Losing a Father Is a Bundle of Hurt

Losing a Father Is a Bundle of Hurt By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford I was 6 years old when I first calculated how many years I could expect to have with my father. He was 44 when I was born; and therefore 50 when I turned 6. I decided I would be lucky if I got to 35 and still had him. That would be 79 for him, and I felt that was an old age. Can you imagine how lucky I feel to have had him until 101? I’m grateful beyond words. Now, I am taking up the responsibility of writing the Gifford-Jones column – not as a doctor, but as a communicator. The immediate necessity is to say something helpful, something important, about an experience many of us will have during our lives: losing a father. I investigated the research. No two ways about it, we take a physical and psychological hit. From cellular level aging brought on by the physical impacts of grieving (sustained stress, disrupted sleep, poor diet) to the cognitive effects of loss (depressed mood and outlook, more substance abuse behaviours, anxiety), the death of one’s father is a bundled package of hurt. What would my father say about it? This is a question I will be asking myself every week going forward. I know what he did when I was hurt as a child – the kind of hurt that had me crying, a bad scrape on the knee or the sting of a bee. He’d touch me in the affected spot and let his touch linger. “Now,” he said, after a time, “doesn’t that feel better?” I got his point. Readers will hear echoes of his constant mantra. “Don’t be a wimp. Don’t take pills when there is an effective, natural alternative.” He practiced what he preached. When my father turned 90, I started to prepare for the day he would slow down. But he didn’t. He was launching another phase of his crusades. And what for? To fight big pharma. To demand better pain management and end-of-life care. To advocate for natural health. And most of all, to call on all humanity to improve our increasingly lousy lifestyle. You may recall, he wanted to throw rotten eggs at the Parliament buildings! And he had a few choice words for the newspaper editors who ceased publishing his column. For the past six years, it’s been an extraordinary collaboration writing this column with my father. He told me, “Don’t be a journalist if you are going to sit on the fence.” On some issues, we had some heated discussions! But the interviews we did together, the visits to natural health food stores, and the talks in communities increasingly closer to home, these are the occasions I enjoyed the most. Going forward, I plan a few crusades too. I will have my own opinions, and they may not always line up with his. I have a Harvard degree like my father, but even better, I have one from Wellesley. I’ve worked alongside global health experts at the World Bank and in the most impoverished places you can imagine. I am an advisor to the presidents of universities. I know where to find the research and who to talk to. You can count on me to simplify the complexities, identify what’s important, and cut out any baloney. And yes, the advice will be sharp – because some things, thankfully, are hereditary. For now, like many of you, I am grieving the loss of my father. But I take comfort in knowing how lucky we are to have had him in our lives. Thank you for all your messages, tributes, and personal stories that are pouring in. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive my weekly e-newsletter. For comments, diana@docgiff.com. Follow on Instagram @diana_gifford_jones _________________________________________________________________________ Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

** REMEMBERING COUNCILLOR JOHN AKER ** THE FIRST OF MY NEW SUMMER SERIES COLUMNS

** REMEMBERING COUNCILLOR JOHN AKER ** THE FIRST OF MY NEW SUMMER SERIES COLUMNS I WRITE THIS COLUMN in memory of my friend and one-time colleague, John Aker. John served his community for 33 years - on both City and Regional Councils, as well as a decade at the Ontario Municipal Board. John said his final goodbye on Thursday February 4th, 2021, at the age of 78. This is his story. One meaningful event can make a world of difference for a young man who might be trying to navigate his way into the world of politics. For 29 year old John Aker, it was the decision by a close friend not to seek re-election. That announcement would lead to John putting his own name forward for a seat on Oshawa Council. The year was 1972. When I spoke with John in summer of 2020, he enjoyed recalling his first election win, an event that would set the stage for many such victories during his career. The ‘72 election was a watershed – not only for him but for the entire council. That year saw an incredible turnover, and John described it as an “exciting time”. When I asked him to share his memories of those with whom he served, John responded without hesitation, telling me his years on council were shared with “good spirited people” who tried to do the right thing for everyone. John was born in Edmonton, and came to Oshawa with his parents at the age of two, attending St Gregory School and O’Neill Collegiate. He would eventually go off to Queens University in Kingston, obtaining a Bachelor of Commerce degree, which he said held him in good stead. It was during his university days that John was fortunate enough to gain yearly summer employment at the William Street offices of General Motors. While many of his friends from school were doing manual jobs they didn’t like, he found himself wearing a jacket and tie, doing work he always felt was interesting. Over time, he would join Schofield-Aker Insurance in 1970, a firm bought by his father Reg Aker in 1954, eventually taking over the business in 1985. We talked about how different city council was back in the 1970’s, and he reminded me that most, if not all of those on council, did the job part time, as they were already fully employed. City hall staff were the full-time career professionals who held the most influence in those days. Since then, the number of full-time councilors (the term ‘alderman’ having been abolished) has increased significantly, and as such, the influence of municipal staff has - to a degree, waned. Long term, career politicians with a lot of experience are now more common. The formation of the Region of Durham in 1974 was the first major issue John would encounter as a city alderman, and we discussed the long debates and the intricacies involved with the amalgamation of policing, and the creation of various regional departments. He was proud of his involvement in helping to bring further growth by way of the Oshawa hospital expansion, as well as the establishment of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, which he said helped transform this city from a one-industry town into a place where careers are now developed in many walks of life. Looking back, I encouraged John to recall some of the good times shared with those among his colleagues he most enjoyed working with. His first thoughts were about his friend Jim Potticary, who spent eight years as mayor. John told me everyone used to call Mayor Potticary “Gentleman Jim”, and that he’d never seen anyone enjoy a job quite as much. John did, however recall some difficult moments in his career, one of which took place a little too close to home. In 1992, a foster home for young offenders was proposed in his own neighbourhood. When residents became aware, they sent flyers door to door, and John would receive at least 65 telephone calls from concerned residents. The foster home never did receive approval, however the memory of that day remained in John’s mind, describing it to me as a daunting moment to stand in front of a group of angry residents that were also his neighbours. There were many significant issues over the years that John had to wrestle with, including Sunday shopping, the implementation of Oshawa’s first ward system, the ongoing battles with the Port Authority, downtown revitalization, and the debate over ‘transparency’ in government. John’s second stretch as a member of council (his first being 1973 to 1997) was probably the most challenging. His election in 2010 marked an incredible eight year, two-term comeback for a man who had years earlier decided to close the book on an honourable career. John showed everyone he had an important role to play as an ‘elder statesman’, bringing a voice of experience and reason to an otherwise unwieldy council. A September 2014 Article in the Globe and Mail described Oshawa Council at that time as a ‘political circus’ with elected members shouting each other down, citizens protesting and being tackled by undercover police, and a serious division among councilors. Still, John was able to stand on a solid footing and survive the melee, as the scenes that played out month after month went against his own desire to work with others to find common ground. John used to tell me with confidence that Oshawa will remain a prosperous city in the decades to come due to its geographic location between Toronto and Kingston. He said the amazing network of new highways will ensure further new development, the likes of which Oshawa has never before witnessed, and although something of the size and scope of General Motors may never be seen again, Oshawa definitely turned a corner in its pursuit of higher education that will meet the needs of generations to come. To quote my friend directly, “Whether we knew it or not, Oshawa long ago began a worthwhile transformation from a one industry town into a modern, cosmopolitan community where new opportunities exist.” John Aker gave as much as one man could to the community he truly loved.

ADVERTISING!!! OR DECEPTION?

