Showing posts with label downtown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label downtown. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Statins, Side Effects, and the Silence About Choice
Statins, Side Effects, and
the Silence About Choice
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
There’s a common organizational saying: structure drives behaviour. In institutional theory, it’s called path dependence. Once a structure or pattern is established, it becomes self-reinforcing. This is a problem in medicine. Researchers and specialists become deeply immersed in their own areas of expertise. They network within tight knowledge clusters. They protect their territory. And when they train recruits, they filter out possible solutions to problems before deliberation even begins.
This is the story – or an important part of a complex story – of the commitment by so many experts to statins in the treatment of heart disease.
A large meta-analysis recently published in The Lancet and reported in the British Medical Journal concludes that most of the side effects listed in statin leaflets – memory loss, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, erectile dysfunction – occur no more often in those taking the drug than in those taking a placebo. Regulators are now considering changes to product labels. Experts speak of “powerful reassurance.” We are told confusion has gone on long enough.
But here’s the question: reassurance for whom?
I am not lambasting the research. Randomized trials involving more than 120,000 participants deserve respect. If the data show that many feared side effects are less common than thought, then provide consumers with that information.
What I object to is the triumphal tone and the relentless march toward medicating ever larger swaths of the population without an equally forceful message about personal responsibility and informed choice – choice that includes information on treatment options that go beyond pharmaceutical drugs.
Seven to eight million adults in the UK already take statins. If guidelines are followed to the letter, that number could climb to 15 million.
And what is the public message?
Not: “Let’s first talk about your waistline, your diet, your blood pressure, your exercise habits, your smoking.”
Not: “Let’s see what happens if you walk briskly for 30 minutes a day.”
Not: “There are safe, effective, natural alternatives to the drugs.”
Instead, it is: “Don’t worry. The pills are safer than you think.”
That is not prevention. It’s pharmacological management.
Doctors complain that “negative publicity” has led patients to refuse statins or stop taking them. They suggest that switching between different statins reinforces “misinformation.” But perhaps patients are not irrational. Perhaps they are wary. And in today’s pharmaceutical marketplace, where billions are at stake, wariness is not a character flaw.
When a study funded by a major heart foundation reassures us that side effects are minimal and uptake should increase, skepticism is healthy. Not cynical. Healthy.
Yes, cardiovascular disease is a leading killer. Yes, lowering LDL cholesterol reduces risk. But medicine has drifted from treating disease to treating risk scores. The new threshold recommends considering statins for people with less than a 10% ten-year risk of cardiovascular disease. Think about that. We are medicating people who are, statistically speaking, unlikely to have an event in the first place.
And what do we tell them about the other levers they can pull?
Lifestyle changes can reduce cardiovascular risk by 30%, 40%, sometimes more. Weight loss lowers blood pressure and improves blood sugar. Exercise raises HDL cholesterol and reduces inflammation. A Mediterranean-style diet lowers cardiovascular events.
But lifestyle medicine takes time. It requires conversation, follow-up, and motivation. A prescription takes 30 seconds.
The pharmaceutical industry thrives on expanding definitions of risk and broadening treatment thresholds. That is the business model. But physicians are not supposed to be extensions of that model. They are supposed to be educators and advocates.
When the dominant message is “don’t worry, just take the pill,” they fail in that role.
Today’s approach to Debt?
When Employers See Your Value, Job Market Disconnects Disappear
When Employers See Your Value, Job
Market Disconnects Disappear
By Nick Kossovan
When it comes to my The Art of Finding Work columns, none of what I write is theoretical for me. It took me about 20 years into my career to grasp the importance employers place on value-add. Before this realization, I intellectualized my experience, which was of no value to an employer.
I believe two main factors significantly contribute to why job seekers struggle in a job market that, although highly competitive, is still hiring, though not as easily or quickly as they feel entitled to.
1. Having grown up overprotected and overindulged, with parents and teachers constantly telling them, "everyone wins," many job seekers never had to fight for anything and therefore aren't mentally prepared to compete for a job.
2. Intellectualizing their experience.
Many job seekers hold the naive belief that their “experience” and “credentials” should be enough to get them hired; in their minds, they don't have to prove how they contributed to their former employers' profitability. Ultimately, much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers stems from job seekers failing to articulate how they'll contribute to an employer's bottom line—not framing their value.
