Clothing Is Not Consent

Clothing Is Not Consent There is a certain kind of conversation you only have on a doorstep. No microphone, no agenda, no gallery watching. Just two people and whatever they actually believe. I was canvassing in Pickering, talking about the things residents raise most often when you give them the chance — safe streets, safe parks, human trafficking in Durham, and whether a woman can walk home at night without doing the arithmetic every woman learns to do. A man I was speaking with looked me in the eye and told me that women and girls bring rape upon themselves by the way they dress. That men have a right to act on those weaknesses. I have been called a great many things in the last four years, and I have learned to keep my composure through most of it. I did not keep it well that afternoon. I stood on a sidewalk in the city I have spent my adult life serving, and I felt something closer to grief than anger. So let me be clear, in the plainest words I own. No girl brings rape upon herself. No woman asks for it. A woman does not surrender her safety, her dignity, or her bodily autonomy because of what she chose to wear that morning. Clothing is not consent. Appearance is not permission. And rape is the responsibility of the rapist — full stop, no footnote, no context that softens it. I want to be careful here, because this is where these conversations usually go wrong. I am not talking about one man at one door. If it were one man, it would be a story and not a column. I am talking about an idea — an old, tired, cowardly idea that has outlived every civilization that ever indulged it, and that still finds a hearing in living rooms in this country. The idea that a man's impulses are a force of nature and a woman's clothing is the thing that provokes them. The idea that self-control is optional equipment. It is not optional. It is the price of admission to a free society. We do not build our laws, our streets, or our cities around the appetites of whoever refuses to govern himself. We build them around the rights of the people he would otherwise harm. And notice what that idea really asks of us. It asks us to lower our expectations of men. I decline. I have more respect for the men of this city than that — for the fathers who walk their daughters to the rink, for the sons who call their mothers, for the men who would put themselves between a stranger and harm without being asked twice. Those men are the rule here, not the exception, and they are insulted by the excuse-making more than anyone. Tell a good man that his character is a weakness he cannot help, and watch how quickly he corrects you. No belief, no culture, no tradition, and no supposed weakness in men excuses sexual violence. I say that knowing exactly how the sentence will be read by people who make a living reading sentences unkindly. I am not indicting anyone's faith or anyone's homeland. I am holding every man in this city to the same standard, which is precisely what equality means. A rule that bends for some men is not a rule at all — and the women it fails to protect are always the women with the least power to complain.Here is the part where a column like this usually asks government to do something, so let me tell you what a city actually can and cannot do. A city cannot legislate a man's character. What a city can do is refuse to be a comfortable place for the alternative. Lighting on the paths where our kids walk. Cameras and patrols where they are needed, not where they photograph well. Front-line training so the staff who deal with trafficking know exactly what they are looking at. Partnership with Durham Regional Police instead of turf war. Support for the shelters and the crisis lines that catch women when everything else has failed them. And a Council that will say the words out loud instead of routing them to a subcommittee.That last one matters more than people think. Silence is a policy. When leaders will not name a thing, residents conclude the thing is negotiable. It is not negotiable. And no woman in Pickering should have to wonder where her Mayor stands on whether she asked for it. I have knocked on thousands of doors in this city. The overwhelming majority open onto decent people. But I will not pretend I did not hear what I heard, and I will not soften it for the comfort of the record. Our daughters are not responsible for other people's self-control. They never were. Clothing is not consent. No man has the right. If we can still say that plainly in Pickering — and mean it, and hold to it — then we are the kind of city worth handing to our daughters. Lisa Robinson is a Pickering City Councillor and a candidate for Mayor. If you or someone you love needs help, 211 or 905-668-9200 - 24-hour Crisis and Support Line is available 24 hours a day.

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution?

