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.

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help?

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones This week I’m writing from Berlin, where I’m leading Canadian university leaders on a week-long study of Germany’s higher education and research ecosystem. Our North American penchant for policy by experimentation was in sharp contrast with the coordinated national strategies and infrastructure evident across the German economy. By my observation, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in health is becoming the next national mission. Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, is leading the charge to unleash AI. “I will push to ease the regulatory burden in the EU on AI,” he said recently, “and, where possible, to exempt industrial AI from the current regulatory straitjacket that is too tight.” Now, before readers stop and say, “This has nothing to do with me,” think again. AI is not just about computers and robots. Increasingly, it will shape what happens when you visit your doctor, undergo a test, receive a diagnosis, or fill a prescription. And whether this becomes a blessing or another modern headache depends on our leaders setting the right course. Americans are charging ahead at full speed with AI. In the United States, giant technology companies see healthcare as the next great gold rush. Faster diagnostics. Faster data collection. Faster treatment decisions. Germany has a different attitude and people are asking questions. Who controls the data? Can patients trust computer-generated advice? Will medicine become colder and more mechanical? Will doctors eventually rely too heavily on algorithms? These are genuine concerns. Medicine is not a math problem. Patients are frightened, confused, emotional, vulnerable. They need accurate information, but they also need judgment, experience, communication, and compassion. A machine cannot look a worried patient in the eye and say, “You’re going to be alright.” At least not convincingly. But make no mistake. AI is coming to healthcare everywhere. Soon, if not already, AI will read mammograms, identify skin cancers, flag dangerous drug interactions, predict heart disease risk, and analyze blood tests. In many cases, it will catch abnormalities earlier than physicians can do. That’s the good news. The bad news is that many people are completely unprepared for this transition. Some readers still avoid online banking. Others rarely use email or electronic records. Many older people understandably distrust technology altogether. But avoiding technology is risky in itself. Patients now need “AI literacy in healthcare” to understand enough about how AI works in medicine to ask sensible questions and avoid being fooled. That matters because AI can be brilliant one moment and dangerously wrong the next. A computer program may confidently provide false information. Anyone who has experimented with AI systems knows this. So what should readers do? First, become more engaged in your own healthcare, not less. Too many people drift through the medical system. They take pills they don’t understand and undergo tests they never discuss. Second, become comfortable with digital tools. Learn how to access your medical records electronically. Learn how to verify information from reliable medical sources. Ask family members for help if necessary. Pride is a foolish reason to remain uninformed. Third, know that technology should align with common sense – not replace it. One of the smartest observations I heard in Germany came from a researcher who warned that societies risk becoming “overconfident in technological answers to human problems.” AI may improve medicine. It may reduce errors, shorten wait times, and help physicians make better decisions. But no algorithm replaces healthy living. No computer can exercise for you, stop you from smoking, overeating, drinking excessively, or refusing to manage stress. And no AI system will magically repair a piecemeal healthcare system damaged by leadership indecision or policy blunders.