When job searching, your worth needs permission. You don’t decide your worth; employers do, which they determine based on how they perceive what your value or potential value to their business is. Your worth to an employer isn’t a given, nor is it a matter of self-opinion. Proving your worth is your responsibility.
An employer assessing a candidate’s worth is no different from making a large purchase or investment. If an employer sees value, which, as I mentioned and is worth repeating, is the jobseeker’s responsibility to demonstrate, in hiring a candidate (an ongoing expense), such as they’ll generate revenue, save money, or remove risks, they’re more likely to hire that candidate, provided they feel the candidate will mesh with their company culture, the team they’ll be working with, and will be manageable.
Understandably, employers look to hire low-risk candidates, defined by:
· Having a track record of delivering measurable outcomes.
· Coming across as someone who won’t be a disruptor (you’ll make things easier, not harder).
Employers aren’t interested in your experience per se; they’re interested in the value you added to your previous employer’s profitability, which you ideally will add to their business. Approaching your job search with “Here’s what I do” triggers the question, “So what?”
· "I'm fluent in Tagalog." · "I'm proficient in Excel."
· "I managed a help desk." · "I'm creative."
· "Results-driven leader with a proven track record."
Due to their intangibility, employers no longer take self-promotion statements, which are usually grandiose, or opinions about oneself, seriously. I’ve lost count of how many candidates talk a good game about themselves, but upon further due diligence (an assessment test, completing an assignment, asking ‘Tell me a time when’ questions), it became clear that talking a good game was their primary skill.
Recruiters and hiring managers scan resumes and LinkedIn profiles for numbers and context, not soft skills or empty phrases. Results outweigh opinions. Employers are only interested in hiring candidates who can deliver results. When was the last time you made a purchase—remember, hiring is equivalent to making a purchase—without considering the expected result(s)?
· In 2025, secured $1.5M in new business contracts by targeting businesses that serve Toronto’s Filipino community.
· Created a custom automated Excel template that cuts the time to generate weekly sales analysis reports by 80%.
· Implemented Zendesk AI Agents, reducing IT support’s average daily call volume from 850 to 680, a 20% decrease.
· Launched Wayne Enterprise’s new anti-frizz shampoo by producing and posting 20 engaging 30-second videos on its social media channels, resulting in a 28% increase in conversion rate over the previous launch, a colour-enhancing shampoo.
· Managed a $10M annual capital expenditure budget spanning 4 divisions. Achieved 15% savings in 2025 through vendor renegotiations.
Shifting from “What do I want to say about myself?” to “What evidence can I provide that I’m the solution to this employer’s problems?” will create “connects” between you and employers rather than disconnects. Reflect on how your skills have led to measurable outcomes.
The candidates who are getting hired aren’t the ones who are shouting the loudest or checking off all the proverbial boxes. The candidates employers are having conversations with are those they believe can effectively solve the problems the role is meant to address.
For an employer to view you as a solution worth paying for, they need to see evidence that you have solved problems for your previous employers. Position yourself around the employer’s problems and needs—What employer wouldn’t want to increase their profitability?—not your resume.
Every day, job seekers tell me or post on LinkedIn, complaining about how employers hire, as if that’s a smart job-search strategy (it isn’t), that they have years of experience and expertise, yet their applications go unnoticed. No acknowledgments. No conversations. It’s their ego talking. Job seekers expecting employers to merely value their “experience” and “expertise” without providing evidence of how they impacted their previous employer’s bottom line are the ones creating much of the disconnect between job seekers and employers, and then ironically complain about “the disconnect.” 
Freedom On Trial
Freedom On Trial
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
There is a new kind of tension in Canada right now. Not the loud kind that blows up in a comment section. The quiet kind that sits in your gut when you read the next federal bill and think, wait, can they really do that?
People are worn down. Prices are up. Trust is thin. When trust is thin, government power feels heavier. You hear it in plain talk from people who never cared about politics. They are saying, I keep my head down now. I do not post that stuff anymore. I do not want to be the one they make an example of.
That last line is the warning. Behaviour is changing.
The bill lighting up phones and church meetings is Bill C 9, the Combating Hate Act, introduced in September 2025. Ottawa says it targets hate, intimidation, and harassment, and protects access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and community centres. Most Canadians agree nobody should be threatened while walking into a house of worship.
