is no longer a peripheral theatre. Canada’s sovereignty in the North must be exercised, not merely asserted. That requires: · Persistent surveillance · Modernized NORAD capabilities · Air defence and interceptor readiness · Naval presence · Infrastructure for sustained operations. Without these, sovereignty becomes symbolic. The defence strategy speaks of industrial growth and technological innovation. Good. However, those investments must translate into tangible northern capability. If ten years from now our Arctic posture remains under-resourced and reactive, the strategy will have failed. Parliament Must Reclaim Oversight - One lesson from my time on the defence committee is this: Parliament must be more assertive. Oversight cannot consist of occasional hearings and retrospective criticism. It must involve structured, ongoing scrutiny of timelines, cost escalations, industrial offsets, and capability delivery. We need: · Transparent procurement dashboards available to Parliament · Independent technical audits · Clear accountability for missed milestones · Protection for whistleblowers within the procurement system Without oversight, even well-designed strategies drift. - Defence as National Renewal There is also an economic dimension that Canadians must understand. Defence industrial capacity is not a sunk cost. It is a driver of innovation. Advanced manufacturing, aerospace engineering, cyber security, artificial intelligence, and quantum research — all spill over into civilian industries. Defence investment, properly managed, strengthens national productivity. For too long, Canada has treated defence spending as consumption rather than investment. That mindset must change. The Risk of Complacency The greatest risk facing the new defence strategy is not opposition. It is complacency. We have seen ambitious frameworks before. We have seen cross-party consensus evaporate. We have seen fiscal pressures redirect attention. We have seen projects quietly deferred. If this strategy becomes another binder on a shelf, Canada will drift further into strategic irrelevance. The world has changed dramatically in the past decade. The security environment is harsher. Great-power competition is more explicit. Technology is transforming warfare at unprecedented speed. Canada must adapt with equal urgency. A Final Word When I served on the defence committee, I was struck by the professionalism and dedication of our Armed Forces personnel. They do their duty without complaint. They operate with limited resources. They adapt continuously. The least Parliament can do is match that seriousness with institutional reform. Canada’s new defence strategy is a necessary beginning. But it is only that — a beginning. If we are serious about sovereignty, credibility, and national resilience, we must move beyond announcements and deliver structural reform. Strategy is easy. Execution is leadership. And leadership, at this moment, is what Canada requires most

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections

A Voice Before the Vote A Youth Perspective on Canadian Elections By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Canadian elections affect every citizen within our country, from a political activist to a non-voter adult to underaged teenagers. Whether or not an individual casts a vote, their decision has a lasting impact, whether or not it was intentional. Every vote counts, affecting our public laws, social rights, and much more. With upcoming municipal and provincial elections, I am left considering these politics, even if I am not yet at the age to vote. Many individuals choose not to vote, which is an unintentional political decision with consequences of its own. Choosing not to participate does not mean stepping outside of politics. Instead, it means allowing others to decide on your behalf. It is practically equivalent to voting for the most popular party in your region, even if you don’t align with their beliefs. When citizens stay home on election day, policies can shift in directions that may not represent the majority, strengthening extremes, reducing accountability, and implying that citizens are disengaged from important issues. In political elections, silence is one of the biggest statements, but in a way few people realize. Although every generation experiences a lack of voting interest, I believe it is most prominent in younger generations. Many young voters feel disconnected from our political systems, believing they are outdated or unresponsive to their issues. Young voices are rarely taken seriously, fueling the decline in political interest. Modern youth are often the most passionate about social change, yet they step away from politics because they feel unheard and misrepresented. Another reason young adults often step away from voting ballots is a lack of education in civic affairs. In high school, it is mandatory for grade 10 students to take half a semester of civic education, spanning about two months. In these months, students are taught the absolute basics of voting and major parties, however it doesn’t go in depth about the importance, major issues, or even party members. After that, high school provides no further opportunities to learn about politics, leaving individuals confused and uninterested. This often leads to a lack of voting or misinformed voting, as young people often mimic the actions, and votes, of those around them. Lastly, young people experience the feeling there is nobody to properly represent their values. Every level of government has different candidates and parties, however when it comes to provincial and federal elections, there are only a few options to choose from. From the major parties, it feels impossible to decide which party fits personal values the best, which is what decreases voting interest. What I'd expect, and what most other teenagers would expect from a politician is transparency, accountability, and priorities. I would want someone who listens and acts on what they hear, and who is willing to admit mistakes instead of avoiding responsibility. A good politician should focus on long-term solutions rather than the short-term popularity we see from many political figures today. Most importantly, I would expect them to genuinely care about the well-being of the people they serve, not just during election season when they think it will gain them popularity. One solution I know other countries have implemented is mandatory voting, especially on federal elections. This idea has many flaws, however I think it could prove beneficial if misinformation and educational issues are first combatted. This system would increase voting from all demographics, and create a system which includes the perspectives of many more individuals. However, it takes the opinions of those who have done no research or have no interest in our politics, making the system inherently flawed. Overall, I think the main solution to the issue with a low voter turnout, especially among young adults, is a lack of proper education. It can be difficult to understand politics in the maze of internet misinformation, especially without interesting civic classes in secondary schools. Young voters often see politics as something which they can not control, something that does not apply to them, or something that avoids their issues, causing individuals to lose interest.