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canadians already know the economy is struggling. They do not need another article telling them groceries cost more, housing costs more, and jobs are harder to find. They know. They live it every day. For months, Canadians have been telling politicians, business leaders, and experts that something feels wrong. Families have been cutting back. Young people have been searching for work. Parents and grandparents have been worrying about what kind of future the next generation will inherit. None of that is news anymore. The real question is what comes next. If you listen to enough headlines, you would think Canada is on the edge of collapse. One day it is the economy. The next day it is a war somewhere in the world. Then it is another crisis, another warning, another prediction that the sky is about to fall. Fear sells. It always has. Yet Canadians have heard these warnings before. In the 1970s, inflation was eating away at family budgets. Prices seemed to rise every time someone walked into a grocery store. Fuel costs climbed. Interest rates rose. Families worried about paying bills and keeping food on the table. Many people thought the good times were over for good. They were wrong. Canadians adapted, businesses adjusted, and eventually the economy recovered. The lesson from the 1970s is not that hard times are easy. The lesson is that hard times end. The same lesson appeared again in 2008. The financial crisis spread around the world. Businesses slowed down. Jobs disappeared. Retirement savings took a hit. People watched the news and wondered what disaster would come next. There was fear that entire economies could collapse. Yet Canada weathered the storm better than many countries. Communities carried on. Workers adapted. Businesses found ways to survive. Recovery did not happen overnight, but it happened. Looking back today, many people barely remember how frightening those months felt at the time. That should remind us that today's challenges, while serious, are not the first serious challenges Canada has faced. Many Canadians are no longer worried about getting rich. They are worried about staying afloat. That may be the biggest economic warning sign of all. When people stop dreaming about the future and start worrying only about next month's bills, confidence begins to disappear. The greatest threat to Canada may not be a recession. It may be losing confidence in ourselves. History matters because it reminds us that Canadians are builders. We built railways across a vast country. We built industries that supported generations of workers. We built communities, schools, hospitals, roads, and businesses. We did not build them by panicking. We built them by getting to work. That is one reason many Canadians are watching new energy projects closely. Whether it is pipelines, natural gas, mining, hydroelectric power, or other forms of development, many people see these projects as opportunities to create jobs, attract investment, and strengthen the economy. No project is a magic solution. They cost money and take years to complete. But growth rarely happens without investment. Canada cannot build a stronger future if it is afraid to build at all. A country that stops building eventually starts shrinking. New pipelines and energy projects may not solve every problem tomorrow, but they can help create the kind of long term growth that gives future generations more opportunities. Every major project built in Canada today becomes part of the foundation future Canadians stand on tomorrow. The same conversation applies to education. For decades, trades helped build the middle class. Carpenters, electricians, welders, mechanics, machinists, truck drivers, and countless others helped shape this country. Today, many employers say they cannot find enough skilled workers. At the same time, many young people are struggling to find stable careers. Perhaps it is time to place greater value on the skilled trades once again and remind young Canadians that success can take many different paths. Not every student needs a university degree. Canada will always need people who can build homes, repair equipment, maintain infrastructure, and keep the country running. Strong trades programs can create good jobs while helping solve labour shortages at the same time. Immigration is another issue Canadians discuss openly. Canada has always been a country built by newcomers. Generation after generation, people arrived here looking for opportunity and became part of the Canadian story. Most Canadians do not oppose immigration. What many want is a system that is fair, organized, and focused on helping newcomers succeed while maintaining the values and responsibilities that hold the country together. The conversation is not about rejecting people. It is about making sure Canada remains strong enough to welcome them successfully. What often gets lost in political arguments is that Canadians have more in common than they sometimes realize. Most people want safe communities. They want decent jobs. They want affordable homes. They want their children and grandchildren to have opportunities. Whether someone lives in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Oshawa, Montreal, or a small town in Atlantic Canada, those goals are remarkably similar. Patriotism should not be controversial. Being proud of Canada does not mean believing the country is perfect. No country is. It simply means recognizing what generations before us built and wanting to leave something even better behind. Canadians come from many backgrounds, faiths, cultures, and experiences, but we share a country. That shared identity matters. There are good politicians and bad politicians. There are good business leaders and bad business leaders. There are good ideas and bad ideas. No single group has all the answers. The strength of Canada has never come from a handful of powerful people. It has come from ordinary Canadians helping one another through difficult times. The economy may be slowing, but that is not the whole story. The story is also about resilience. It is about a country that has weathered difficult decades before and emerged stronger. It is about communities that continue to support one another when times are tough. Canadians should not ignore problems. They should not pretend everything is fine when it is not. But neither should they forget who they are. The generation that faced inflation recovered. The generation that faced the financial crisis recovered. The generation that endured the pandemic recovered. Canadians have a long history of proving the experts wrong when times get tough. The economy may be slowing, but Canada is not finished. Not even close. The future will not be decided by fear. It will be decided by what Canadians choose to build next. If history is any guide, betting against Canadians has rarely been a winning strategy.