The fight is about what else gets pulled in, and what becomes criminal when definitions get stretched.
Bill C 9 proposes changes to hate propaganda and hate crime rules in the Criminal Code. The part that has faith communities on edge is tied to removing a long standing defence that protects good faith discussion of religious subjects. In simple terms, that defence has been a legal shield for religious teaching and debate, even when a topic is sensitive, even when the message is unpopular.
That matters because religion is not only comfort. A lot of it is moral claims. Right and wrong. Sin and forgiveness. Marriage. Family. Human nature. Those topics will always offend someone. In a free country, offence is not supposed to equal crime.
When the legal line gets blurry, people stop talking. Not because they plan harm. Because they do not trust how the line will be drawn later, who can file a complaint, or what happens when a sermon clip goes online.
And in 2026 everything goes online.
A phone in the back pew. A short clip. A caption added by someone else. A few angry comments. Then the pile on. Context disappears. Tone disappears. Even a quote can be treated like a personal attack.
Some people say, if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is not how modern life works. Words are messy. Sarcasm gets read as threat. A hard opinion gets labelled harmful. A quote gets treated like intent.
Here is the fear Canadians are talking about. A country can slide into punishing speech, not only violence. The fear is not only a fine. It is a police file. A court date. A lawyer bill. A criminal label. A job that suddenly goes cold when your name gets searched.
And yes, people talk about jail.
It sounds extreme until you look at other countries that already charge people over online speech. Canadians keep bringing up England because it shows how “we are targeting harm” can become “we are prosecuting messages.” In the UK, some offences cover online messages judged grossly offensive, and convictions can bring penalties, including jail time. That is why Canadians ask, are we heading the same way?
Bill C 9 also lands in a country where online harms proposals keep returning. Ottawa and regulators have been pushing for stronger rules that pressure platforms to reduce exposure to certain content. The goals sound fine. Protect kids. Stop threats.
But the mechanics matter more than the slogans.
If platforms face legal duties and penalties, they protect themselves first. The safest move is to delete fast and wide. More removals. More automated filters. Less tolerance for blunt debate. Less patience for context.
That is how lawful speech gets squeezed without a judge. Private companies become the gatekeepers because they do not want trouble. Even if you never get charged, you can still get shut down. Your post disappears. Your reach drops. You get a warning that explains nothing. Then you stop posting, because it is not worth the headache.
Now add the specific worry for churches. If legal protections around good faith religious discussion are narrowed, it is not hard to picture more complaints aimed at sermons, Bible verses, flyers, youth talks, even a pastor answering a question after service. The fear is not that pastors want to harm anyone. The fear is that a broad law plus a complaint driven culture equals trouble.
A lot of Canadians already watch their words at work. Now they fear they will have to watch their words at church too. Once a church starts preaching like it is scared, something has changed.
Ottawa will say these bills target hate, not honest debate. But laws do not live in press conferences. They live in definitions and enforcement. They live in how police, prosecutors, regulators, and platforms interpret them over time. They live in what gets labelled hate, and who gets to decide.
Here is a basic test any reader can use.
Do these laws focus tightly on direct threats and real violence, with clear language that protects lawful speech? Or do they drift into punishing ideas, moral claims, and unpopular opinions?
Once the state starts managing ideas, it rarely stops at the first target. Language broadens. Enforcement gets uneven. The safest move for ordinary people becomes silence.
If Ottawa wants trust, the answer is not vague speech law. The answer is tight language, clear limits, and strong protection for lawful expression, including religious expression, even when it offends someone.
If you care about free speech, do not sleepwalk through this. Read what Bill C 9 changes. Watch whether Parliament removes the good faith religious defence. Ask your MP one direct question. Can Canadians speak honestly about religion, morality, and politics without fearing a police file, or worse?
Because once fear becomes normal, freedom shrinks quietly, and you notice it only after your voice is already gone.
Building A Culture Of Control
Building A Culture Of Control
As a Pickering City Councillor and the only elected official in Durham Region to attend the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) Drone as First Responder (DFR) Pilot Project community information night on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at the Education and Training Centre in Whitby, I witnessed firsthand the presentation of this program—already live and operational across our region.
