Bridging Retirement Income Gaps

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

Don't Let Your Gunpowder Get Wet

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

BELL WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE

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

Au Naturel

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

There’s Good Reason for an Afternoon Snooze

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

Our Children Aren't Commodities

  By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Most of us have watched a child climb onto a school bus, ride a bicycle down the street, or walk to a friend's house. We wave goodbye, expecting them to be home for supper. We never imagine that an ordinary day could become a family's worst nightmare. Then, for some families, it does. A child's bedroom remains exactly as it was left. The bed is made. A favourite stuffed animal rests on the pillow. School books are still on the desk. A backpack sits by the door. Every night, a porch light stays on because hope refuses to go out. No parent should ever have to live like that. Thousands of children are reported missing in Canada every year. The good news is that most are found quickly. The heartbreaking news is that not every child comes home. Some become victims of sexual exploitation. Some are trafficked. Some are murdered. Others simply disappear, leaving families with unanswered questions that may never be answered. According to the Government of Canada's National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains, 34,222 children under the age of 18 were reported missing in 2025. About 57 per cent were located within 24 hours, while 91 per cent were found within one week. The report also found that 70 per cent of missing children were classified as runaways, placing many at a much greater risk of sexual exploitation, trafficking, violence, and abuse. Nearly 78 per cent of all missing children were between the ages of 14 and 17. Statistics tell us how many. They do not tell us who. They do not tell us about the little girl who loved horses, the boy who dreamed of playing hockey, or the teenager who never forgot to hug their grandmother goodbye. Behind every number is a family waiting for a miracle. Canada has police officers who dedicate their careers to protecting children. The RCMP's National Child Exploitation Crime Centre works with police services across the country to identify victims, rescue children, and investigate those who prey on them. Earlier this year, Project STEEL brought police agencies together from across Canada. The operation resulted in the arrest of 106 suspected child sex offenders, the protection of 37 children, and the seizure of more than 1,100 electronic devices believed to contain evidence. Those officers deserve our respect and support. But here is the question I keep coming back to. If protecting children is one of Canada's highest priorities, should we create a nationally recognized organization whose sole mission is finding missing children, supporting families, coordinating investigations across the country, and carrying out the relentless pursuit of child predators? That is not about politics. That is about priorities. Children are not commodities. They are not to be bought, sold, exploited, or abused. Every child deserves the chance to grow up safe, no matter where they live or what their family's circumstances may be. Imagine knowing that every available resource was focused on bringing a missing child home. Imagine families knowing their child's case remained a national priority long after the television cameras had left. Imagine predators knowing there would be no safe haven because Canada had made the relentless pursuit of child predators one of its highest priorities. Would it solve every case? No. Would it save every child? Probably not. But if it saved even one child, would it be worth it? I believe most Canadians already know the answer. The true measure of a country is not found only in its economy, its technology, or its politics. It is found in how it protects those who cannot protect themselves. Every missing child has a name. Every missing child has a family. Every missing child has a future worth fighting for. Our children are not commodities. They are Canada's future, and they deserve nothing less than our full commitment to bringing them home and bringing those who harm them to justice. Sometimes the hardest conversations are the ones we most need to have. Until next week, I'll meet you Around the Coffee Table.

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

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

When Deflection Replaces Leadership

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

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

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

The Traditions We Never Meant to Start

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

How Difficult Can It Get?