Don’t let them scare you

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

By The Numbers

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

Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.

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

When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames

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

Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?

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

RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA

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

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

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

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

Canada Will Find Its Way Back

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

When You Cross The line Journalism vs Activism…

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

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late

Pickering Must Reclaim Transparency and Democratic Access Before It’s Too Late Recently, the Town of Whitby did the right thing. After being warned by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that its ban on members of the public recording council meetings raised serious Charter concerns, Whitby’s council voted to reverse that policy and reinstate recording rights for the public. This isn’t just a local policy adjustment — it is a reaffirmation of fundamental democratic norms that should never have been in doubt. In contrast, the City of Pickering has taken a series of steps that, collectively, narrow resident participation in local government and erect barriers to transparency just when openness is most needed. I have formally asked the City Clerk, the Mayor, and members of Council to review and revise Pickering’s policies and procedures so that residents can genuinely engage with their local government. This request is rooted not in partisanship but in principle: open meetings and open government are foundational to a functioning democracy. What Changed in Pickering? Over the past term, Pickering adopted a number of measures that, intentionally or not, restrict community access to council: Public recording of council and committee meetings is prohibited. If the public wants to record what is happening in an open meeting, they cannot unless the policy changes. This goes against the basic idea that a public meeting should be publicly accessible and documentable without restriction. Whitby acknowledged this and corrected their policy. Delegation times were cut from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. This might seem small, but for everyday residents, community advocates, and experts without a megaphone, five minutes is barely time to begin explaining a concern, let alone have their voice heard. Public Question Period before Council meetings was removed. Residents can no longer stand up and ask questions of their Mayor and Council before meetings when they have concerns about what is happening in their city. The removal of this basic question-and-answer opportunity cuts off a direct line of accountability between elected officials and the people they serve, and sends the message that resident concerns are an inconvenience rather than a priority. Only Pickering residents are routinely allowed to speak. Residents from elsewhere in Durham Region are barred from addressing council unless special permission is granted, even though many Durham residents work in Pickering, pay regional taxes that fund services impacting Pickering, and are directly affected by decisions made in our council chambers. Three members of Pickering Council plus the Mayor sit at Durham Region Council, where decisions made regionally impact every municipality. Residents should not lose their voice at the local level simply because they live one municipal boundary away. Residents cannot speak to matters not on the agenda without a two-thirds vote. Previously, Pickering residents could speak to any matter of concern as long as they provided notice in advance of a council meeting. Now, even residents who follow the rules and give notice can be denied the opportunity to speak if two-thirds of Council does not approve the topic. In practical terms, this means if Council does not like what you want to speak about, you may not be allowed to speak at all. This shifts public participation from a right to a permission-based privilege. Media access is limited. The media cannot record meetings without a two-thirds vote of council. On more than one occasion, members of the media were escorted out of meetings, and when the matter came to a vote, council refused to allow media to remain and record. Public meetings should be accessible to journalists without hurdles. This undermines the open government principles protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Communication avenues are unnecessarily restricted. Councillors are not permitted to use their own ward budgets to advertise or inform residents in local newspapers unless those newspapers are approved by the CAO. If a paper is not approved — including community outlets such as The Central — councillors are prohibited from using their budget to communicate with residents through that outlet. The stated concern is that some papers contain opinion pieces, yet the City advertises in major outlets that also carry opinion content. This uneven standard restricts how councillors can reach residents and limits access to local, community-based media. Why This Matters A council meeting isn’t a secret club. It’s a public forum where decisions about taxes, services, infrastructure, and community life are made. When policies limit who can speak, shorten speaking times, block recordings, remove public question periods, restrict media access, and turn resident participation into something that requires Council’s approval, the result is less accountability and less trust. Transparency isn’t optional. It isn’t something that communities should have to fight for legally. It should be the default. Whitby’s recent policy reversal should be a wake-up call for Pickering: restricting public access and scrutiny is both unnecessary and legally vulnerable. Rather than waiting for external legal pressure, our City should proactively correct course. What Needs to Happen Pickering must: Amend policies to clearly allow members of the public to record open meetings — audio and video — with only reasonable, content-neutral restrictions related to safety and non-disruption. Restore meaningful delegation time and reinstate a public question period so residents can directly ask their Mayor and Council questions. Ensure that voices from across Durham Region can be heard when decisions affect them, without unnecessary procedural barriers. Allow the media to record open meetings without requiring a supermajority vote. Permit residents to speak to issues they care about, even if Council has not placed those issues on the agenda. Remove unnecessary restrictions on how councillors can use their ward communication budgets to inform residents through local media outlets. Democracy Doesn’t Work in a Vacuum I did not raise these concerns lightly. When Pickering passed each of these restrictive policies by 6–1 votes, I cautioned that they raised serious concerns about Charter-protected freedoms and democratic access. Whitby’s reversal confirms that those concerns were valid. Local government should be closer to the people, not further from them. It should empower residents, not silence them. I remain hopeful that Pickering’s leadership will choose transparency, openness, and democratic engagement — before legal action becomes necessary. Despite me putting the City of Pickering on notice that this policy violates Charter-protected freedoms, The Mayor is choosing to delay any changes until 2027 — leaving residents’ rights infringed in the meantime. “Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - Lisa Robinson 2023