ADVERTISING!!! OR DECEPTION? B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States They say we simulate what we see on television... If so, then this explains why I am missing most of tip of my fingers.... Ok. Stop laughing... Let me explain. Everyone has seen the McDonald commercial as that of most other hamburger chain ads.... A huge burger eaten by an actor.. Pretending they are getting a mouth full of burger with every bite. Only, to purchase one and the happy meals and the toy is a magnifying glass.... so that you can use on finding the burger on an overly small bun. Should these ads not be removed from broadcasting as they are misleading and not true to the reality of what is being served. Subway not to long ago got pinched by the government for advertising sandwiches that did not reflect the reality of what they serve. I know first hand.... Subway workers... appear to take offense when asked for more toping.... it is as it come out of their pay. Needless to say. I will not buy from Subway. But the food industry is not the only to blame. Have you seen the casino ads. Talk about deceptive. Not to mention the sea of ‘apps’ associated with major brand casinos. This is a horrible attempt at deception. To make comments as “COME FEEL THE FUN” and they show a formula one car racing through some casino arcade. Or the fancy graphic from particular themes.... making statements... The Fun awaits... Like really are there that many stupid people out there...... What am I saying.  There obviously are that many stupid people. Why would casino’s spend such revenue on the production of such an elaborate advertising campaign. It is as if we live in an era of the stupid... We are led to believe to be true things that defy logic. Things that make no sense... We are brought to edge of insanity with the promise of a better tomorrow all knowing that the sacred land is not attainable. I am not a gambler. I watch my kids play regular video games and rejoice on the completion of each stage... Only for me to look at them and think. They are being brain washed into believing they actually are playing a part on the outcome that has been pre-destined/set by some computer software engineer. The bottom line you never win... As success is based on your ability to make a sequence of mathematical choices. Much like in life. Success is not for everyone. We are genetically programmed to fail. Our social/education system constantly tests us. The casino industry plays on this. Promise the holy land and deliver the hell of the reality of loosing time and time again. The only difference in the video game model. You at least get to re-try for free. In the casino model. You keep loosing and loosing. Talk about loosing... Have you ever seen the Pharma commercials...beautiful displays of the promise land.... only to be told at the end that it does not really cure anything and if anything it may end up killing you.... (it is like having a head ache and Pharma sells you a bullet to shoot yourself in the foot. Head ache gone.) Life is complicated enough without misleading ads.

You Are a 'Perfect Fit' Job Seekers: Do Not Assume You Are a 'Perfect Fit'

Job Seekers: Do Not Assume You Are a 'Perfect Fit' By Nick Kossovan I repeatedly hear, or read it in online venting comments, as I'm sure you also do, something along the lines of "I've been job searching for over seven months and have applied to more than 600 jobs that I'm more than I'm a perfect fit for and only gotten three interviews." Tip: Never vent your frustrations on public forums, such as LinkedIn; it shows employers you can't control your emotions. It's not a brag that job seekers think it is to apply to over 600 jobs. Applying to more than 20 jobs a week—four quality applications a day—is akin to spraying and praying, which isn't a job search strategy; it's a lazy approach. However, I want to focus on the words "perfect fit," which are highly subjective due to the varying degrees of nuance that define what "perfect fit" means to the person using the term. When you claim you'd be a "perfect fit," you're basing your assumption on how you compare to the job description. Essentially, you're ticking off boxes, believing that if you tick all or most boxes, then you're a "perfect fit." What you're not considering is that you have no idea what's happening behind the scenes, and that a large part of hiring decisions comes down to gut feel. As I've mentioned in previous columns, being likeable supersedes your skills and experience. I don't know a hiring manager who hires candidates they don't like. It doesn't matter if you think you're a perfect fit. What matters is whether the person reading your résumé and interviewing you thinks you are. A candidate's skills and qualifications aren't the only factors considered in hiring decisions; also assessed: · How well you'll fit with the team—will the current team accept you?—and the company's culture. (Employers don't hire disruptors.) · Your communication and soft skills (These are my 'must-haves.' When hiring, my primary concern is the candidate's verbal and written communication skills.) · Your energy level. · Are you a flight risk? · Whether your qualifications are "too much" of a good thing. Then there's the elephant in the room: something you can't control. If the hiring manager sees you as a threat to their position, you're not a perfect fit. You wouldn't hire someone who could jeopardize your job or disrupt your team, so why would you expect the hiring manager to do differently? Unless you've spent time within the company, seeing how the sausage is made, attending boardroom meetings, speaking with hiring managers and employees at all levels, and eating in the lunchroom, you can't be certain you're a "perfect fit." You're assuming. You may believe your résumé matches the job description, but unless you're being referred, you have no insight into how the person you'll be reporting to leads and manages, or what keeps them awake at night. You don't know the challenges the company is facing or the internal politics at play. Since the concept of being a "perfect fit" is subjective, there's no guaranteed way to make yourself appear like the perfect fit. However, you can increase your chances of being considered a "perfect fit" by focusing less on your skills and qualifications and more on coming across as a safe, low-risk hiring choice—hiring managers tend to prefer candidates who won't be disruptors. Low risk = perfect fit One thing job seekers often overlook is that hiring decisions are visible to everyone in the company. Making a bad hire, which I've done several times, is never a good look and can cast doubt on your judgment skills. The last thing a hiring manager wants to hear is "Did you hire Bob? He's a train wreck!" Understandably, especially given today's job market, employees worry about keeping their jobs; therefore, they're concerned with how they're being perceived by their boss and their boss's boss. Being worried about "What will the boss and the team think?" is why hiring managers tend to prefer candidates who come across as predictable and low-risk. Consequently, being overqualified and having employment gaps are often viewed as liabilities, and why ageism persists. Rightly or wrongly, these factors are often considered high-risk red flags when making hiring decisions. In uncertain times, such as we're currently experiencing and will likely be for the foreseeable future, employers tend to favour candidates who appear steady rather than bold. There are three aspects of a candidate that determine whether they're likely to be a low-risk hire: 1. Ability to perform the job effectively 2. Shows stability TIP: In your résumé and LinkedIn profile, include the reason for your current career gap and explain what you're doing to stay current in your profession and industry. 3. Aligns well with the company culture Whenever you're being interviewed, it's because the employer believes you're qualified for the role. Ultimately, the purpose of an interview is to assess whether you'd be someone who'll likely fit well with the current team and culture. Here's what you need to accept: the decision whether you're a fit or not is entirely out of your hands. All you can do is show you're a "great match," but never assume you're a "perfect fit."

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE NEEDS ATTENTION

COMMUNITY VIOLENCE NEEDS ATTENTION By Councillor Lisa Robinson Over the last several months, the City of Pickering has been rocked by violence — the kind of violence no community should ever have to face. Let me remind everyone exactly what has happened in our city: On May 2, a man was found dead in Pickering — our city’s first homicide of the year. On May 29, an 83-year-old woman was stabbed to death in her own front yard by a 14-year- old boy. On July 5, a 69-year-old woman was killed in a suspicious house fire on Primrose Court — now confirmed to be a homicide. And just days ago, on July 11, a man’s body was found near Highway 401 and Whites Road — the fourth homicide in just over two months. Four lives gone. Four families shattered. And an entire city left asking: what is happening to Pickering? But it doesn’t stop there. We are also seeing an alarming rise in carjackings, violent home invasions, guns seized, and increasing threats to public safety — right here in our neighbourhoods. Partner violence is up. Mental health breakdowns are up. Homelessness is rising. And far too many people feel abandoned — by the very system that’s supposed to protect them. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not just a public safety crisis. This is a crisis of leadership. Because while the violence rises, City Hall stays silent. While families mourn, the headlines vanish. And while people feel afraid to walk down their own streets, not a single elected official is standing up to say: Enough. Well, I will. To the families of the victims — I offer my deepest condolences. No words can take away your pain, but please know this: you are not alone. If you need support, I will do everything I can to help. I will fight to make sure your loved one is not forgotten. And I will never stop demanding justice — not just for them, but for every single resident who calls this city home. To the people of Pickering — I hear your fear. I feel your frustration. But I also know your strength. We are a city of good, hardworking people — and we deserve to live without fear. We deserve leaders who care. And we deserve a system that puts the safety and wellbeing of its people above political games and bureaucratic silence. I was elected to serve — not to sit quietly while our city unravels. And I say this today not just as a councillor, but as a mother, as a neighbour, and as someone who loves this community deeply: This city needs leadership. Real leadership. Leadership that’s not afraid to tell the truth, to face the hard problems, and to stand up for the people — no matter the cost. So I’m here. I’m standing firm. And I’m not going anywhere. Because the safety of our people is not negotiable. Because every life matters. Because this is our home — and I intend to protect it. Thank you. And may God be close to the brokenhearted tonight. Kind regards, Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor” City of Pickering “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