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

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

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

The Press's Obsession with Prime Minister Mark Carney

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

Putting the Story Back Together

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

Joint ownership: pros, cons, and alternatives

Joint ownership: pros, cons, and alternatives By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Investors looking for an efficient, cost-effective, and quick way to transfer assets to an heir or beneficiary often place assets into joint ownership with right of survivorship. On the surface, this looks like a great way to transfer wealth. Placing non-registered assets into joint ownership is one of the most common attempts to avoid probate, and it may be effective in the right situation. The catch? There can be significant disadvantages with joint ownership that outweigh the benefits. Joint ownership with adult children often misses the mark. Parents think they’re setting up an easy way to transfer assets, by simply adding a child to the account while keeping all other aspects the same. That child may transact on the parent’s behalf while they are alive but won’t personally benefit from the funds until the parent passes away. In that case, when the parent passes away, a resulting trust is presumed to exist which all other references to joint ownership meaning joint ownership with right of survivorship. Joint ownership doesn’t apply in Quebec, means the asset flow through the deceased’s estate, and is distributed according to their will and may be subject to probate, if applicable. Without proper documentation, this can create complications, especially if there are other beneficiaries that believe they have an entitlement to that same asset. Fortunately, there are other options available that help avoid the risks of joint ownership and provide additional benefits as well. Advantages and disadvantages when using joint ownership as a wealth transfer strategy. If considering this strategies, ensure you discuss this with your financial advisor accountant and lawyers. Alternative considerations shows how naming a beneficiary or successor owners with a certain investment contract or insurance guaranteed interest account (GIA) can achieve the same advantages—and more —without the liabilities and risks. Not all investments are governed by the same estate rules. Investments held with banks vs insurance companies or investment companies have different rules in administering estates. Ask the questions to ensure you are not creating more concerns for your executors and family members Safe travels Happy Planning!!

HYPOCRITES SEEDED IN CLARINGTON

By Joe Ingino This week, Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster issued the following statement: "We are seeing a rise in personal attacks, hateful rhetoric, and threatening behavior, both online and in our community. This is not debate or dialogue. These comments are meant to harm. They spread disinformation, target individuals, and are designed to create fear and divide our community. Clarington residents and staff—our friends and neighbours—have been doxxed and subjected to racist, discriminatory, and threatening posts. This is unacceptable. Harassment and hate undermine the values we stand for. If we ignore it, we allow it to grow. Enough is enough. Everyone in Clarington deserves to feel safe and welcome. Our community is built on respect, fairness, and inclusion. Each of us has a responsibility to uphold those values. Choose respect over hostility. Speak up when you see hate. Get your facts from a trustworthy source. If you see hate, speak up and report it. Defend the victims. Hate has no home in Clarington."— End of statement. Well, like the good Mayor wishes, I am reporting it right here.At one time, I thought the world of Adrian. Today, after seeing his actions, I call for his resignation. If he refuses to step down, then I call on voters to remove him.Here is a man who does not return phone calls from the region's only in-print newspaper. Why? Because he has proven himself to be a silent "woke" supporter. A small man, full of contempt. He uses the system to attack his opposition because he lacks the substance to argue his position on important issues.This latest statement stems from an exposé involving members of his community allegedly slaughtering wild animals in the name of religion. This sparked an outcry across Durham Region. During an election year, Foster is attempting to grandstand on the backs of real victims while painting the community at large with a broad brush: either conform and accept what others demand, or risk being labeled. No, Mr. Mayor. You are the one promoting division. You are the one escalating tensions by making sweeping statements such as these.The better approach would be to encourage open dialogue and determine where the hostility exists within the community and toward which groups it is directed.Instead, he chooses to paint everyone with a "woke" brush.He has to go. This is the same mayor who, in my opinion, practices corporate discrimination. Once again, instead of unifying the community, he uses the system to justify what I believe is a lack of understanding of corporate realities while using staff as a shield to defend policies that I view as biased. Adrian, I thought the world of you. I always respected you as one of the last good mayors. You let me down.You let the people of your municipality down. What are people supposed to think? You do not even have the character or professional courtesy to return phone calls from your municipality's only in-print newspaper. Shame on you.If this is how you treat your only in-print newspaper, I can only imagine how quickly you respond to the average person looking for guidance.I must have read this release 20 times.Everything that is wrong with society today is reflected in it.Politicians with limited intellect making general assumptions and painting people with a biased brush.Here's a free suggestion: Hold a series of town hall meetings. Talk to the people. Find out why there is so much hostility and determine toward whom or which groups it is directed. Once you identify the source of the conflict, then work toward a remedy.Instead, he attempts to make himself appear caring while issuing what amounts to a warning shot—that if you do not accept whatever the issue may be, you will be labeled and shunned. Shame on you, Mayor.