Stop Fearing Rejection

Stop Fearing Rejection By Nick Kossovan At the risk of stating the obvious, if you're looking for work, you're likely fearful of rejection. I constantly see job seekers paralyzed by fear of rejection, dreading the sting of hearing "No." Rejection isn't a personal tragedy; it's an unavoidable part of job searching, just as my articles are sometimes rejected, is part of "being a writer." Viewing every job application as an emotional investment is why job seekers struggle with their job search. Let go of the dread you're harbouring and approach your job search as an activity that thrives on volume and resilience, not on emotional validation Regular readers know I emphasize mindset. To expedite your job search, adopt a "Business of One" mindset. A job seeker is essentially someone seeking an employer to buy their service(s)—their expertise and labour. An employer choosing not to buy isn't personal; it's just a business transaction that didn't close. I know firsthand that the fear of rejection is a real and exhausting emotion. However, observing those who achieved the success I wanted made it clear that rejection is something to overcome, not something to lean into. Breaking out of the paralysis caused by fear of rejection requires recognizing that rejection is part of a numbers game. Baseball's greatest hitters—Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn—failed to get a hit 70% of the time. They built their careers on failure and still made it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Your job search requires the same resilience. Getting hired only requires one "Yes." However, you'll never hear "Yes" if you're too afraid to swing the bat. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your ability to cope with rejection. 1. Become Comfortable with Not Knowing When you submit an application or leave an interview, don't agonize over what your interviewer(s) might think of you. How people perceive you often has far more to do with them than with you. They might misinterpret your resume or mannerisms, or you might trigger an unconscious association with someone they disliked. Other people's inner thoughts are beyond your control. Obsessing over what you can't control is a massive waste of mental energy. Instead, redirect that energy to your job search. Control what you can—your preparation, skills, and execution—and let go of the rest. 2. Recognize That You Aren't the Centre of Attention We'd worry less about what others think of us if we realized how rarely they do. The idea that a hiring manager is actively dissecting your character and critiquing every flaw is a figment of your imagination. Get that sh*t out of your head. Recruiters and hiring managers are overworked. They're sorting through hundreds, if not thousands, of applications to fill open positions, not sitting around judging your worth as a person. They care about only one thing: whether you'll deliver measurable value to the bottom line. 3. Their Opinion Is Not Your Problem A two-page resume, a LinkedIn profile, or a 30-minute phone screening rarely captures a person's true competence. When a hiring manager forms an opinion of you and decides to pass, consider it their loss, not yours. Never internalize a stranger's judgment. Organizational psychologist Dr. Adam Grant notes that rejection often reflects poor organizational fit rather than a statement about your personal worth. It's a mismatch of timing and needs, not an audit of your underlying value. However (me interjecting), it never hurts to consider how you can better present your skills and qualifications so employers can easily see how you'll enhance their profitability, greatly increasing your chances of hearing "Yes." 4. Stop Trying to Blend In Many job seekers believe that becoming a corporate chameleon, smoothing their personality, using a generic resume, relying on inconsequential buzzwords during interviews, and giving scripted, robotic answers, hoping to "blend in," is an effective job search strategy. Playing it safe doesn't reduce your chances of rejection; it makes you forgettable, which is a job seeker's kiss of death. Recruiters and hiring managers, especially the good ones, value individuality. Your unique skills, experience, and personality are your competitive advantage. 5. Focus Entirely on Execution Rather than focusing on what scares you, focus on what you want to accomplish. Focus your mind entirely on finding work. Think of it this way: if you were administering life-saving CPR in a crowded public square, you wouldn't care what bystanders thought of your hair or jeans. The mission's intensity completely drowns out the noise. Treat your job search with the same mission-critical focus. 6. Run Toward the "No's." Stop running from "No's." Collect them until they mean nothing. Rejection Proof author Jia Jiang demonstrated in his "100 Days of Rejection" experiment that the best way to eliminate your fear of rejection is to actively seek it out. The moment you realize that a "No" doesn't harm you, the word loses its power over you. Make collecting rejections a daily goal. Reach out to people you'd like to connect with and apply for roles that are beyond your current abilities. Accumulating "No's" will quickly show you that "No" isn't the end of the world. You're still standing, your coffee still tastes the same, and you're able to move on. Who knows, you might even get a "Yes."