Taxed to Death: Why Canadians Are Going Underground

Taxed to Death: Why Canadians Are Going Underground By Dale Jodoin Every day, more Canadians wake up wondering how they’re going to make it to the end of the month. Prices are up, wages are flat, and the only thing growing is the list of taxes on everything we do. Rent is now so high it feels like a joke. Grocery bills are eating paychecks whole. Power prices are through the roof, and with the government pushing electric cars on everyone, don’t expect that to change anytime soon. They keep telling us this is all for the greater good. That it’s about saving the planet or growing the economy or whatever new excuse they roll out. But regular Canadians aren’t seeing the benefit. They’re being left behind. What we’re seeing is the slow death of the middle class, and worse, the rise of a new kind of silent economy one where you have to hide what you earn just to survive. The Liberals and the NDP have turned Canada into a land of hidden hustle. Not the fun kind of hustle you post about on Instagram. This is quiet, backdoor work. This is cutting lawns for cash, fixing cars in the garage, selling baked goods out of your kitchen, or helping people move for a twenty-dollar handshake. No paperwork. No receipts. No CRA. Why? Because the second you play by the rules, the system bleeds you dry. That’s the new Canadian reality. You can work hard, pay your taxes, follow the law, and still not afford a normal life. Or you can take your chances, keep your mouth shut, and do what needs to be done. And it’s not just a few people doing this anymore. It’s spreading. Fast. The only way to survive in this new Canada is to stop telling the government everything. That sounds harsh, maybe even illegal, but look around. We’re being pushed into it. The government will call it tax fraud. They’ll say you’re a criminal. But what do you call it when a system forces its people to go broke for simply trying to live? We used to be proud of our country. We used to brag about how great Canada was. But now, more and more people are ashamed. Not of being Canadian but of what’s being done in our name. While Ottawa talks about equality, they give handouts to people who just arrived while the ones who’ve worked here all their lives get told to wait. While the elite throw money at green energy plans and fancy carbon credits, average folks can’t even fill their gas tank. And while politicians pose for the cameras, Canadians are sitting in the dark because they can’t pay the power bill. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This is everyday life now. The rich are still rich. The poor are still poor. But the working class, the ones who kept the country going, are being punished for simply existing. It’s not about right or left anymore. It’s about survival. People are afraid to speak up. They’re afraid their neighbours might report them. They’re afraid of audits, fines, or worse. We’ve created a country where you don’t know who to trust, where even doing an honest day’s work might come back to bite you if you mention it to the wrong person. That’s not freedom. That’s fear. And the fear is growing. The more the government taxes, the more people hide. And the more people hide, the more the government tightens its grip. It’s a loop. One that’s hard to break. And they know it. They want control. They don’t want independent Canadians. They want dependents. They want us poor, desperate, and obedient. That’s why they tax small businesses harder than corporations. That’s why they punish side hustles but let billion-dollar companies skate by with loopholes. That’s why they praise people who rely on government programs, but shame the ones who try to make it on their own. They’re building a country where hard work doesn’t pay and independence is punished. But there’s still a fight left in us. There are still people out there who aren’t ready to give up. If you’ve got a skill for anything from carpentry to cutting hair you need to keep it close and keep it quiet. Don’t advertise online. Don’t trust platforms that track you. Use word of mouth. Free papers. Posters on local boards. Your neighbour’s garage. Keep it small, keep it moving, and keep the government out of it. That might sound un-Canadian to some, but ask yourself: what’s more Canadian than helping your neighbour, working hard, and asking for nothing but a fair chance? That’s not a crime. That’s community. This isn’t about greed. It’s about survival. The people who defend the system will keep calling us lazy, selfish, or paranoid. But they’re the ones who benefit from it. They’re the ones who get the subsidies, the free education, the special grants, the electric car rebates, the carbon credit bonuses. Regular Canadians get none of that. We just get taxed. Again and again. And if we complain? We’re told we’re the problem. That we need to sacrifice more. That we need to work harder. We’ve been doing that. And we’re done. If this country wants to keep the lights on, it better start listening to the ones paying the bills. Because when we all go underground, the system will collapse. And maybe that’s what it needs. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending that everything’s fine. Because it’s not. The country we knew is gone. And if we want to survive what’s coming next, we can’t wait for someone to save us. We have to save ourselves. Quietly. Carefully. Together.

Court Finds Employer Broke Contract, Awards $456,908 to Dismissed Executive

Court Finds Employer Broke Contract, Awards $456,908 to Dismissed Executive By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP In a case that underlines the importance of sticking to written agreements, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered Artisan Development Labs Inc. and its subsidiary, Artisan Cell Labs Inc., to pay $456,908 to former Executive Vice-President Dr. Nicholas Timmins. The court concluded that Artisan “by their correspondence and actions” repudiated—meaning fundamentally broke—the employment contract when they dismissed Dr. Timmins and failed to honour the severance terms it had promised. A Contractual Promise Unfulfilled Dr. Timmins began working for Arte­san’s American parent company in November 2019, earning an annual salary of $475,782 CAD, plus stock options, benefits and a performance bonus. In 2021 he moved to Toronto to establish Artisan Cell Labs Inc., the company’s Canadian operation, and was promoted to Executive Vice-President. His 2019 employment agreement clearly stated that if he was dismissed without cause, he was entitled to the greater of: Three months’ pay in lieu of notice, or His minimum statutory entitlement under Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). Despite this clear promise, in March 2023 Dr. Timmins received only one week of ESA-minimum notice pay. The letter explaining his termination also tied any additional severance to Dr. Timmins signing a “full and final release,” which would bar him from pursuing any further claim against the company. What “Repudiation” Means When one side to a written contract shows—by words or by conduct—that it no longer intends to be bound by the contract’s terms, courts call that a “repudiation.” In such cases, the innocent party can treat the contract as ended and seek damages under common-law rules. Here, Justice Callaghan agreed with Dr. Timmins that Artisan’s insistence on a release before paying contractual severance made no sense if the company truly intended to honour its three-month notice promise. How the Court Calculated Damages Rather than simply order the three months’ payment, the court moved to assess a fair amount of notice under common law, applying the familiar Bardal factors: Age (44 years) Length of service (3.5 years) Character of employment (senior executive role) Availability of similar work (niche gene-therapy sector) Balancing these considerations, Justice Callaghan set a nine-month notice period. Nine months’ worth of salary, benefits, pension contributions, phone allowance and a prorated bonus totals $456,908. A Warning Shot to Employers For businesses of all sizes, the decision is a vivid reminder: honour your written termination clauses. If you condition contractual severance on signing a broad release—or impose any hidden requirement—courts may find you have repudiated the contract, leaving you exposed to larger common-law awards. Practical Takeaways Draft Clear, Stand-Alone Clauses: Ensure severance or notice provisions are written plainly and without strings attached. Separate Release Agreements: If you require a release or confidentiality covenant, present it in a distinct document—not as a condition to pay what’s already owed. Train HR Teams: Make sure those who handle terminations understand that contractual entitlements must be honoured in full. Budget Accordingly: Factoring in the risk of repudiation claims can save six-figure surprises down the road. Broader Impact Although this dispute involved a high-earning executive in the biotech field, the ruling has implications for workers at every level. Any employee whose contract specifies a fixed amount of severance or notice, now has clear authority to demand common law severance, which is often much higher than the contractual amount. Case Reference: Timmins v. Artisan Cells, 2025 CanLII 2387 (Ont. S.C.J.) Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

The Toughest Column to Write

The Toughest Column to Write By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford A few days ago, I departed this planet with great reluctance during this, my 102nd trip around the sun. But I offer these final words with readers. I have never missed a week in over 50 years of writing this column. Possibly this persistence will help me squeeze through the Pearly Gates! Some will say, “Not bloody likely.” As I look back on my journalism career, it reminds me of the introduction to the book, A Tale of Two Cities. It was the best of times; it was worst of times. There were times when my life was threatened because I took on controversial issues, particularly the right of women to safe abortion. Opponents found fault with my work to legalize heroin for the treatment of terminal cancer pain. One well-known health organization labelled me “a headline-seeking medical journalist.” Other critics lied about the pain-killing advantages of heroin. When finally legalized, some hospitals set up foolish roadblocks to heroin’s use as pain therapy. Do I have regrets? Yes, the anxiety my work caused my family. I could have avoided trouble. But I’d have been an awful hypocrite, and I can’t stand hypocrisy. Besides, my DNA has never allowed me to be a fence-sitter. So, apart from some difficult bumps along the way, being a surgeon and medical journalist has been a wonderful dual ride, and “the best of times”. Final advice for readers? Remember, “If you keep going to hell you will eventually get there.” Living with a faulty lifestyle, fools attempt at the end of life what smart people do at the start. So, don’t fall victim to “pillitis” and take a pill for every ache and pain. Take prescription drugs for the shortest possible time, as they almost always add risks of terrible side effects. Above all, keep in mind what I stressed for years, that many natural remedies in health food stores are safe, less expensive, and should be tried first before prescription drugs, surgery, or other medical treatments. I want to mention the vital role that Susan, my wife, played. As my editor, she frequently kept me out of trouble with the words, “You can’t say that!” She was right 99 percent of the time. I’ll miss her presence, guidance, and love more than I can say. If there is a Pearly Gate I will be waiting at it for her and my family. I’m fortunate that my daughter, Diana, will carry on this column. She was too smart to become a doctor, and that’s why readers will learn a lot from her perspective on health and wellbeing, and about how the world actually works. How I’ll miss my almost daily chats with her. On a philosophical note, I was convinced long ago that “The problems of society are caused by so-called intelligent people who are largely fools.” I haven’t changed my mind. Shakespeare was right when he wrote “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.” Unfortunately, humans have never learned the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as would you have them do unto you.” Do I have any last wishes? Yes, I’ve always said, “Freedom of the press only belongs to those who own the newspaper.” So, whatever type of media exists behind those Pearly Gates, I want total ownership. I hope a loving God shares my opinion. My best wishes to all readers and editors for good health and longevity. W. Gifford-Jones _________________________________________________________________________ Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