No other municipal or regional representative was present, underscoring my ongoing commitment not only to the residents of Pickering but to the broader Durham Region. Unlike my counterparts, I serve without compensation, driven purely by a dedication to transparency, accountability, and protecting the freedoms of those I represent.
Durham Regional Police have launched one of Canada's first Drone as First Responder programs, with police-grade drones—manufactured by the American company Skydio—which will be docked strategically across the region. These are not recreational toys; they are advanced systems capable of launching and hovering over an incident scene in approximately 60 seconds—long before ground officers arrive. A drone could be filming your street, recording video, and transmitting live feeds at police discretion.
I must commend our Durham Regional Police Service—they are among the finest in the country, dedicated professionals who put their lives on the line daily to keep our communities safe. Their innovation in emergency response is admirable, but this program represents a slippery slope. Once we cross the line into expanded surveillance without ironclad safeguards, it's hard to turn back. History shows that tools introduced for "emergencies" often expand in scope, eroding privacy inch by inch.
Officials describe the program as a tool for emergencies and "operational incidents"—a term so vague and broad that deployment ultimately rests on police judgment. This raises serious questions: What if Quebec-style curfews returned, as we saw during COVID lockdowns? Could drones patrol neighborhoods to enforce compliance, monitor who is out after hours, or track individuals? During lawful peaceful assemblies—protests, marches, or community gatherings—might they hover overhead under the guise of "operational need" for situational awareness? We have already seen police drones deployed at large events elsewhere in Canada, and the potential for mission creep is undeniable when guidelines are this open-ended.
Consider the Million March for Children here in Durham a couple of years ago—a lawful assembly of parents and caregivers advocating for their kids. There was disturbing talk from City Hall, including straight from Mayor Ashe himself, questioning whether these protesters were "good or bad people." What would it take for DRPS to cross that line today? If a Chief Administrative Officer from any Durham municipality claimed they feared for their safety due to a legal protest, would drones be launched to surveil the participants? This isn't far-fetched; it's the logical extension of discretionary aerial monitoring in a region already leaning toward overreach.
Authorities assure us there is no facial recognition in use today. Yet footage can be recorded, stored, and subject to review. That data persists indefinitely. As artificial intelligence advances, future tools could analyze archived video for identification or patterns—especially with policies that evolve over time. Closer to home, Ontario Tech University is actively researching AI-coordinated drone swarms, where multiple drones operate autonomously. (Durhams Drones can also work autonomously together). Internationally, we see examples like China—the most surveilled country in the world—employing such technology for public monitoring and crowd control. Durham's program is not hypothetical; docks are installed, drones are flying, and the initiative is underway.
The community information night—featuring live demonstrations, discussions on privacy, and opportunities to meet operators—came after the fact. The decision to deploy was made without prior public consultation or meaningful input from residents. We were presented with a fait accompli: the program is here, now come learn about it.
This is not merely about faster emergency response; it is part of a broader pattern in Durham Region where policies increasingly tilt toward centralized oversight and data accumulation. Coupled with other initiatives—like the hate reporting line, essentially a snitch line allowing neighbors to anonymously report on neighbors or anyone for offensive comments, jokes, or perceived slights—it contributes to what can only be described as a culture of control. One where wide discretion allows surveillance tools to proliferate, personal privacy erodes incrementally, and meaningful oversight arrives only after implementation.
Durham residents deserve better. Is our region becoming a testing ground for always-on aerial monitoring? Are we comfortable with footage of our neighborhoods, homes, and families being captured, retained, and potentially integrated into more sophisticated systems down the line? Shouldn't citizens have had a real say before drones began launching over our streets, rather than being informed post-launch?
Public trust is built on transparency and genuine engagement, not retroactive briefings. I urge Durham residents to demand answers: full disclosure of deployment criteria, public access to flight logs, strict limits on data retention, and independent oversight to prevent overreach. Attend future sessions, contact your representatives, and voice your concerns. Our freedoms are not automatic—they require vigilance.
The truth matters. Let's keep pushing for it, together, before this "pilot" becomes permanent reality.
63 Million Insults And Our Mayor Thanks Them...
63 Million Insults And Our
Mayor Thanks Them...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
What is wrong with Oshawa.... It has got so bad that even the Generals Hockey Team management has publicly asked that fans bathe before attending games as some have complained that Oshawa fans stink. Even though management retracted the statement. It STILL STINKS.