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK By Joe Ingino Am I the only one who sees it? Our city is in a dangerous position. We have a downtown that is nothing short of a makeshift war zone. From the many homeless individuals, prostitutes, drug dealers, and criminal elements to the open public drug use, the situation continues to deteriorate. Businesses are closing at an alarming rate. A few token businesses that do open soon discover they are in over their heads. No parking and no walk-in traffic lead to one reality: NO BUSINESS. I have been a critical watchdog for the past 35 years, slowly watching one administration after another fail to recognize what was happening. It started during the Nancy Diamond era. Her political alliance was with the Oshawa Centre. The goal was to keep the mall as the primary place to shop while slowly draining the downtown core. Since then, one administration after another has continued to erode the quality of life downtown. From incompetent councillors to councils with no vision or understanding of the future of our downtown, the decline has been steady. Mayors have come and gone, many with no clear vision for the core beyond copycat pipe dreams that led nowhere. The combination of senior housing and student-focused developments simply failed. I ran for office to improve the downtown core. I am still operating the only successful downtown "shop local" initiative since 2018. Unfortunately, it is not enough. My plan was to tear down the Four Corners and erect a minimum 60-storey complex with ample parking for residents and visitors. I envisioned creating an indoor downtown bridge connecting all four corners to compensate for winter weather. The concept would enclose the Four Corners while still allowing traffic flow, creating a showcase destination similar to what exists on the Las Vegas Strip. We have to provide value to visitors. We have to give people a purpose and a reason to come downtown. We also need to increase pedestrian traffic. Those are all things we currently lack. The two downtown councillors do not have the life experience necessary to achieve even a fraction of what is needed. One spends more time and taxpayer dollars maliciously persecuting and prosecuting local downtown businesses, while the other lives in an arts-and-culture make-believe utopian world that simply does not exist. How can anyone justify spending $10 million on a downtown park?This same council has no understanding of marketing or promotion. They want to charge visitors for parking at Lakeview Park. Wonder why we lost Ribfest? Wonder why we lost Oshawa's annual car show at Lakeview? The "No Park, No Parking" mentality will soon become a pathetic reality. People will simply stop going to the park because they may be in violation of a bylaw and face a fine. As it stands, you cannot really picnic, bring a large family gathering, or enjoy an extended visit without worrying about restrictions. The list of things you "can't do" is long.Is this how we welcome visitors? No. This is how we turn a park into a homeless encampment. People will flock from all over to camp out, knowing the police will not arrest them and bylaw officers will never collect the fines.Now, don't get me wrong. I am pro-Oshawa. I have approached the city many times with ideas and investors, only to receive the same result.In 2026, we have the opportunity to replace two insiders: Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Jim Lee. These are two councillors who, in my opinion, have done little to improve Oshawa during their terms and are now expected to be rewarded with higher-paying positions to do more of the same. Come on. There has to be someone out there who can lead our city. Our future depends on it. We cannot afford to waste our votes on career politicians.

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is facing a difficult economic reality. While the country has avoided the severe recessions that many feared in recent years, Canadians are increasingly feeling poorer, not richer. Housing affordability remains out of reach for many young families. Productivity growth has stagnated. Business investment has weakened. Government debt has increased. And our traditional economic advantages—abundant natural resources, access to global markets, a skilled workforce, and political stability—are not translating into the prosperity they once did. The challenge facing Canada is not merely cyclical; it is increasingly structural. The country needs more than careful economic management. It needs a national growth agenda. For decades, Canadians have been accustomed to steady improvements in living standards. Each generation expected to enjoy greater prosperity than the one before. Today, that assumption is no longer guaranteed. Real GDP per capita, one of the most important measures of economic well-being, has struggled to keep pace with population growth. Many Canadians are working harder while finding it more difficult to purchase a home, save for retirement, or support their families. At the heart of the problem lies Canada's productivity challenge. Productivity may sound like an abstract economic term, but it is ultimately the foundation of higher wages and improved living standards. A worker equipped with better tools, technology, infrastructure, and training can produce more value. When productivity rises, wages can rise without creating inflation. Unfortunately, Canada has fallen behind many of its peers in productivity growth. Business investment per worker has lagged behind that of the United States. Companies are investing less in machinery, technology, research, and innovation. Too much capital is flowing into existing real estate rather than into productive enterprises that generate long-term economic growth. This trend should concern policymakers across the political spectrum. The solution is not simply to spend more public money. Governments cannot subsidize their way to prosperity indefinitely. Instead, Canada must create conditions that encourage investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. One obvious area for improvement is infrastructure. Major projects in Canada often take years, sometimes decades, to move from concept to construction. Whether it is a mine, port expansion, electricity transmission corridor, nuclear facility, transportation project, or housing development, approval processes have become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Environmental protection remains essential, but regulatory systems must also recognize the economic costs of delay. A project that takes fifteen years to approve may effectively be denied. Canada must find a better balance between environmental stewardship and economic development. Housing presents another major challenge. The affordability crisis is not simply a social issue; it is an economic issue. When workers cannot afford to live near employment centres, labour mobility suffers. Businesses struggle to attract talent. Young families delay important life decisions. Economic growth becomes constrained. The answer is straightforward, even if implementation is difficult: build more housing. Municipal approval processes must be streamlined. Infrastructure investments must support new development. Governments at all levels must work together to increase housing supply rather than merely managing demand. Canada must also confront once and for all its fragmented internal market. It is often easier for Canadian companies to export goods to foreign countries than to sell them across provincial borders. This reality would be almost unbelievable to outsiders. Interprovincial trade barriers increase costs, reduce competition, and limit economic opportunity. Removing these barriers should be a national priority. A country of nearly forty million people should function as a single economic market. Energy policy represents another area where Canada possesses enormous untapped potential. Canada is one of the world's leading producers of energy and critical minerals. These resources are essential not only for today's economy but also for the energy transition technologies of tomorrow. Yet Canada frequently struggles to bring projects into production. Investors face uncertainty. Regulatory processes are lengthy. Political debates often discourage long-term investment. Canada does not need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Modern technology, strong regulatory oversight, and rigorous environmental standards can support both objectives. What Canada needs is the confidence to develop its resources responsibly while ensuring that the resulting prosperity benefits all Canadians. The same principle applies to critical minerals. As countries compete to secure supplies of lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, uranium, and rare earth elements, Canada possesses significant strategic advantages. These resources should form part of a comprehensive national economic strategy that strengthens both prosperity and national security. Education and skills development must also remain central to Canada's future. The global economy increasingly rewards innovation, scientific expertise, engineering talent, and technological capability. Canada has world-class universities and research institutions, but more must be done to connect research with commercialization and industrial development. As a professional engineer, I have long believed that nations prosper when they value science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Technical expertise should play a greater role in politics, public policy, economic planning, and national decision-making. Canada should also recognize that economic growth and national security are increasingly interconnected. A country that cannot build infrastructure efficiently, produce critical resources, or maintain industrial capacity will find it more difficult to defend its interests in an increasingly competitive world. Economic strength remains the foundation of national strength.