BEACHES CLOSED!!!

BEACHES CLOSED!!! B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Is it just me... or has the world gone mad.  I remember the days of my youth. Living in Uruguay South America. Summer days would see extreme heat. You could almost smell the sun in the air. Going to the beach was the only way to keep cool... Back then air conditions were a luxury most could not afford. The only relief if not the beach was a good siesta on a cold tile floor. At times going to the beach could be frightening. They had the ‘RED’ flag signaling strong tide, winds, unpredicted waves and the odd time.... the Rio Negro that ran out of the River Plata and out to the Atlantic would swell due to heavy rains and flush all kinds of animals. Including snakes, gators and anything that swam... including piranha and yes the odd shark that would loose it’s way. Yes, when you would see the red flag.  You had to ask and make sure you stayed out of the water. Never in all my days going to the beach did I ever have to worry about pollution. Toxic waste, radio active waste and or industrial run offs. It appears that things are a lot different today here in Canada. Out of the series of beaches. Some stay open many stay closed. Closed due to the toxic composition in the water. From infectious algae. To pollutants. Now, my question is.... how are some beaches OK to swim in and others are not? Same water. Same lake. That scares me. Think about it for a moment. I rather be bitten by a swept up piranha or have a Python wrap around my neck than have to worry about infection from the same water that we drink and bathe from. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not paranoid or some freak that fears the water. No, I have a very real concern. We live surrounded by nuclear plants. The experts tell us we have nothing to worry about. That it i safe. That the level of radiation these plants release are minimal and have no affect on our health. Yet, most of these experts live outside the danger zones. The test they run on the water measures toxicity based on thresh holds and not on actual purity. Therefore at one site it may read ‘A’ and on another a few miles away ‘B’. One same is safe the other is not.... but what is to say that as soon as that test is done... that the tide does not change and it deems the clear site as now toxic. You can’t expect for these so called experts to continue running tests all day in and out. If it is not safe in Oshawa for example. How can it be safe in Clarington... It is just does not ad up if you ask me. Further more they do not test for purity but for thresh hold figures that are only markers for minimal public health concern. How can you feel safe swimming in such an environment? NO matter the number the water is still toxic. What is worst... That is the same water that is bleached with chlorine and piped up to your faucet, shower... Then flushed out from your toilet, hospital waste lines, industrial plants, commercial food processing cleansing and lets not forget the odd leak from any one of the nuclear plants. You can dive in and take your share of pollutants... Or you can sip them and eat them at home in the form of water and or thought your vegies.... Scary thought...

Apply Fundamental Relationship-Building Psychology

Apply Fundamental Relationship-Building Psychology to Your Job Search By Nick Kossovan An effective way to shorten your job search is to leverage the fundamental psychological principle—a game-changing lifehack—that most people overlook when trying to form a relationship, whether during job hunting, aspiring to climb the corporate ladder, seeking new friends, networking, or looking for that "special someone": If you want someone (read: an employer) to be interested in you, first be interested in them. Showing interest in someone is a massive gesture that makes you stand out; this is particularly true during interviews, where the goal is to establish a connection with your interviewer. When expressing interest in someone—an employer—a key consideration is focusing your communication on how you can contribute to their success. This approach will make you memorable, which is what you should strive for, as it contrasts with most job seekers whose sense of entitlement has them primarily focused on their wants. Job seekers who are "what's in it for me" focused tend to struggle with their job search. Focus on "What Can I Do for You?" A hiring manager's primary concern is how the candidate can help the business. Therefore, distinguishing yourself from competitors, who are likely "me" focused, is as simple as demonstrating to employers the quantitative results you've achieved in your previous roles and how you intend to attain similar results. In 2025, your entire job search should focus on showcasing your past achievements that demonstrate your ability to either generate revenue or solve problems that hinder revenue. Can you answer the question savvy interviewers ask: "Tell me how you brought value to your most recent position."? · "I led a software implementation project that was completed on time and under budget by $35,000." · "By calling dormant accounts that hadn't made a purchase in over two years with a one-time offer, I resurrected over 200 accounts, generating $850,000 in revenue." · "My hunger to achieve my monthly sales quota motivated me to make at least 40% of my calls before or after traditional business hours when decision-makers were most likely to answer their phones. This calling strategy resulted in a significantly higher connection rate, enabling me to exceed my monthly sales quota for 34 consecutive months." Being different is better than "being better." Stop trying to be "the best-qualified candidate." Remember, you're striving to be memorable. Solely highlighting your qualifications and experience, especially without numerical evidence, is a surefire way to blend in with every other candidate. American psychologist Dr. Robert Cialdini asserts, "To be persuasive, you need to be unique." Determine ways to present yourself to employers that will make you stand out. Often, just doing the basics that few job seekers do, such as creating a results-oriented resume and LinkedIn profile, including a compelling cover letter that sells as the ideal candidate for the position (not including a cover letter is lazy), and sending a post-interview thank you note to reinforce why you're the 'must-have' candidate, really well will make your stand out from those you're competing against. Job seekers, now more than ever, need to bring a fresh perspective to their applications. Social proof helps establish trust. Catherine Sanderson, Professor of Psychology at Amherst College, notes, "People are influenced by what others think. Social proof can be a powerful motivator." Your interviewer is a stranger; best-case scenario, you're a referral, thereby sharing a "we know the same person" connection. Unsurprisingly, since they're hiring strangers, hiring managers ask themselves: "Can I trust this person?" The foundation of any successful relationship is trust. A crucial step in establishing trust is demonstrating credibility. Today, the most effective way to establish credibility is by taking advantage of social media platforms—LinkedIn being the most obvious—to provide social proof. Post screenshots of your successes include recommendations from previous bosses and share client success stories. Establish your credibility! If you've worked with well-known companies and brands, mention them to foster a reputation for trustworthiness and competence. Employers are more likely to trust you when they see that a reputable company has hired (read: trusted) you. Fear of missing out (FOMO) motivates. We all want what others have. A job search tactic I've successfully used several times is to create a perception of scarcity—that I'm in high demand. The perception that you have other options makes recruiters and hiring managers move faster. Being interested in you is good, but being concerned about losing you to a competitor is even better. If you're in contact with several companies, even if you haven't reached the interview stage, mention it subtly. "I'm excited about several opportunities right now" conveys value without being overly boastful. Using this tactic frequently (no guarantee) encourages the employer to act quickly to hire you. Reciprocity is powerful. "There is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life - reciprocity." - Confucius. The act of giving fosters social connections while positioning you as a valuable resource, thus enhancing your visibility and desirability. Do what most job seekers don't do: share industry insights, write informative posts, or comment thoughtfully on hiring managers' posts. The more you give, the more people will remember you, which, in turn, facilitates striving to be a memorable candidate.