White Flags For Sale!!!

White Flags For Sale!!! By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers

After the red flags, the pink flags, the black flags, orange flags and the pride flags. There is only one choice flag choice left. A big white flag... as we surrender to the U.S. before they have to come and liberate us from the invasion from within due to the insane immigration policies. There is no such thing as Canadian politics. Our own non-elected Prime Minister is pushing for a new world order.... and don’t get me wrong I am no conspiracy theorists.... But as your community Chief of Information. I can tell you things are not looking good for what is supposed to be a democracy in Canadian politics. Just this past week the news wire read: Conservatives vote to keep Pierre Poilievre on as party leader... The leadership vote result came after Poilievre delivered a rousing speech to Conservative members Friday evening at the party’s annual convention in Calgary. Members of the Conservative Party of Canada have overwhelmingly voted to keep Pierre Poilievre on as their leader, the party revealed Friday after a late-night vote at its annual convention in Calgary. More than 87 per cent of voting members cast their ballot for Poilievre to stay on as leader, the Conservative Party said in a statement. He’s now the first Conservative leader since Stephen Harper to be given a second chance by the party faithful as they seek to regroup from a disappointing loss in April’s federal election. He beat the strong result Harper earned in 2005 by three points. The vote result came after Poilievre delivered a speech to Conservative members Friday evening where he struck a hopeful message and laid out his vision for a future Conservative government. “When you start something, you never give up,” he said to a cheering crowd. “I’ll never give up.” Poilievre faced a critical leadership review under the party’s bylaws after leading the Conservatives to a fourth-straight election loss against the Liberals. The party opted instead to forego a vote on whether to hold a review and simply asked delegates whether they support Poilievre remaining as leader. Really... have we not learned our lesson from accepting shinny mirrors? Things that glitter are far from valuable but if anything blinding.... Come on people. Here we have Poillievre, queen of the pretty boys... could not win his riding. If it was not for a party sacrificial lamb. He be serving you at McD. But because he looks good, a charming voice and can spew the fiddler on the roof tune... and has all the political rats in a frenzy... He is not rewarded. Wake up people. Have we not learned anything from electing pretty boys to office that do not have the gusto needed to do the job adequately. The current Liberal leader at the least has business experience and is a prince in the financial world. To bad that he has no clue on the pain and suffering of the average Canadian and is more concerned over giving Billions of our dollars to the Ukraine. I have been a long time supporter of the Conservative party. I must admit I am disgusted by the lack of leadership and the open nepotism. Look at the Oshawa MP. She was handed the MP position by the previous MP. As a thank you for being his personal watch dog. An MP that does not return phone calls and or emails. This is not a leader. Then on the opposite of the political scale. You have the local Oshawa MPP. A hateful NDP’er. In her defense I doubt she knows how to dial a phone as she in her many terms has yet to return a phone call. I don’t have any issue with any other MP or MPP. Sad that in this great nation. We have no leadership and we have to consider waving a white flag in hope of making Canada Great Again.