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure

Bubble Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense of Adventure By Murray Lytle Are Canadians less adventurous than they once were? It’s hard to argue otherwise. Alexander Mackenzie was only 24 when the North West Company named him chief fur trader at Fort Chipewyan, in what is now Alberta. A few years later, in 1789 he traveled north along what is now known as the Mackenzie River to become the first European to reach the Arctic Ocean overland. Four years later he crossed the Rocky Mountains and was the first European to reach the Pacific Ocean, beating Americans Merriweather Lewis and William Clark by a full dozen years. In 1898, Martha Purdy arrived in Dawson City to escape a failed marriage and make her fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. It was while climbing the notorious Chilkoot Pass that she discovered she was pregnant with her third son. She later remarried and, as Martha Black, was the second woman to be elected to Canada’s Parliament. She was also a successful entrepreneur, second woman elected to Canada’s parliament and a world-renown expert on wild flowers. Canadian history is filled with tales such as these. Explorers, soldiers, settlers and other restless souls who endured great hardships and did great things. There is a natural sense of awe that arises when retelling such lives filled with adventure. To our modern selves, they appear as fascinating aberrations, gifted men and women with unusual appetites for risky or dangerous undertakings. Their willingness to set out into the unknown strikes us today as thrilling, unnerving and more than a bit foolhardy. But while their accomplishments may be striking, they lived in more adventurous times. Today society shrinks from adventure and the unknown. Through a combination of practical circumstances, changing social standards and dramatic shifts in individual risk tolerance and government behaviour, present-day opportunities for adventure have been drastically curtailed. How can Canadians get that sense of adventurousness back? “An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered”, G.K. Chesterton once wrote. “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.” There is a case to be made that adventures are simply harder to come by these days. There are no more blank spaces left on maps, and hence no places for modern-day Mackenzies to discover. The omnipresence of the Internet and GPS similarly makes it almost impossible to get truly lost anymore. And if you do, help is usually close at hand. Beyond these practical limitations, however, it seems incontestable that society today is less interested in promoting, facilitating or participating in adventurous life experiences. No one talks of running away with the circus or joining the French Foreign Legion anymore, even in jest. According to Statistics Canada, twice as many Millennials are still living at home as was the case with previous generations. And if any of these young adults do go away, it’s more than likely to be an adventure-less ‘gap year’ holiday between graduate degrees recorded in minute detail on Snapchat and Instagram. The perpetual childhood of today’s younger generations contrasts sharply with the youthful accomplishments of past eras. William Wilberforce, for example, was elected to the British Parliament at age 21 and then proved instrumental in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His friend William Pitt became Prime Minister at 24, and spent his career fighting the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who became a general at 24. Quite a lot can be accomplished when one starts early. Other factors that limit the availability of adventure in our post-modern era include the suffocating impact of the welfare state. When Mackenzie left his family home at 15 to become an apprentice in the fur industry, it was because he had little choice. He needed to make his way in the world as a teenager. The same urgency applied to Black when she decided to escape a failed marriage by travelling to the Yukon. With no government to hold your hand, adventure follows. Popular culture in earlier eras also did its bit as well by celebrating explorers and adventurers as celebrities in the same manner that we laud singers and athletes today. Just as adventure was once regarded as a social virtue to be admired, today society aggressively enforces the opposite expectation – that it is our duty to avoid risk at all costs. In their 2021 book The Coddling of the American Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff take a close look at the impact of a creeping safety culture on the behaviour of younger generations. Children, the authors observed, are now deliberately shielded from any sense of risk or uncertainty. How can anyone – young boys most of all – learn about the world around them when school principals announce at the onset of every snowfall that “All snow must stay on the ground.” The ideal of adventure and resilience has been replaced by a debilitating sense of fragility and risk avoidance. So is the dream of looking over an untravelled horizon that animated people like Alexander Mackenzie or Martha Black completely dead in the 21st century? Not exactly. Adventure should properly be considered a spirit, not a place. It is driven by a powerful mixture of curiosity, necessity and an openness to experiencing new things. And it can be found wherever uncertainty reigns. Today, that might entail travelling to strange lands, meeting new people or even engaging in uncomfortable discussions about whether Alberta should remain part of Canada forever. Wherever the unknown lies, adventure can be found.