OSHAWA COUNCILLORS TURN A ‘SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING’ INTO A SATIRICAL ‘COMEDY OF ERRORS’

OSHAWA COUNCILLORS TURN A ‘SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING’ INTO A SATIRICAL ‘COMEDY OF ERRORS’ HAVING OBSERVED OSHAWA COUNCIL for well over four decades, I’ve listened to more meetings and commentary among councillors than I can remember. In recent years, I have taken to writing a great deal, and I’ve often thought of trying my hand at writing a short play, based on municipal politics, with characters carefully chosen for their unique personalities. As it happens, Oshawa councillors conspired to work against me, by acting out their own little drama recently, one marked by broad satirical comedy and an improbable plot. In other words, a farce. I have only so much space in this column, however I will do my best to give my readers the Coles Notes version. The play, in the form of a Special Council meeting held in early June, opens with a discussion on a motion to hold a public meeting on a somewhat convoluted set of By-law changes that affect things like local tattoo parlours, payday loan establishments, and pawn shops. The characters are in order of appearance, and only their last names are used, with the exception of ‘Mayor’. GIBERSON… “And just one small clarification on that, just to make sure I’ve understood what I just heard correctly. That would require either the calling of a Special Council meeting in July, let’s say, or piggybacking on some other matter that could arise in July…” MAYOR… “Everything depends on what the decision of this Council is today, and that will set the timelines.” GIBERSON… “Thank you. Just a couple of comments related to…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) MAYOR… “Your time has expired.” GIBERSON… “I haven’t spoken five minutes. The Commissioner has…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “When your first question went in, it was 2:03 (time) and the answer the Commissioner had answered was at 2:05 to 2:06.” GIBERSON… “I haven’t spoken for five minutes at this point.” MAYOR… “I always keep time… (Interrupted by Giberson) GIBERSON… “Okay, as a procedural matter then, if I could ask what the appropriate manner would be to ask for a division?” MAYOR… “I’m going to check with the Clerk. Do we have a seconder on the division for One, Two, and Three?” GIBERSON… “I don’t believe you require a seconder.” MAYOR… “Yup, it’s a motion. So, it’s a motion. I’ve got a seconder, which is councillor McConkey. So, we’ll take a vote on Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.” NICHOLSON… “Point of order. I’m just seeking clarification here. Given that Council has not made any decision on any of this… how does one vote for or against any of the things being considered in the public discussion? MAYOR… “Right. The recommendation that is in front of us is just about the public meeting…that’s all it is.” NICHOLSON… “If I vote ‘no’ on any of those, I’m voting on record as being against public participation in the process.” MAYOR… “That’s how I would interpret it, yes. So that’s what’s on the floor. Madam Clerk, we’ll need a recorded vote on each item, One Two, and Three.” McCONKEY… “Um, before we vote, I have questions.” MAYOR… “In regards to the Division that’s on the table?” McCONKEY… “Um, I was seconding that to help councillor Giberson.” GIBERSON… “Can we clarify that, please, and go to #28 in our Procedural By-law to clarify division?” MAYOR… “No. You just asked for a division. I’ve accepted it. You have a seconder.” GIBERSON… “We don’t need a seconder. Let’s go to #28 in our…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) McCONKEY… “Well, I’ll withdraw my seconder to just keep the discussion going here, because I would like to go into Committee of the Whole. I do have questions.” NICHOLSON… “Point of Order. As to the motion before us…” (Interrupted by McConkey) McCONKEY… “I said I was withdrawing my seconding of it.” NICHOLSON… “There’s a motion to call a public meeting, and there’s been a request for a division for voting purposes. That’s what’s on the floor right now?” GIBERSON… “Point of Order… So let’s go to Part 28 of our Procedural By-law.” MAYOR… “Can you give me a second, please?” GIBERSON… “Just have the Clerk read the part out.” MAYOR… “Okay, let’s get the book up. I just want to check, because… (Turning to Giberson) Please don’t do that, Derek. Okay? Alright? I’m trying to figure this out, okay? You may be an expert on governance…I’m not. That’s why I depend on both our Clerk and our Deputy Clerk. So, please don’t shake your head. Thank you. GIBERSON… “And, if we’re going to have decorum, we use titles rather than first names. I appreciate that. Thank you. MAYOR… “So, I’ve been corrected. The motion that is on the floor is ED-25-80, a motion in regards to holding a public meeting… I have a request from councillor McConkey at this time to speak… so I would go to you (councillor McConkey) on that.” McCONKEY… “And I have five minutes. And, I would like to know, and I think it’s a good move to get something going here, especially with the vacancies at the O.C. (Oshawa Centre) and I would like to know, first…what is the height restriction?” MAYOR… “I just want to get clarity. The only thing on the floor is about holding the public process under the Planning Act.” NICHOLSON… “Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Would it not be correct that any discussion of any item other than the motion on the floor… would not be in order? MAYOR… “I was under the impression, and it’s my interpretation, that what we’re asking today is that a statutory public process would be undertaken… I think that, based upon what councillor McConkey has said, I can take these questions and have some discussion…” (Interrupted by councillor McConkey). McCONKEY… “Yeah…but I have another question…not to interrupt, but I do.” NICHOLSON… “We were not asked to come in and debate the merits of the contents of any report that would go to the public meeting. Just, do we want a public meeting or not want a public meeting.” GIBERSON… “Point of Order. This is a specious argument. The contents of this report that’s in front of us…anything that is in this report is open for discussion and debate. This is a way of just trying to shut down discussion on it. MAYOR… “No. The public was informed of exactly why this meeting was called, and this meeting was called, as it says here: Development Services be authorized to initiate a statutory public process under the Planning Act and to consider the report… I think that’s all we should concentrate on.” At his point, councillor Giberson begins to pack up his documents and any personal items. McCONKEY… “Under the public Planning Act process, this happens to be a matter that, as I understand it, with Bill 17, is very much in flux… Is it not in flux and changing?” Councillor Giberson may be seen leaving the Council chamber. MAYOR… “I don’t believe so. I believe that there is still a requirement to have the public meeting.” McCONKEY… “That’s my question. Thank you.” MAYOR… “Great. Alright. So, division was requested. Oh…councillor. Nicholson…its 2:18” NICHOLSON… “Just again, a point of clarification. Given that the person that requested division is no longer in the premises, and has left the room in a fit, is there, within a request for a division…” (Interrupted by McConkey) McCONKEY… “Excuse me…I’d like to make a Point of Personal Privilege. You can’t say another member of Council left the room ‘in a fit’ as there is no evidence…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “Hold on.” NICHOLSON…“I’ll withdraw …in a fit…” McCONKEY… “It’s disparaging to…” (Interrupted by Mayor Carter) MAYOR… “Hold on. I don’t know what a Point of Privilege is. (Turning to the Clerk) Is there something in our...We don’t have a Point of Privilege, do we?” NICHOLSON… “We do.” MAYOR… “And, what is it in regards to? The rules? Oh, the health and safety and the rights…okay. So, your Point of Privilege is on what? On a health and safety issue?” McCONKEY… “Mayor Carter…we’ve heard a member of this Council say another member left the chamber ‘in a fit’ and I think that is disparaging. There was no evidence of someone leaving in a fit. That’s my statement.” NICHOLSON… “Mr. Mayor, as the original speaker is no longer…” (Interrupted by the Mayor) MAYOR… “You don’t need a division because of the reason that the individual that requested it is gone, and it is no longer on the floor. Thank you. (Turning to the Clerk) Councillor Nicholson asked for it. Please proceed. All councillors present in the chamber votes ‘Yes’ to the recommendation to initiate a statutory public meeting regarding changes to City By-laws included in report ED-25-80. MAYOR… “So, no-one voted no? Okay, thank you very much. Can I have a motion for adjournment, please? Moved by councillor Neal and seconded by councillor Kerr (By way of a show of hands). Any in opposition? Being none, thank you very much. There’s another Special Council meeting that will deal with accessibility this evening. I hope it’s not contentious. It might be, though. The meeting took approximately 21 minutes