Term life insurance offered by an insurer or Mortgage insurance offered by a lending institution? ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist You are the contract owner and the only one who can make any changes ? No you are not. The lending institution is the contract owner. It can make changes to the terms and conditions at any time. You choose your insurance amount? Lending institution. This amount can therefore remain fixed even if the balance of the loan decreases. Typically, the insurance amount decreases in line with the outstanding mortgage balance. Known as decreasing term coverage. Premiums are guaranteed for the duration of the coverage. Premiums may stay the same however as coverage decreases this means your premiums are going up. Rates are established based on your age, sex, and smoking status. This is correct however very few medical questions are asked so all medical information will be required at time of claim. Premiums are not necessarily guaranteed and can increase according to the group claim rate under the group insurance contract. Some institutions can even increase the loan interest rate to include the cost of insurance, which represents an additional cost. This is correct The contract can remain in force after the loan has been paid. No this will not happen. You can convert part or all of this term insurance into permanent insurance? No you cannot convert these plans. The contract ends when the mortgage loan balance has been paid. The coverage remains unchanged even if you change lending institutions. No you will lose your coverage when mortgage is paid off or you move to a new institution overage can be applied to insure other loans when needed? No this is not possible. The insurance is cancelled if you change lending institutions. You must requalify for new life insurance. Yes correct You choose your beneficiaries. No usually, the lending institution designates itself as the beneficiary Beneficiaries have the freedom and flexibility to use the insurance amount as they see fit. Only the balance of the loan will be reimbursed You can add a rider for critical illness or total disability, with benefits paid directly to the insured person, to address different needs. The benefit is paid directly to the lending institution When applying for mortgage coverage ensure you ask these questions and ensure you have documentation to confirm all coverages are provided bases on your need.

Traditions

Traditions By Wayne and Tamara I have just one sister and am close to her three children, who are now married with children. They are in their late 20s and 30s. I live in southern Spain, not near them, so often I send birthday or holiday gifts by mail. The problem is I never hear a thank you. Not only do I feel it is extremely bad-mannered, I don't even know if they received the gift! Whenever possible I give their gifts when I see them, even if the holiday is not for a month or so, so I can enjoy the moment of giving. Not having children myself, perhaps I am old-fashioned and don't understand this generation may feel a sense of entitlement from growing up so comfortably. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel a responsibility as a family member to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Once after taking the entire family to a Christmas theatre production, two of them left without even saying goodbye, let alone thank you! My husband, who is European, is always taken back that he can walk into my sister's house for a family get-together and the kids don't bother to say hi. This pertains to their spouses as well. I've mentioned this to my sister but either she doesn't pass it on, or if she has, it hasn't made a difference. She says they are adults and she can't tell them what to do any longer. I did convince her to talk to one daughter-in-law about calling my father with condolences when my mother died. Even my sister was offended she hadn't called in three days because bad feelings were being formed. I was sure the girl didn't realize what she was doing, and in the end that was it. May I note that they are all well-educated professionals, but obviously missing the social part. Without being a pushy aunt, how do I let these "kids," who I love dearly, know how unacceptable this is. Or maybe I shouldn't be so appalled? Kathleen Kathleen, why is failing to acknowledge a gift wrong? The superficial answer is, because it’s bad manners. The deeper answer is, because it makes a giver less apt to give. Giving strengthens relationships. As John Donne said, we are not scattered leaves. When I give to others and others give to me, we are all stronger. But when gifts are unacknowledged, the giver feels less valued. It is as if their offering was cast in a lake. The only time a gift shouldn’t be acknowledged is when the giver gives to gain leverage or advantage over the recipient. Then the gift is a manipulation and should be refused or returned. In a classic experiment, one researcher bought subjects a Coke. Once they accepted, he hit them up to buy raffle tickets. Feeling obligated, most people bought two tickets, five times the price of the Coke! Members of your family act as if they don’t value your presents or your presence. It’s too bad, but it’s not your job to make them better people. Even more to the point, it’s not within your power. There are certain rewards in being bad and certain pains in being good. But each of us picks what we want: the pains and pleasures of being good or the pains and pleasures of being bad. What you get from gift-giving is the good feeling Ebenezer Scrooge got knowing that Tiny Tim lived and that he was “as good a man, as the good old city knew.” When you visit your family, give as you normally have. When you are away, send them a card saying you’ve made a donation in their name to some person, group, or charity you haven’t previously given to. When you stop sending gifts, will they call and say, “Where are our presents?” Not likely. But if they do, you will have the teachable moment you hoped for. Wayne & Tamara

"Time is money"