The Changes We Didn't Notice

Dead and Gone… The Changes We Didn't Notice By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how often families are caught off guard by changes that happened long before they noticed them. This seems to happen most often after a long illness or a period of care-giving that lasted for months or years. During that time, people's attention is naturally focused on what is directly in front of them. Appointments need to be attended. Routines need to be maintained. Problems need to be solved. Most families become very good at adapting to whatever the situation requires. What makes this interesting is that change is usually gradual. Very few people wake up one morning and decide they are going to stop travelling, stop seeing friends as often, give up a hobby, or reorganize their schedule around someone else's needs. Most of the time these things happen one adjustment at a time. A trip is postponed, a weekly activity is skipped, a standing lunch gets cancelled, or a routine commitment quietly falls away. None of it feels particularly significant in the moment, nor is it because life has simply rearranged itself. The longer a situation continues, the more normal those changes begin to feel. What started as an adjustment becomes a routine. And what started as a temporary accommodation becomes part of everyday life. With a little time, most people stop noticing the changes altogether because the new version of life no longer feels new. Then eventually the situation changes. At first there are other things requiring attention. Arrangements need to be made, maybe paperwork needs to be completed. Families are focused on all of the immediate concerns, and it is often weeks or months later that people begin noticing something else. A trip that was postponed never happened, a favourite hobby that disappeared was never replaced, good friends who used to stop by regularly have not been seen in years, the regular visit to their favourite restaurant that fell out of the routine. I t will be different for everyone but the common thread is what surprises people is not that these things changed. What surprises them is how completely the changes blended into everyday life while they were happening. I think that realization can be tough to describe because it is rarely attached to a single moment. More often it arrives in pieces. Someone notices an empty Saturday, or the who friend reaches out after a long absence. It can be a conversation that revives an old interest. Whatever it is, it is always gradual before people begin recognizing parts of their lives that had quietly moved into the background. This is not necessarily a sad realization and in most cases it is simply an honest one. The years spent caring for someone mattered more than the adjustments which were made for good reasons. Most families would make the same choices again. But that does not change the fact that life was changing at the same time. What I find most interesting is that people often expect the biggest adjustment to be the loss itself. Quite often they discover that another adjustment has been taking place for years. They simply did not have much reason or time to notice it while they were living through it. The longer I have watched families navigate these transitions, the more I have noticed that people are rarely surprised by what they gave up. More often they are surprised by how much they had gradually set aside before they realized it.