June is Men’s Mental Health Month

June is Men’s Mental Health Month By Dale Jodoin It’s supposed to be a time to help men and boys feel brave enough to talk. To cry if they need to. To say, “I’m not okay,” and still feel like they matter. But most people don’t even know it exists. And the truth is, many men are struggling—but feel like they can’t say a word. How Many Men Are There? In Canada, there are more than 20 million men. In the United States, there are about 168 million men. In Europe, there are around 360 million men. That’s a lot of people. That’s millions of fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, grandpas. But when it comes time to talk about their health—especially their mental health—something happens: They’re forgotten. It Starts Early In schools, most teachers are women. About 65% of all teachers in Canada are female. That number’s even higher in elementary school. This is not an attack on women—it’s a fact. Boys grow up without male teachers or mentors. Most of them go through years of school without one man showing them how to be strong in the right way. They’re told to “sit still,” “calm down,” and “stop being loud.” If they run around or get too excited, they get told they have problems. Many get put on medicine just for acting like boys. They’re not allowed to talk about how they feel. They’re told, “Be quiet. Don’t cry. Don’t complain.” Some boys even believe something is wrong with them just because they’re boys. Then It Gets Worse When boys become teenagers, the confusion grows. They’re told being “manly” is bad. That it’s wrong to be strong or competitive. They start to think that being themselves is not okay. And if they speak up about feeling sad or lost, they get laughed at or called names. In high school and college, many boys stop trying to date. They’re scared to talk to girls. They’re scared of being accused of something. They’re scared to even be near people sometimes. They feel like being a man is dangerous or bad. And when some men in college try to start clubs just for men—to talk and feel safe—they get shut down. People say those groups “hate women,” even if they don’t. So the men go quiet again. What About Fathers? Here’s something wild. Father’s Day is in June. That’s during Men’s Mental Health Month. A time meant to honour fathers. But instead of feeling honoured, many dads feel beaten down. They get taken away from their kids in court. They get told they don’t matter as much as moms. They lose jobs and homes. And nobody checks on their hearts. Many boys grow up watching their dads get pushed around, or pushed away. So what do those boys learn? They learn not to trust the system. They learn that being a man means being alone. No One is Attacking Women Let’s be clear: this is not about taking anything from girls or women. This is about boys and men having a space too. If a group is just for girls, people say “good for them!” But when boys want a group just for them, they’re told it’s “not fair.” That’s not equal. All-boy clubs, spaces, and safe places are not wrong. They are needed. It’s not about hate. It’s about healing. Boys need room to talk with other boys. They need male role models. They need men who’ve been through pain and made it out the other side. That doesn’t take away from anyone. It just gives boys something they’ve lost. What We Can Do So what’s the answer? Let’s start in schools. Bring in male mentors. Real men. Police officers. Soldiers. Firefighters. Dads. Uncles. Coaches. Let them sit with the boys. Let them say, “You’re not broken. You’re just growing.” Let’s build new boys’ clubs. No girls or women allowed. Not because we’re mean, but because boys need space. Real space. To talk. To laugh. To cry. To heal. That’s not against equal rights. That is equal rights—for the boys. Let’s make a new National Boys and Men’s Association. It can follow boys from middle school to college. Help them find friends. Help them find mentors. Help them find hope. We used to have places like that. They were called Boy Scouts and frat houses. Now they’re called nothing. It’s time to change that. If We Don’t Act If we don’t make space for boys to grow and talk, things will keep getting worse. More young men will give up on dating. On love. On family. More will feel afraid to speak. More will stop trying. And the saddest thing of all? Many will think it’s their fault. But it’s not. It’s our fault—for staying quiet. Let’s Be Brave Let’s not whisper about this anymore.Let’s speak loud. Let’s speak clearly. Men’s Mental Health Month is not a joke. It’s not weak. It’s not something to hide. It is brave. It is strong. It is needed. And it should be taught in schools. Celebrated in towns. Respected in the media. Supported in homes. Let’s raise boys to be proud of being boys. Let’s show them how to be good men, not silent ones. Because every boy deserves a hero. And every man deserves a month where he’s not invisible.

Know Your Numbers

Know Your Numbers By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist I want to tell you about a story that was relayed to me through a friend. I came to know this by way of dinner conversation with this friend when I inquired about a mutual acquaintance. I was shocked but not surprised. We both knew this couple that were looking for a house to purchase. They had an agent and were actively looking. After seeing many houses this couple found a house they really loved so they put an offer on it. What happens when someone puts an offer on a house is, the listing agent sends out a message to anyone who has viewed the house either through an open house or a personal tour. The message is to let those people know that there has been an offer registered on that property in case they may have been mulling it over. It essentially brings everyone to the table. If you had walked through and were thinking about it, now was the time to make an offer and everyone gets a chance. It’s also how agents whip up bidding wars. That is exactly what happened in the case of this couple. They ended up losing the house to someone who bid higher than they could afford to go. This actually happened not once, but a couple of times. The couple grew somewhat despondent, thinking that they may never be able to purchase a house if this was the process with every offer. The couple were drawn to this beautiful house that had absolutely everything they wanted in their new home. They put a offer on the house knowing there would probably be at least one more coming in. They had a plan. When the agent came back to them and asked if they’d like to improve their offer, they said yes. They had launching into the bidding war. The problem being that they could only afford a certain number. They were just so desperate to get the house, they kept raising their offer. Eventually the agent informed them that they had won, and that the sellers were going to work with their offer. They were thrilled. Now came the real problem. While they had been approved for a certain dollar value in terms of the mortgage, the bank ordered an appraisal of the house. That is common in most cases. The appraisal came back far below the offer price on the house. That left the couple in a real bind. They could either come up with the difference between what the bank said the house was worth and what they had offered to pay for the house or, the sellers could sue them. This is a situation that played out during Covid-19 far too often as people got caught up in desperately trying to purchase something for fear they would not have an opportunity down the road. In this case the couple was able to come up with the difference, but in most cases the situation winds up in court. The whole process of house hunting can be an emotional roller coaster but my advise to everyone is to never panic, and always know your numbers.