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life "Time is money" By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Last week the topic was on “How do you rob a thief” Well this all comes down to efficiency and how quickly a task can be done to provide a monitory reward, leading to a phrase "Time is money" in "Advice to a Young Tradesman", an essay by Benjamin Franklin that appeared in George Fisher's 1748 book, The American Instructor: or Young Man's Best Companion. My ultimate goal, your security advisor, and you the homeowner, is to ensure that we don’t provide any monetary rewards, take away the time needed to remove your stuff and peace of mind. In our last episode, our unwelcome guest just spent the last 4 minutes attempting to break in through the front entrance with no reward, Sly is still determined and figures that he may have better luck at the side, you gave him access with the unlocked gate. padlock would make him climb over the fence, but he’s in and with the side door tucked in behind the garage and a tall fence with trees to give him cover Sly feel safe in the shadow. Last week's episode all it took is for Sly to grab a convenient garbage can to get him up to the large window beside the door and it wasn’t latched or it will be easily prided open. So, what can be done? Remember, if you take away the time needed to gain entry, you can almost certainly avoid the crime. 1.) all gate latches have a means of using a pad lock and this is a simple first defense. 2.) fortify the door the same way that we locked down the front with 3” long screws on the hinges and dead bolt, guardian flip latches, I prefer a minimum of two, 6” down from the top and the same up from the bottom. If you have a window on the door then a mesh grille on the inside that will discourage an attempt that will prevent a broken window taking away the ability to unlock the dead bolt, you can also purchase polycarbonate sheet that overlaps the glass by 2” on the sides, top and bottom drill holes every 4 to 6” and screw it down to the outside of the door, this will make the glass unbreakable. On the window beside the door, make sure that you don’t leave tools and items that can give a leg up. Obviously, make sure the window latch is in the locked position and a simple set of bars over the window will create the necessary barrier that will reduce the large opening into a space that can’t be breached, if you don’t like to look of bars then Security screens will do the job keeping out bugs to burglars, very discrete! Now, if you have other windows along the side then you should use the same efforts to keep them secure as well! Physical barriers need to be your first line of defense; in addition, I like the visual ones! By that, I’m talking about props like a dog bowl, dog leash, maybe a rawhide bone all chewed up and gnarly, anything that will make Sly imagine that “Rex” the 150 lb. bull mastiff is silently waiting behind the door, ready to attack. We have now used up the bulk of time that Sly is willing to use but if he is going to foolishly carry on then next week, we will discuss the rear. Hey Sly, you might be better off getting a job! Not on my watch, Sly, Till next week.

