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.

WRONG EXAMPLE

WRONG EXAMPLE By Wayne and Tamara I think I'm in a tight spot. My older brother is married with two young children. He was caught having a little Internet fling a few years ago. Nothing happened, but I suppose the correct way of putting it is he emotionally cheated. He felt like crud, and we all thought he had put this behind him. He and his wife have been to counseling, and he did his best to be the best husband ever. Currently they're tense whenever they are together. You can cut the air with a knife, and it seems they are always ready to snap at each other. It's not easy to be around them. My brother and I went to lunch today. Lately he's been constantly texting on his device, and today it lit up with a text. I glanced at what he was typing, thinking it was business. I saw him type, "So u say u like to role play. Tell me…" I stopped and looked at the ground. I got a sick feeling in my stomach. So now, what do I do? I really don't think he was texting his wife. They're not sexual or warm toward one another, and even if they were, he would know her likes by now, right? It's a new girl. Got to be. Do I tell my fiancée, who is friends with my sister-in-law? Dennis Dennis, will you share your thoughts and events of the day with your life partner? Or will you compartmentalize what you say to her? Your brother's marriage has reached a point where he is leading a second life away from his wife. That's not because it doesn’t concern her, but because he has become a double agent. Such a divide is always present with two people who don't belong together. You know what is right in a relationship. You saw a wrong happen, and you are affected by it. Your fiancée is also likely to be affected by it. By all means share what you saw. With her you want the closeness, love, and trust which is missing from your brother's marriage. Wayne & Tamara Sticks And Stones I am newly remarried and recently my husband compared a part of my body to his ex-wife, who I will call X. We were fooling around, and he grabbed my breast and said, "Nice, but X's are bigger." I freaked. I flipped him out of his chair, kicked him, and pushed him down the hallway, hitting and screaming at him. Last time I had that much anger and acted like that, I was in my 20s, angry at my first husband, and alcohol was involved. I feel bad I hit him and have made an appointment for counseling. My husband has apologized, but now I am thinking he must still be thinking of his ex, since he mentioned her body parts like that. I was not previously jealous, but now I am. He has to maintain a relationship with her as they have a young child together. I am attractive, and she is fat and not very pretty. Should I just drop this? Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing. Staci Staci, the old line about sticks and stones is false. Words do hurt, especially from a loved one. The real story is your feelings toward his ex-wife. In marrying him, you became her hostage. She is a cash and time drain on your marriage. Their child is a reminder of their sexual relationship. Even though you both have a past, you have to wonder, what did he do with her? How do I compare? The issue to explore in counseling is the basis of your gut reaction. Love, not looks, is the real basis for comparison with the ex-wife. If you and your husband share the deep emotional connection which holds two people together, there is nothing to worry about. Wayne & Tamara

The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock

The Day We Stopped Answering the Knock By Dale Jodoin Columnist It did not happen all at once. No one woke up and said, “That’s it, I don’t care anymore.” It came in small moments, quiet ones, the kind you almost miss. Like standing at the grocery checkout. The screen lights up. It asks for a donation. You pause. You think. You look at your cart like it might answer for you. Then you press “no.” Not fast. Not angry. Just tired. You glance around for a second after, like someone might have seen. No one did. Or maybe they did and just understood. That is where the story really starts. A few years ago, most of us would have said yes. A dollar. Five dollars. Maybe more if we could. It felt like part of who we were. You help where you can. You do your part. That part of us is still here. But life has changed. Walk through any store now. People are not browsing. They are calculating. You see it in their faces. They pick something up, check the price, then put it back. A man holds two packs of meat. He only takes one. A woman counts coins before she taps her card. A young worker checks his bank app before he pays. No one says a word. But everyone understands. Money is tighter than it has been in a long time. Food costs keep rising. Every week it feels higher. Rent keeps climbing too. For many people, it is not just hard, it is overwhelming. You pay it, and there is not much left. Young people feel it the most. They are trying to start their lives, but it feels like the ground keeps moving. Jobs are harder to find. Good jobs feel out of reach. Some move back home. Some take whatever they can get. Some just keep trying and hoping something opens up. And in the middle of all this, the tasks keep coming. Charities call. Emails pile up. Ads show up online. The bank asks. The store asks. There is always another cause, another need, another voice asking for help. At first, people try to keep up. They give a little here, a little there. They tell themselves it still matters. Then reality hits. A bigger grocery bill than last week. A rent increase. A payment that suddenly hurts more than it used to. That is when something shifts. You start saying no more often. Not because you want to. Because you have to. And here is the part people do not say out loud. Some of us have started avoiding it on purpose. We tap faster at the machine. We look away from the person with the clipboard. We scroll past the story that asks for help. Not because we do not care. Because we cannot carry one more thing. That is when the guilt creeps in. You feel it when you walk past a donation box. When you skip a fundraiser. When you ignore a message asking for help. You tell yourself, “Next time.” You tell yourself, “When things get better.” But next time I keep moving further away. After a while, something else happens. You start turning the volume down on that feeling. You have to. Because caring like that, all the time, costs something. It costs energy. It costs peace. It follows you home and sits with you when you are trying to rest. So you quiet it. From the outside, it can look like people stopped caring. That is not what is happening. People are trying to stay afloat. You cannot be generous when you are scared. Picture someone in deep water. They are not thinking about saving everyone else. They are trying to keep their own head above the surface. That is where a lot of Canadians are right now. And here is the hard truth. The more people are pushed, the less they can give. When every moment feels like another ask, another reminder, another weight, people do not open up. They close off. They protect what little they have left. Money, yes. But also their energy, their peace, their sanity. There is another side to this that makes it even harder. We still spend on small things sometimes. A coffee. A treat. Something to feel normal for a moment. Then later, we look at the bill and wonder if we should have said yes to that donation instead. That back and forth sits with people. No one talks about the moment caring starts to feel like pressure. But it is happening. There is also the question people keep to themselves. They look at what they pay in taxes. They hear about spending, programs, and promises. They are told more is needed. But their own lives are getting tighter, not easier. So they ask, quietly, where is it going? Why does it feel like it is never enough? Those questions hang there. And still, the tasks keep coming. This is where the warning lives. If we keep pushing people who are already struggling, we risk losing something deeper than donations. We risk losing trust. We risk wearing down the very instinct that made people want to help in the first place. Because generosity is not endless. It needs room. It needs stability. Right now, many people have neither. They are not bad people. They are not selfish. They are tired. They are stretched thin. They are doing everything they can just to hold their own lives together. We still care. We just ran out of room to carry it all. If we want that caring to come back strong, we have to let people stand again first. Ease the pressure. Give people room to breathe. Because when people feel steady again, they will give. They always have. But here is the part we should not ignore. Some people have already stopped answering the knock. And that number is growing. That is the warning. Because when people stop answering, it is not loud. It is quiet. Quiet enough that no one notices at first. Until one day, the knock is still there. But no one opens the door.

Dear Fellow Canadians

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

Practicing Water Conservation

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

When Labels Become Identity: A Warning We Should Not Ignore

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

FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

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

LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT

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

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice

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

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox

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