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring By Nick Kossovan A straightforward belief: A person's results speak for themselves. Making excuses for being a "victim of," "not having the same advantages as," or blaming your parents, the government, and the stars not being aligned doesn't change this. A person's results are influenced by how they respond to their circumstances, their actions—playing the hand they're dealt—and the amount of effort—strategic effort—they put forth. When it comes to job search results, such as landing interviews, your results are a testament to the effectiveness of your job search strategy. I'm sure you've noticed that many job seekers on LinkedIn harshly and venomously critique the job search strategies of other seekers. It's no one else's business how a job seeker conducts their job search, who ultimately must live with the results their job search strategy achieves. This supposed "concern" for what other job seekers are doing is why LinkedIn has become a digital hub for juvenile debates, the most prevalent being whether to use LinkedIn's #OpenToWork banner feature, adding a green circle frame to your LinkedIn profile picture to inform LinkedIn members you're seeking a new job. My initial take: "Care about what other people think, and you will always be their prisoner." - Lao Tzu. Why do so many people give a f*ck about what others do on social media? An incessant need "to be right" (You're right, everyone else is wrong.) hinders personal growth. What prevents us from following the harmony principle: you do you, and I will do me? Basically, mind your own business! My second take: Before LinkedIn became the dumpster fire it is today, where job seekers congregate to bash employers, essentially biting the hands they want to feed them, and self-proclaiming "experts" offering pseudo job search advice, followed by a pitch for their overpriced, never-guaranteed service, LinkedIn was the go-to platform for announcing you were looking for a new job. Why LinkedIn? LinkedIn was where your current and former colleagues, friends, hiring managers, and recruiters hung out. These days, many managers, directors, executives and even recruiters avoid LinkedIn. They no longer see LinkedIn's value or want to spend their time wading through the victim mentality drama that dominates the platform. Once upon a time, you could concentrate all your job search efforts on LinkedIn. Today, LinkedIn should make up only a small part of your job search activities. The #OpenToWork banner is merely one tool in your job search toolkit. It's unlikely that the banner alone will significantly influence your job search, either positively or negatively; however, every little bit helps. The #OpenToWork banner debate generally centres on whether the green banner makes a person seem "desperate." The banner is simply a sign that you're open (available) to opportunities, serving the same purpose as a red neon 'vacancy' sign in the window of a roadside motel, indicating to travellers that rooms are available. Is the owner of the roadside motel making it known they have rooms available "desperate"? · If I owned a retail store, I'd display a sign that tells people what I sell. · If I were selling my house, I would put a sign on my front lawn. · If I were opening a new dental clinic, I would advertise on billboards. · If I were looking for a job, I'd... What LinkedIn's #OpenToWork doesn't do is help you establish your value proposition. It's your responsibility to demonstrate how you can contribute measurable value to an employer's bottom line. Hiring managers filter LinkedIn profiles by skills, experience, and other factors related to their search criteria. Filtering by "Open-To-Work" won't bring up LinkedIn profiles of those who possess the skills and expertise they're seeking. However, if your profile appears in an employer's or recruiter's search and you've toggled on the "Open to Work" setting, which is unrelated to the #OpenToWork photo frame and, while visible to everyone, isn't something recruiters and employers can search for, it makes sense, at least I think so, to contact you first since you're advertising that you're available and therefore are more likely to be open to discussing an opportunity than someone who's currently employed and will need to be persuaded to leave their current position. Advertising your availability doesn't make you appear desperate; it removes ambiguity, making it easier for recruiters and employers to recognize candidates who are actively job searching. You're not pleading for a job; you're helping employers find you, which reflects a proactive mindset. I don't know any recruiter or employer who holds a candidate's proactive job search against them. However, it's crucial to recognize that being easy to find on LinkedIn and the impression a recruiter or hiring manager gets from your profile are two entirely separate influences on your job search. Unless your profile clearly states, using quantifying numbers, the value you've added to your previous employers, your #OpenToWork banner's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. One last note: if you're participating in the #OpenToWork banner debate, stop it! It's not your concern how others conduct their job search. Keep your focus on what you need to do to achieve your desired job search results, which speak for themselves. _____________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters By Councillor Lisa Robinson Let’s cut through the false narrative shall we: If you’ve listened to Pickering’s Mayor lately, you’d think we’re on track to become the next Toronto. He’s been proudly declaring that Pickering is the fastest-growing municipality in Ontario, as if that’s something to celebrate without question. But here’s the truth: it’s not accurate - and more importantly, it’s not honest. According to the Region of Durham’s own Monitoring of Growth Trends report (May 2025), from 2020 to 2024, Pickering’s population increased by about 16,500 people. That might sound impressive on its own - until you look beyond the headlines. In the same period: · Oshawa grew by over 17,700 people - that’s more than us. · Whitby is close behind, adding 16,100 new residents. · Clarington also saw solid growth with over 8,500 people. So why is the Mayor still standing at podiums pounding his chest, claiming we’re leading the charge? The reality is simple: we’re not. We’re somewhere in the middle, maybe, and even that depends on how you count. And that’s where the real issue lies. A closer look at how these numbers are calculated shows a major flaw in the narrative. Much of what’s being called “growth” is actually just construction - not people. The Region includes housing completions in its estimates, regardless of whether the units are finished, occupied, or even livable. Some of these buildings are still under construction. Others are completely empty, used for short-term rentals, or have been bought up by speculators. Yet all of them are baked into the data as if they represent real families, neighbours, and taxpayers. That’s not real growth, it’s fiction dressed up as fact. It’s like counting every chair at a dinner table and calling it a party - even if nobody showed up. Let’s apply a little common sense. Just because a home has five bedrooms doesn’t mean there are five people living in it. It could be a vacant property, a staged model home, or a one-person household. The Region’s model doesn’t count people - it counts buildings. It doesn’t count toothbrushes in bathrooms, it counts blueprints. And let’s talk about what residents actually want, because no one seems to be asking them. The people of Pickering are tired of the condo craze. They don’t want 30-storey towers looming over our streets. They don’t want a mini-Mississauga popping up in their backyard. They moved here for space, for family living, for community, not for endless concrete and glass. Yet council continues to greenlight development after development without a serious plan to deal with the consequences. We don’t have the infrastructure to support this rush to urbanize. Our roads are clogged, our schools are full, our hospitals are strained, and our emergency services are under-resourced. We don’t have enough police, firefighters, or even paramedics to keep pace with the population we already have - never mind the tens of thousands more being promised in planning documents. What good is "growth" if it leaves people stuck in traffic, waiting hours in emergency rooms, or wondering whether first responders will arrive in time? It’s time we stopped confusing cranes and condos with community. Growth should be about people - real people - not inflated projections and real estate marketing. But that’s exactly what the Region relies on: projections, not population counts. They use birth rates, immigration figures, and building permits to guess how many people might be here. And when those assumptions are off, and they often are, the ripple effects go far beyond just the numbers. Because when you build policy, infrastructure, and taxes on top of flawed estimates, residents end up paying the price - quite literally. It means overbuilt subdivisions with empty units. It means roads and schools planned for families that never arrived. It means taxpayers funding services based on phantom growth. This isn’t just about correcting a political talking point — it’s about demanding honest leadership. The people of Pickering deserve more than spin. We deserve facts. We deserve transparency. And we deserve leaders who will speak plainly about what’s really happening, not just regurgitate developer-friendly soundbites. So the next time someone tells you that Pickering is the fastest-growing city in Ontario, ask them to prove it. Not with projections. Not with housing completions. With real numbers. With lived reality. Let’s build a city where families thrive, not just where developers profit. A city rooted in truth, transparency, and community. Because real growth isn’t just measured in buildings - it’s measured in people, purpose, and progress. And it’s time Pickering started telling that story. Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It - Councillor Lisa Robinson 2023

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As world affairs return focus to the geopolitical scene, and we have a strong minority Liberal Government for the fourth time in Canada, one may wonder why the Conservative Party was not able to form the current government. Since 2015 when PM Stephen Harper lost to the liberals, the Conservative Party has been unable to rise and form government. We need to find the root causes of this situation and that is not so easy. However, we can analyze some factors that may go some way toward explaining this failure and suggest ways to potentially correct the situation and steer the Party towards future success. In this last round, the Party lost a remarkable 27-point lead in opinion polls and failed to win an election for the fourth time in a row. While it gained seats and earned almost 42% of the popular vote - its highest share since the party was founded in 2003 - its leader, Pierre Poilievre, was voted out of the seat he has held for the past 20 years. One of the main problems was the candidate selection process. Not only was it tainted by undue influences, but the Party was late in nominating candidates, thus reducing the time candidates had to get themselves known to their electorate. They had more than two years to prepare for the election before it was called. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not seem to have been interested in choosing professionally qualified candidates. Instead, they selected candidates based on personal relationships with people close to the leader’s circle and staffers. Much of the time, they overruled their own established rules, which was allowed by one toothless and apparently useless Conservative Party National Council. There were many cases of potential good and experienced candidates, who were denied the opportunity to be nominated. There were even situations where preferred candidates were nominated in new ridings even before a riding association was constituted. Then came the resignation of Justin Trudeau on January 6 2025. After a short leadership contest organized by the Liberal Party Mark Carney was chosen as Leader and Prime Minister. An experienced professional with glowing qualifications, albeit non-political ones, he immediately called an election. In the mean time, our neighbour to the South made some unfriendly gestures towards Canada, and the Conservative party leadership was slow to react. Most Canadians perceived this hesitancy in reacting to the American threats menacing our national existence as lack of courage and confidence. The combination of all of these mistakes contributed to the sudden evaporation of the Party’s impressive lead in the polls built up over the Trudeau years, and the ultimate loss of the election. The Conservatives have once again become the official opposition, and are stuck with a dilemma. What, if anything, should they do differently in the coming years, than they did before the election? Do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who did not quite win? And, how do you answer that question when you don’t know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn’t respond effectively when the playing field changed? As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them in second place once again. Yes, Poilievre has done better than the previous leaders and Poilievre was not necessarily disliked by people; he was simply less liked than his opponent Mark Carney. In short order, Carney became the most positively viewed political leader in the country, generating positive impressions we have not seen since 2015. In a campaign where trust and risk were key themes that made all the difference, Carney consistently outperformed Poilievre in leadership attributes such as trustworthiness, competence, and experience. Their arrogance and inertia didn’t allow Pollievre’s, campaign staff, headed by Jenni Byrne, to see the shift of the electorate towards liberals in time to react effectively. If they ever want to form the government, the Conservative Party needs to look at the lessons learned in the last campaign and needs to make some radical changes. The beginning of these necessary changes starts with the Conservative Party's National Council, which is scheduled to meet on June 14 for its quarterly meeting. They will decide, among other issues, the timing and venue of the next policy convention. So let us see if any changes are forthcoming in the Conservative party and its leader Pierre Poilievre. He appears to remain committed to key strategist and enforcer Jenni Byrne; a woman whose ability to make enemies is legendary and whose treatment of the Conservative caucus evokes thoughts of the Commissars in the soviet regime. Indeed, whether or not Byrne keeps her job will be a telling sign of whether Poilievre’s support for change includes change on his own behalf. In conclusion, having failed to react successfully to changed circumstances in the latest election, Conservatives need time to better prepare for the next one. Let us hope that their leaders see the light sooner rather than later. It seems to me that a little hubris would not be out of place. What do you think?