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers

The Memory of Dieppe Canada Remembers by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On August 19, 1942, before dawn had fully broken over the English Channel, thousands of Canadian soldiers approached the French port of Dieppe. Their mission, known as Operation Jubilee, was intended to test German coastal defences, gather intelligence, destroy military installations and demonstrate that the Allies could strike occupied Europe. What followed became one of the darkest and most costly days in Canadian military history. Nearly 5,000 Canadians took part in the raid. Within a matter of hours, 916 Canadians were dead, almost 2,000 were prisoners of war, and many more were wounded. Units that had trained for months were shattered on the beaches beneath cliffs, concrete fortifications, artillery and machine-gun positions. Eighty-four years later, the memory of Dieppe deserves more than a ceremonial acknowledgement. It deserves reflection. Canada remembers Dieppe not because it was a great military victory. It was not. Canada remembers because national memory must include sacrifice, courage, failure, responsibility and the human cost of decisions made in war. The men who landed at Dieppe came from communities across Canada. Among them were soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Canada, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, the Essex Scottish Regiment, Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, the South Saskatchewan Regiment, the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada and the Calgary Regiment. They were Canadians from different provinces, backgrounds and languages, brought together by service and their objective was extraordinarily difficult. German forces had transformed Dieppe and the surrounding coastline into a heavily defended position. The beaches were exposed. High cliffs dominated the approaches. Concrete bunkers protected machine guns and artillery. Tanks struggled to move across the loose stones of the beach and could not easily penetrate the town. Surprise, essential to the operation, was compromised but Canadian soldiers nevertheless pressed forward. Some units were pinned down almost immediately after landing. Others fought their way inland under devastating fire. Men attempted to rescue wounded comrades while themselves exposed to enemy positions. Commanders tried to reorganize surviving troops in the confusion of smoke, explosions and communications failures. By late morning, withdrawal had become unavoidable. The beaches that only hours earlier had carried the hopes of an ambitious Allied operation had become scenes of terrible destruction. For decades, historians have debated Dieppe. One argument maintains that the lessons learned from the raid contributed significantly to the planning of later amphibious operations, particularly the Normandy invasion of June 1944. Allied planners understood more clearly the importance of overwhelming fire support, specialized armoured vehicles, detailed intelligence, effective communications and the need to avoid heavily fortified ports during the initial assault. There is truth in that argument. However, Canadians should also resist the temptation to turn every tragedy into a necessary stepping stone toward later victory. Military history must allow difficult questions. Was the operation properly planned? Were its objectives realistic? Was sufficient intelligence available? Was adequate naval and air support provided? Were Canadian soldiers asked to undertake a mission whose risks had not been fully appreciated? Those questions do not diminish the courage of those who fought. Quite the opposite. The distinction between the bravery of soldiers and the quality of decisions made by senior leadership is essential to an honest military tradition. Soldiers do not choose the strategic circumstances into which they are sent. They carry out the missions assigned to them. That is why Dieppe contains a lesson extending far beyond the Second World War. Whenever Canada considers sending military personnel into danger, political and military leaders assume an enormous responsibility. Objectives must be clear. Intelligence must be sound. Equipment must be adequate. Allies must be reliable, and Canadians must understand why their sons and daughters are being placed at risk. Courage at the tactical level cannot compensate indefinitely for mistakes at the strategic level. There is another part of the Dieppe story that deserves remembrance. Two years after the disastrous raid, Canadian troops returned. On September 1, 1944, soldiers of the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division entered Dieppe after German forces withdrew. This time the Canadians came not as raiders fighting desperately to escape the beaches, but as liberators advancing across France. For the people of Dieppe, the connection with Canada had been sealed in blood two years earlier. The return of Canadian soldiers transformed that relationship from tragedy into liberation. Even today, memorials, cemeteries and regimental monuments in and around Dieppe testify to the enduring relationship between Canada and France. Visitors walking along the waterfront can look toward the same cliffs and beaches that confronted Canadian soldiers in 1942. The Second World War is passing from living memory into history. Younger Canadians are increasingly separated from the events by generations. That makes public remembrance more important, not less. Students should learn about Dieppe not simply as a paragraph in a textbook but as a human story. They should understand that the soldiers who landed there were often very young. Many had families waiting at home. Many had never seen combat before that morning. Some would spend years in German prisoner-of-war camps. Hundreds would never return. Behind every casualty number was a person. A mother received a telegram. A wife lost a husband. A child lost a father. A community lost a neighbour. Canada has a proud military history, but pride should never require mythology. The strongest nations are capable of remembering both victories and failures. Vimy Ridge represents determination and national achievement. Normandy represents liberation. Kapyong represents courage under overwhelming pressure. Afghanistan represents service in a very different generation of conflict. Dieppe represents something equally important: sacrifice under circumstances where bravery could not overcome the limitations of the operation itself. There is dignity in remembering such events honestly. There is also a warning. War has changed dramatically since 1942. Technology, drones, missiles, cyberwarfare and precision weapons have altered the battlefield. However, one fundamental reality has not changed. Political decisions eventually become personal realities for soldiers. A strategic concept discussed around a conference table may become, hours or months later, a young Canadian standing somewhere far from home facing mortal danger. That distance between decision and consequence must never be forgotten. As Canada marks the 84th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid, ceremonies will again honour those who served. These traditions matter. However, remembrance must be more than ritual. It should strengthen our understanding of history and deepen our sense of responsibility toward those who serve today. The generation that fought at Dieppe did not ask to become symbols. They were soldiers doing what their country had asked of them. Many never had the opportunity to grow old. They never saw the Allied victory of 1945. They never saw the Canada that emerged after the war — prosperous, democratic. We inherited that country. Our obligation is therefore simple. Remember their courage. Remember their suffering. Learn from the decisions that sent them into battle, and ensure that future generations understand what happened on those beaches on August 19, 1942. The stones of Dieppe are quiet today. The guns have been silent for more than eight decades. Memory must not become silent with them. Canada remembers Dieppe. Canada remembers those who fought. Canada remembers those who never came home. Lest we forget.

How do you rob a thief?