The One Reason You're Not Getting Hired

The One Reason You're Not Getting Hired By Nick Kossovan Getting hired in today's hyper-competitive job market requires drawing a distinct line between your skills and experience and how you can generate revenue or save an employer money. Unlike what many job seekers believe, employers are not charities. Nor do employers design their hiring process to validate a job seeker's self-esteem. The job market is a marketplace in which, as in all marketplaces, profit determines survival. Employment boils down to a single financial transaction: an employer pays money in exchange for a return on their investment. If you're sending out resumes, networking, and attending interviews without receiving job offers, it's because you're not communicating your value in terms of an employer's profitability. In other words, you're not giving employers a compelling reason to hire you. The job market is full of candidates acting like historians, listing their "who cares" responsibilities in chronological order. Employers don't care what you did; they care about what you can do for their bottom line. In business, an employee's value is defined by their impact on the business's profitability. Consider how you act as a consumer. You don't buy a smartphone because the manufacturer worked hard to build it. You buy it because you believe it'll add value and status to your life, streamline communication, and boost productivity. If you didn't believe it would add value, you'd leave it on the shelf. Similarly, a homeowner doesn't invest thousands in an energy-efficient furnace out of sentimentality. They do it to lower their monthly heating bills and increase home equity. Hiring is a form of purchasing, so employers view job seekers through the same lens. What value will the employer derive from hiring you? "Hiring managers don't look at your resume and see potential—they see a massive financial risk. If your resume reads like a historical biography of daily chores, you are positioning yourself as an administrative cost to be minimized." — Episode 3178 of Jeff Altman's podcast, No B.S. Job Search Advice Radio, titled, How to Write a Resume That Proves Your Return on Investment. Breaking the cycle of rejection requires adopting a “Business of One” approach. Instead of viewing yourself as a job seeker, see yourself as a service provider proposing a partnership. Your resume, LinkedIn profile, and cover letter should highlight how your accomplishments deliver measurable value, making it easy for hiring managers to recognize how you'd be an asset to their business's profitability. Incorporate your impact on profitability into every aspect of your job search. Your Resume: Remove meaningless fluff, such as "responsible for managing a team." Use aggressive, metric-based bullet points. Frame your work in dollars, time saved, or percentage gains. For example: "Re-engineered regional call centre workflows, cutting customer wait times by 14% and saving $45,000 in quarterly operational overhead." If you managed a budget, state how you kept it under target. If you built a process, quantify the hours it reclaimed. Present your history as a series of profit enhancements. Your LinkedIn Profile: Treat your headline and "About" section as a sales landing page, not an online obituary. Replace generic labels such as "Experienced Operations Professional" with a clear value proposition: "Operations Leader Specializing in Scaling Call Centre Efficiencies and Reducing Client Churn to Maximize Revenue." Use your "Featured" section to share articles or case studies you've written that explain exactly how you solve costly bottlenecks. When Networking: Never ask someone if they know of any openings; this comes across as desperate and places the burden on them. View networking as a casual consultation conversation. Ask targeted questions about their company's or industry's specific operational challenges. When sharing your background, pivot to outcomes: "In my last role, we noticed a major drop in client retention, so I implemented an automated follow-up system that reclaimed $120,000 in drifting contracts. I imagine advertising agencies are facing similar margin pressures right now." TIP: When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself: How can I help this person? When Interviewing: Many candidates sink into a defensive crouch during interviews. Turn interviews into a sales meeting, which is what they are. When asked about your strengths, don't offer platitudes about being a "hard worker." Link your traits directly to enhancing their profitability. For example: "My core strength is rigorous process optimization. I look for operational leaks because every broken process represents wasted capital. When you hire me, my primary objective will be to ensure the team's output directly protects and enhances your department's margins." Putting aside all the excuses many job seekers make, if you're not getting interviews and job offers, it's because you're not making a compelling business case for why they should hire you. Without one, employers view you as an unnecessary expense. Employers aren't buying your biography; they're buying a solution to their margin pressures. Shift your narrative from what you'll cost an employer to how much you'll make for an employer. Review your resume, LinkedIn profile, and interview talking points. Ruthlessly remove anything that doesn't clearly articulate a financial return on hiring you. If you want employers to see hiring you as a profitable decision, reframe your professional identity in terms of the bottom line.

The Things We Thought Would Matter

The Things We Thought Would Matter By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things that has surprised me over the years is how often families are caught off guard by what does not matter. Most of us spend a fair amount of time deciding what is important. We save things. We protect things. We move certain possessions from one house to another because we assume they deserve to make the journey. Over time, some objects acquire a status that feels almost permanent. They become part of the family landscape, and people stop questioning their importance because their importance has simply been accepted for so long. Then something happens, and a family finds itself sorting through a house, opening cupboards, looking through closets, and deciding what stays and what goes. Before it begins, there is often a quiet assumption that certain items will be spoken for immediately. Everybody knows which pieces those are supposed to be. The dining room set. The cabinet. The collection. The things that were always treated as important. And then the family discovers that nobody really wants them. I have seen that happen more than once, and what makes it interesting is not the decision itself, but the surprise that follows. People are often caught off guard that an object which carried such a large presence in family life can suddenly have very little place in anyone's future. The object has not changed. The craftsmanship has not changed. The history has not changed, yet something has shifted. I think part of the surprise comes from the fact that families often confuse significance with attachment. They are related, but they are not the same thing. An object can be significant without anyone wanting to own it. A family can respect its history, appreciate its place in the household, and still have no practical role for it in the next chapter of their lives. That reality shows up in very ordinary ways. I have watched families spend twenty minutes discussing a valuable piece of furniture before agreeing nobody has room for it, then spend much longer talking about a box of handwritten recipe cards that nobody expected to keep. It is not always logical, but it is very human. One thing has value because everyone agreed it did. Another has value because, for reasons that are harder to explain, it still seems to carry a person with it. There is also a generational side to this that families sometimes underestimate. The objects that helped define one household may not fit easily into another. A dining room set that once made sense in a larger home may not make sense in a condo, townhouse, or smaller place already filled with someone else's life. A collection that represented years of care to one person may feel like responsibility to the next. That does not mean people value family less. It usually means they are living differently. What makes these decisions difficult is that nobody wants to be the person who says it out loud too quickly. Nobody wants to make it sound as though the thing did not matter. So families sometimes talk around the obvious for a while. They admire it. They discuss where it came from. They mention how long it was in the house. Then eventually someone says what everyone else may already be thinking: "I just don't have a place for it." That sentence can feel harsher than it is meant to be. In most cases, it is not a rejection of the person who owned it, or of the life built around it. It is simply the point where memory and practicality meet, and practicality has to be given a vote too. The longer I have watched families work through these decisions, the more I have noticed that the item everyone worried about often becomes the easiest decision in the room.