World Fatigue: Blame the People

World Fatigue: Blame the People By Dale Jodoin There’s a quiet illness spreading across the Americas. It’s not the kind you can cure with a pill or vaccine. It’s called world fatigue, and it’s affecting millions of people—especially the regular, everyday folks who work, pay taxes, and try their best to live honest lives. World fatigue isn’t about being tired from work or chores. It’s a deep emotional tiredness. A kind of sadness mixed with frustration. It builds up every time you turn on the news or look at your bills. It’s the feeling of being blamed, day after day, for problems you didn’t create. And it’s wearing people down. Ask anyone around you, and they’ll tell you the same thing: “I’m just done. I don’t care anymore.” But they do care—they’re just overwhelmed. That’s world fatigue. And it’s growing. So where is this coming from? Part of it starts with the government and the media. They say they’re trying to inform us, but more and more, it feels like they’re trying to guilt us. We’re told that everything wrong in the world is somehow our fault. There are too many homeless people? It’s our fault. Is the planet changing? It's our fault. Minorities aren’t treated fairly? Again, our fault. The list goes on. The message is always the same: if you don’t feel bad, if you don’t do more, then you’re part of the problem. And while it’s important to care about others, what about us? Who’s looking out for regular Canadians—people who are barely making it through the month? Who’s caring for the seniors, the young families, the people who never ask for much? Instead, we’re called selfish. We’re told we’re the problem. But the real problem is this: people are burning out. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been pushed too far. Even schools are becoming places of confusion. Kids don’t learn basic life skills anymore. Many can’t read a map, balance a budget, or understand how taxes work. Teachers say their hands are tied. They spend more time explaining political ideas and social movements than they do teaching reading, writing, and math. Our kids are growing up with strong opinions—but no tools to live in the real world. And again, who gets blamed when test scores drop? Parents. Taxpayers. Regular people. One of the biggest signs of world fatigue is how cold people are becoming. Neighbours don’t talk. Families drift apart. People don’t wave hello anymore. It’s not that people have lost all compassion—it’s that they’re tired of always being told what to feel, who to support, what to say, and what to believe. And if you don’t follow along exactly, you’re labeled as hateful, old-fashioned, or worse. Even the gay community, which once stood for love and understanding, has now become a political symbol in many ways. Regular people aren’t anti-gay—they’re just tired of being told they’re bad people if they don’t cheer loud enough. We used to give more to our neighbours, to strangers, to people in need. But now, everything costs so much that people are forced to pull back. Groceries have doubled. Rent has tripled. Hydro bills climb while wages stay the same. People aren’t being greedy. They’re in survival mode. Meanwhile, the government sends billions to other countries. Billions more go to foreign aid, international programs, and global projects that have nothing to do with the average Canadian. By the time they finish giving it all away, there’s nothing left for us. Our roads crumble. Our hospitals are full. Our veterans sleep on the streets. And when we ask why, we’re told to be more generous. More kind. But what’s kind about ignoring your own people? World fatigue shows up in our minds and bodies. People are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated than ever before. Psychologists are starting to talk about it, even if the media doesn’t. They say the human brain can only take so much pressure, so much bad news, and so much guilt before it shuts down. That’s what’s happening now. People aren’t angry because they hate—they’re angry because they feel powerless. They’re tired of being told they’re the cause of all suffering in the world. They’re tired of politicians pointing fingers. They’re tired of media stories that divide instead of unite. At the root of it all is one big truth: most people just want their lives back. They want to go to work, raise their kids, enjoy their weekends, and not feel like they’re under attack all the time. They don’t want to fight with neighbours. They don’t want to argue about politics. They don’t want to be called names just for speaking their mind. They want peace. They want fairness. And they want someone to finally say, “We hear you. We see you. And we’re sorry.” But that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the government pushes more rules. More taxes. More lectures. And every time a new problem comes up, they say, “If only the people had done more.” But we have done more. We’ve carried the weight for too long. We’ve stayed quiet. We’ve played along. Now we’re tired. Not because we’re cruel—but because we’re human This is the truth about world fatigue. It’s not a lack of love—it’s too much heartbreak. It’s not that we stopped caring—it’s that no one cared for us. And it’s time we said it out loud. We are not the enemy. We are not the problem. We are the people. And we want our lives back.

Job Seekers Stop Talking About Your Past. Employers Do Not Care!

Job Seekers Stop Talking About Your Past. Employers Do Not Care! By Nick Kossovan We all know the adage, "What's done is done," which savvy hiring managers cite to themselves as a reminder that a candidate's past achievements do not guarantee future achievements. From experience, I'm now cognizant that while a candidate's past behaviour and results offer insight into their likely future actions, they aren't a foolproof predictor of performance, hence why I don't ask behavioural questions. Such questions complicate the hiring process, favour candidates who can easily conjure up stories—true or not—and don't reveal what I really want to know: how the candidate thinks and their career aspirations. Most job seekers mistakenly position themselves by referring to their past achievements instead of painting an "I want to deliver the results you need" picture for their interviewer. An underused interview strategy is to not dwell on where you've been (water under the bridge); instead, talk about where you're going career-wise and how you'd like the employer to be part of your journey. I call this future-oriented anchoring a powerful narrative strategy that puts you in control of your career story. Frame your trajectory in terms of where you're headed, not where you've been. When you only discuss your past, you anchor yourself to what you've already been paid for and the roles you've already had. However, when you talk with enthusiasm (key) about where you see yourself in the future, you create a positive 'future you" impression, influencing how your interviewer perceives your potential and value. Trying to gauge a candidate's potential is why interviewers often ask, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" Instead of dismissing the 'five-year question' as a cliché, acknowledge its significance. Your response to this question, when answered with precision and backed by your current actions, can speak volumes about your ambition, work ethic, and if you have any sense of entitlement. A meticulous approach to answering the 'five-year question' will set you apart from other candidates. "Five years from now, I see myself overseeing the social media team at a major film entertainment studio such as DaVille Studio. I'm currently pursuing a Digital Strategy and Communication Management certificate from the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. Additionally, I read as much as I can about social media management. I just finished The Art of Social Media: Power Tips for Power Users by Guy Kawasaki, a book advocating purposeful engagement, which I wholeheartedly agree with." Since you know you'll likely be asked, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" there's no excuse not to have a prepared answer in advance, something along the lines of the aforementioned, that’ll make your interviewer sit back and think to themselves, "[You] is serious about their career." One of the most common complaints I hear from job seekers is, "Employers aren't seeing my potential!" Here's the thing: you can't expect employers to see (read: envision) your potential if you don't provide a narrative that conveys your potential. It's your responsibility to help employers recognize your potential and value instead of expecting them to perceive it magically. Future-oriented positioning communicates to an employer that your most significant contributions lie ahead. Consider these two statements 1. "I successfully led our company-wide cloud migration, reducing costs substantially." 2. "I'm focused on enterprise-wide digital transformation that proactively, as opposed to reactively, prepares companies for the next decade of technological change. I want to be part of keeping Burns Industries ahead of the digital curve and deliver no less than an annual 30% cost savings due to adopting an early adoption approach." The first statement merely reiterates what the interviewer already knows from your resume and LinkedIn profile; the second statement is much more compelling. The first statement limits your value to your past, while the second offers the interviewer insight into your potential future contributions to the company. A candidate's potential future value is a significant factor that employers consider when making hiring decisions, which highlights a harsh reality: a candidate's "future" (read: remaining working life) is one reason employers sometimes take a candidate's age into account when hiring. Talking about your career aspirations and how you plan to get there is how you sell employers your potential and value. While employers need to know what you've accomplished, what is more important for an employer to know is how your experiences are influencing your future actions. I don't know a hiring manager who doesn't want to know—better yet, feel— whether a candidate is ambitious, proactive, and ready to take on challenges. If you've executed a successful marketing campaign, don't just stop there. Expand on how that experience influences your vision for future campaigns. You might say, "The marketing campaign I led last year for Jojo's Ice Cream's newest flavour, Banana Karenina, taught me the importance of data-driven decisions. My goal is to leverage this insight to develop even more engaging strategies that boost brand loyalty." When interviewing, don't just discuss your past or career aspirations; an interview isn't solely about you. Interviews are your opportunity, one that few job seekers capitalize on, to showcase your potential value-add, which, as I mentioned, is your responsibility to ensure your interviewer sees and feels. ___________________________________________________________________