How do you rob a thief? By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Question: How do you rob a thief? wouldn’t that be nice if we could turn the tables, give those greedy, good for nothing, self entitled, thieving buggers a taste of the pain that is being inflicted on thousands of victims every year. I bet they would be furious, “how dare someone take my precious possessions that I have gained through all of my thieving ways” yah I’m talking to you, Sly and all your despicable brothers in arms. It all comes down to time, 5 seconds is all it takes to kick in a door, break or, crawl through a window that is unlatched or even worse left wide open, “the window of opportunity” in our last episode we provided some simple and extremely effective means to “FORTIFY” the most popular point of entry, the front entrance, I’m confident that we have eliminated the threat and Sly has used up at least a couple of minutes, he knows that he created some noise and attention! But still determined, So, what’s next? Well, let’s at least get out of the field of vision, the side of the house has in most cases another door, this is where the builder has provided a laundry room and quite often tucked in behind the garage. If this is not fortified it may fall victim to a heavy kick or two so let’s get out that toolbox and use the same defence mode for this door, a couple of “Guardian Flip Latches” extra long screws for the hinges and an extra long strike plate and screws on the lock side! Now, that window beside the door, great for providing natural light in a dark corner of the house and also easy to crawl through, after making more noise on the second door with no success, Sly is still motivated and pumped up on adrenaline, two more minutes consumed but still determined to get what he wants, he grabs the chair or garbage can that’s conveniently left at his disposal and he’s in, well at least we have taken 4 of the average 8 to 10 minutes that a burglary takes according to “Stats Can” Its interesting to me when I think of home security I think of engineering standards, you need to test any product by breaking it first, putting it through extensive pressure, bending it until it breaks simply to find out the “breaking point” building it up to the point of resistance, then, providing a strength multiplier and that is your “fail safe” limit. Exactly the same principle applies to home security! If you could continue to provide sufficient resistance to all points of entry you will come to a point that Sly will buzz off! in this case we took away 4 minutes of the precious 8 needed and you still suffered a loss, 4 minutes of hell! you have been violated! Now in some cases it may not be your front door that is the first point of entry, if you back on to a school yard or a wooded area then, Patio doors, family room windows and the basement may be the preferred point of entry. On my next episode to the world of resisting Sly and his cohorts, we will go back to that laundry room window, look at “Target Hardening” that point of entry and then move on the forest and school yard dwellers. The answer to the question, how do you rob a thief? Simple, you take away their time! Not on my watch, Sly. stay tuned!

One of the most important responsibilities

One of the most important responsibilities By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering One of the most important responsibilities of municipal government is also one of the least glamorous: taking care of the infrastructure taxpayers have already paid for. Roads, sidewalks, culverts, storm sewers, catch basins, bridges and public facilities all have a lifecycle. We can maintain them while they are still in reasonable condition, rehabilitate them before they fail, or wait until deterioration becomes so serious that full replacement is required. Those choices do not cost taxpayers the same amount of money. Pickering's own 2025 Asset Management Plan makes the challenge clear. It reports that 51 per cent of the City's road-corridor assets, measured by replacement value, are rated poor or very poor. Collector roads have an average Pavement Condition Index of 54, while local roads average 48 — both classified as "Needs Improvement." Approximately 60 per cent of local roads are rated poor or worse. The financial consequences matter just as much as the condition ratings. The City's modelling estimates that proactively maintaining and rehabilitating roads could potentially avoid approximately $5.6 million annually compared with allowing those roads to deteriorate until replacement becomes necessary. That is an important lesson in fiscal responsibility. Maintenance is not simply an expense. It is a cost we either manage today or risk paying much more for tomorrow. Sometimes refusing to spend a dollar at the right time creates a much larger bill later. To be fair, Pickering is investing significant money in infrastructure renewal. The City's approved 2026 Capital Budget totals approximately $73.2 million, with nearly $48.7 million classified as infrastructure renewal. That includes $5.25 million for road rehabilitation, along with major investments in culverts, stormwater systems, erosion protection, municipal buildings and other aging infrastructure. So the argument should not be that Pickering has no infrastructure plan. It does. The more important question is whether the pace of investment matches the condition of the assets. Stormwater infrastructure is another example. Residents rarely think about catch basins, storm sewers, culverts, channels and stormwater ponds until something stops working. Yet failures can contribute to standing water, flooding, erosion, property damage and expensive emergency repairs. Pickering is funding stormwater projects, including pond cleanouts, culvert replacement and restoration work. At the same time, the City's Asset Management Plan acknowledges that budget limitations have contributed to deferred maintenance and delayed stormwater upgrades. That tension deserves serious attention. The Asset Management Plan estimates that Pickering requires approximately $61.7 million annually for sustainable capital renewal while sustainable funding going forward is estimated at roughly $28.8 million — leaving an annual infrastructure funding gap of approximately $32.8 million. We cannot simply pretend that gap does not exist. Pushing necessary work into the future is not fiscal conservatism. It can simply mean passing a larger invoice to the next taxpayer. My approach is straightforward: maintenance first. Council should use real condition data, prioritize infrastructure according to risk, extend the useful life of assets taxpayers already own, aggressively pursue available outside funding and ensure that growth pays its appropriate share of growth-related infrastructure. Residents should also be able to clearly see what is being repaired, why it is a priority, and what delaying that work could ultimately cost. Pickering is going to keep growing, and growth will require new infrastructure. But growth cannot come at the expense of properly maintaining what generations of taxpayers have already built. Responsible government is not always about announcing the next big project. Sometimes it is about having the discipline to protect what we already own.