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience

This Parliamentary Session Will Test Canada’s Democratic Resilience by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Parliament resumes its winter–spring sitting, Canadians will hear a familiar refrain: budget pressures, housing, health care, public safety, global instability. These issues matter. However, the most important test of the coming parliamentary session will not be what is debated. It will be how Parliament conducts itself while doing so. This session arrives at a moment of institutional strain. Trust in public institutions is fragile. Politics feels louder, sharper, and more transactional. Minority Parliaments, once the exception, are now the norm. Against that backdrop, the House of Commons is about to undergo one of its annual stress tests: months of budget votes, committee battles, confidence motions, and relentless political pressure. How Parliament behaves over the next several months will say a great deal about the health of Canadian democracy. A session that matters more than it looks The winter–spring sitting is where Parliament earns—or loses—its relevance. It is when governments must justify how they will spend public money and oppositions must demonstrate that scrutiny is more than obstruction. Budgets and estimates are not symbolic exercises; they are the clearest expression of democratic accountability. In a minority Parliament, these votes are also tests of legitimacy. Every confidence motion asks a basic question: does this government still reflect the will of the House? That question can only be answered credibly if the process itself is taken seriously. If debates feel rushed, opaque, or purely theatrical, public confidence erodes further. If Parliament demonstrates discipline, transparency, and respect for process, trust—slowly—begins to recover. Procedure is democracy’s guardrail There will be predictable calls in the coming weeks to “cut through the process” and “just get things done.” Procedure will be blamed for delay. Committees will be accused of dysfunction. The House will be portrayed as an obstacle. That framing misunderstands Parliament’s role. Procedure exists precisely to slow decision-making when stakes are high. It forces governments to explain themselves, oppositions to justify resistance, and all parties to confront consequences beyond the news cycle. In a time of polarization and misinformation, these guardrails matter more, not less. This session will test whether MPs treat procedure as a shared democratic asset—or merely as a weapon. Committees: the real proving ground For most Canadians, committee rooms are invisible. Yet this is where democratic resilience is most tangibly built or broken. Committees can be places where evidence trumps rhetoric, where public servants are questioned seriously, and where cross-party cooperation still occurs. Or they can devolve into partisan theatre, designed for clips rather than conclusions. This session’s committee work—on spending, public safety, procurement, foreign interference, or health care—will quietly shape whether Parliament is perceived as competent or performative. The public may not follow every hearing, but they feel the outcomes: delayed reports, unanswered questions, or credible recommendations acted upon. Democracy weakens when committees become frivolous. It strengthens when they do their unglamorous work well. The executive temptation Another quiet risk will hover over this session: executive drift. When Parliament is difficult, governments are tempted to govern around it—through regulation, administrative discretion, or time allocation. Sometimes urgency justifies this. Over time, it becomes habit. Each time Parliament is bypassed, a little democratic muscle atrophies. A resilient parliamentary session is one in which government accepts discomfort, opposition exercises restraint, and major decisions are debated openly—even when outcomes are uncertain. Efficiency is not a democratic value on its own. Accountability is. Civility is not nostalgia Calls for civility are often dismissed as naïve or old-fashioned. In reality, civility is functional. It allows disagreement without delegitimization. It keeps opponents within the democratic tent. This matters in the months ahead. Budget debates, public safety legislation, and foreign policy questions will be contentious. If rhetoric consistently suggests that political opponents are not merely wrong but dangerous or illegitimate, public confidence suffers. When Parliament models respect under pressure, it reinforces democratic norms beyond the chamber. Resilience is not consensus. It is the ability to disagree without tearing the system itself apart. What Canadians should watch for The coming session offers clear signals that citizens can watch—even without mastering parliamentary procedure: · Are budget assumptions explained honestly, including trade-offs? · Do committees produce serious work, or just noise? · Are confidence votes treated as constitutional moments, not stunts? · Is Parliament engaged, or is power steadily shifting elsewhere? These questions go to the heart of democratic health. A narrow but real opportunity Canada is not in democratic free fall. That is the good news. But resilience is not permanent. It is cumulative, built through habits, norms, and expectations. This parliamentary session offers an opportunity—quiet, procedural, untelevised in many moments—to rebuild some of what has been lost. It will not happen through grand speeches or new legislation alone. It will happen through discipline: showing up, listening, explaining, and accepting limits. Parliament does not need to be loved. It needs to be trusted. As MPs take their seats this winter, they inherit more than an agenda. They inherit responsibility for whether Canadians still believe that their democracy works when it is under pressure—not just when it is convenient. This session will answer that question. Hope for the best!