The Awkward Reality of Inheritance

Dead and Gone… The Awkward Reality of Inheritance By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the strangest tensions that shows up after somebody dies has almost nothing to do with the death itself. It comes later. The funeral is over, the casseroles have stopped arriving, the relatives from out of town have flown home. Things are quiet again. And then somebody mentions the will. Or the house. Or a ring nobody is sure what to do with. The room changes. Most families do not go looking for a fight. If anything, the opposite. People get careful, almost too careful. You hear things like, "I don't really care about any of it," or, "whatever everybody else thinks is fair is fine by me." A lot of the time they mean it, or at least part of it. But you can still feel the air tighten the second money enters the conversation. Money and grief just do not sit well together. Talking about finances too soon feels disrespectful, even though the paperwork does not wait. And inheritance has never really been only about money anyway. The minute things start getting decided, the old family stuff comes back. Quietly. Sometimes nobody notices it is happening. One sibling did most of the care-giving for years while another lived three provinces away. One kid got helped out financially in their twenties and everyone remembers, even if nobody says so. People keep score without meaning to. It is not always greed. Usually it is something underneath - fairness, feeling overlooked, an old hurt that was there long before anybody died. I have talked to families who couldn't believe how emotional things got over stuff that wasn't even valuable. A watch, a ring, or an old chair nobody had sat in for years. One family nearly fell apart over a recipe box. Somebody says, "no, you take it, really," and somebody else says, "no, it should stay with you," and then everybody starts choosing their words a little too carefully because nobody wants to look like the one who actually wants it. That awkwardness - more people know it than admit it. Wanting something does not make you greedy. Objects hold stories, and one person looks at an old dining room table and sees an old dining room table. Somebody else looks at it and sees thirty years of Christmas dinners. The house is its own thing. A lot of parents quietly assume one of the kids will want to keep it. Sometimes none of them do. Not because the house didn't matter, life just looks different now. Adult kids live in smaller places, different cities, different financial situations than their parents had at the same age. A three-bedroom in a town nobody lives in anymore is not always a gift. Selling the family home can feel like the right call and a small heartbreak at the same time. Both can be true. The hard part, I think, is that the paperwork moves on its own schedule and the feelings move on theirs, and the two are almost never lined up. People do not always handle that gracefully. It would be a little strange if they did. The families who come out of this okay are not always the ones who avoided every disagreement. They are the ones who figured out, somewhere along the way, that the relationships mattered more than any single decision. That sounds obvious written down. It is much harder in the room, with forty years of history sitting in there with you. I would not want my family judged on how they acted during a few of the worst weeks of their lives. People behave in ways that aren't really them during a stretch like that. Most families find their footing again eventually. The conversations just stay awkward longer than anybody expects.