When Standing Up Makes You Sick

When Standing Up Makes You Sick Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It was like opening a time capsule when I met up with my college roommate after 35 years. We laughed about our good times together and recalled all the confidence we had about our futures at age twenty. Then the conversation turned to our children, and she told me about her daughter's long struggle to obtain a diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS. Once that diagnosis became clear, it is easy to point to a distinguishing symptom. For people with POTS, standing upright triggers a debilitating racing of the heart. But for the 2-3 million people in North America estimated to have the condition, figuring it out is no easy job. Experts are not sure why, but it’s a condition that tends to strike young women, aged 15-35, most often from comfortable, and white, families. This fits my roommate’s situation. It may be that POTS could be found in other segments of society, but neither patients nor doctors are making the connection. The root cause of POTS lies in the body’s remarkable automatic control system – the autonomic nervous system – which manages heart rate, blood pressure, circulation, digestion, and temperature control. When we stand, gravity pulls blood toward our legs. A healthy nervous system immediately responds. Blood vessels tighten, the heart adjusts, and enough blood continues to reach the brain. In someone with POTS, that response does not work properly. The body struggles to maintain circulation when upright, and the heart often speeds up dramatically to compensate. The result can be dizziness, fatigue, weakness, exercise intolerance, difficulty concentrating, and a pounding heartbeat. Some sufferers feel better when they lie down – but not all. When the autonomic nervous system is out of whack, all bets are off. Historically, and to date, many patients have struggled to find an explanation. Because routine heart tests and blood work may appear normal, some are told their symptoms are due to stress or anxiety. During the American Civil War, physician Jacob Mendes Da Costa described soldiers who suffered from racing hearts, fatigue, chest discomfort, and poor exercise tolerance. The condition became known as “soldier’s heart.” Although it was not the same diagnosis as POTS, researchers believe these individuals may have had problems involving the autonomic nervous system. Over the decades, doctors continued to encounter patients who became ill when upright. But it was not until the 1990s that researchers formally described and named POTS. Scientists now understand that POTS is not one single disease. Different patients may have different underlying causes. In some, nerves that regulate blood vessels may not function properly. In others, there may be abnormalities involving the immune system, blood volume, or the body’s response to infection. The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented attention to POTS. Some people recovering from COVID developed persistent symptoms including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and exercise intolerance. Researchers began investigating whether viral infections could trigger autonomic disorders in susceptible individuals. Although POTS is often associated with younger people, it can occur at any age. In older adults, symptoms may be mistaken for medication effects, dehydration, heart problems, or the normal challenges of aging. For my roommate and her daughter, and similar to many other families, it was a long and frustrating journey to the diagnosis of POTS. Ultimately, it took a team of specialists at the Mayo Clinic to design and initiate a four-week intensive program of physical, mental, and behavioural changes to daily routines that enabled them to return to normal life. With better knowledge about what’s going on, there comes an appreciation for the extraordinary things the human body does, even when just standing up.

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.