The Things Nobody Thought Were Important

Dead and Gone… The Things Nobody Thought Were Important By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things I have noticed over the years is that families are not always very good at predicting what will matter later. I do not mean that as a criticism. I think most of us are probably the same when it comes to these things. We protect the things that seem obvious and valuable to us. We keep important documents together. We put certain photographs in frames to look at and have others look at. We also decide which possessions are worth insuring, saving, passing along, or placing carefully in a box where they will not be damaged. That is all reasonable, and it is also incomplete in some sense of the word. After someone dies, families often discover that importance does not always follow the path they expected. The items that were carefully preserved may still matter, of course, but they are not always the things that stop people. Sometimes it is the object that was never meant to survive or to be thought about at all. Something left in a drawer, or something tucked into a book. Maybe it is something kept for no clear reason other than the fact that nobody threw it away. We have all seen people move quickly past things that had obvious value, then pause over something almost accidental. And generally it is not because it was beautiful or rare or financially meaningful, but because it seemed to contain evidence of ordinary life. That is a different kind of value, and it is harder to explain without making it sound more sentimental than it is. Someone's house can be full of possessions and still leave a family looking for traces. That is the part I find interesting, and by no means do I think it is fair to say that most people are always looking for the most important or valuable object. Sometimes they are looking for proof of the person as they actually were, in the middle of regular life, before anyone knew there would eventually be a need to remember them so carefully. And that may be why the ordinary things can become kind of complicated. They were not curated, they were certainly not chosen for legacy, they escaped attention, which is probably why they can feel more authentic later. A formal portrait tells one kind of truth, while a marked-up calendar, an old notebook, or a tool left on a basement shelf tells another. There is also a practical side to this that families know all too well. Not everything can be kept, as most of us do not have the space, time, or emotional energy to preserve an entire household. Decisions have to be made, and many of them are fairly straightforward. Keep it, donate it, sell it, or discard it. Those words are simple until they are applied to objects that belonged to someone who is no longer there to explain why they kept them. I do not think there is a perfect way through that. Some things will be saved that later seem unimportant. While other things will be let go that someone may wonder about years afterwards. That is probably unavoidable. Families are trying to make decisions with limited space, limited time, and often very little emotional distance. What I find myself thinking about is how much of a person’s life exists outside the things we formally preserve. By this I mean routines, their habits, the unfinished projects, or the way a drawer was organized, or not organized. The things they placed on a shelf and left there. None of it was meant to become meaningful and I think that is what makes it different. Maybe that is the part worth noticing, as we all spend years deciding what matters, and then time quietly makes its own decisions for us. It does not always choose the most valuable things. And it does not always choose the things we would have expected. But sometimes it does decide to choose whatever happened to remain. When all is said and done, while standing in front of a box or a drawer or a workbench, a family realizes the object they are all looking at was never really the point. It was simply one of the few places where ordinary life was still visible.