That they would make such a statement public in the first place...
But they are not to blame as we do suck and we do stink... as how can any one thank GM for
investing 63 million when they are responsible for our Oshawa’s economic demise. For the loss of over 30,000 good paying jobs. For the decay in quality of life in Oshawa.
Not to mention the environmental mess they have left Oshawa. Yes, folks. “They Have Left”,
as anyone that thinks GM has any influence on our local workforce as they once did... has to go get their heads checked.
The days when GM workers could buy a house, a car a cottage and be able to send their kids
to University are long gone. This recent announcement is a total insult to Oshawa and all it’s Citizens. Yet, we have our phantom Mayor drop to his media knees and thank GM as if they are doing something great for Oshawa.
In reality GM use of the lands they so claim they own.... That they
rightly pay taxes on. According to record. GM was awarded those lands for as long as they produce cars in Oshawa.
Once GM pulls out or stopped producing cars. Those lands default back to the City of Oshawa.
This means we the taxpayers own those properties that are worth billions of dollars. Unfortunately in many cases an equivalent price tag for environmental clean up goes with it.
Then you ask. Why is GM tossing us a token.... Simple. GM by
putting those lands as their ownership possess great financial gain.
If they loose title. This means a loss to the company books. Not
to mention the possibility of having to clean the polluted lands.
It makes business sense to cut a cheque for a few millions to keep
the status quo and keep draining Oshawa. No one can say that they are not producing cars.
I can tell you one thing. Oshawa has no leadership. Thank God
that Carter is not coming back. The danger is that if a guy like Titto as he is being groomed to replace “yes” man Carter with “Si” man Titto. We are in for the economical spiral of our lives. You can be assure our taxes will continue to skyrocket and our quality of life slip to new lows.
You wonder... how can I make such bold statements... Well think of this way. Titto has sat on council for what 20 years. What has he contributed. I live in his ward. I have yet to see him in my office or at my residence. He does not even return phone calls. I am his City Newspaper and he does not return calls. Imagine how he treats the average taxpayer.
In 2026 we need to clean out the old and bring in the new. Guys
like Giberson, Kerr, Mckonkey, Neil don’t belong in politics as all
they done for Oshawa is sit on their hands and contributed little or
nothing. Giberson a third rate musician and before politics a dead
beat. How can you expect anything. Kerr an actor... self professed teacher and Mckonkey a realtor... They are and were over their heads when it comes to dealing with million dollar decisions. Giberson and Kerr had 2 terms to clean downtown and they done nothing. If I am wrong. I publicly challenge them to prove me wrong by writing a letter to the editor with their accomplishments. Councillors like Nicholson, Chapman, Lee... They should have never been politics. Nicholson is distant voice that is not representative of the people of Oshawa. Chapman, should have done the honorable thing and retired. He is not management material and as his leadership qualities... I bring to question as he has done nothing to improve the quality of life in Oshawa. He should know better. As for Lee. I am so disappointed. He has truly done nothing for his ward and he truly does not belong in politics.
Then what is left. Gray and Marks. If we have to pick an incumbent for Mayor...and the choice is Titto vs Gray. My money is on Gray. As for Marks. He has potential but sits watching the political storms come and go and is restrained from making a difference. The one guy with potential... 62 Million, please ....
Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job
Saturday, February 21, 2026
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT…
The Slow Death Of Something GREAT...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
What is it with humanity? No, matter what it is. The cycle of life is always the same. No matter the cause, purpose or other. Things come together for a common good and end up ruined, destroyed and or dead.
I say this with great liberty due to the fact that if anything history lessons are our indicators for our future. The Mayan, the Inca, Roman Empire, Vikings and so on...
Yet, we keep making the same mistakes time and time again. These mistakes come to fruition due to greed, ignorance and in many cases as Freud would assume a hyper extension of ego.
The ego is the conscious, organized part of the psyche that mediates between unrealistic, impulsive desires (the id) and the moral constraints of reality (the superego).
The superego is the ethical, moralizing component of personality in Freud's structural model, acting as an internal conscience that strives for perfection, guilt-free behavior, and societal conformity. With the understanding of these concept one can begin to appredicate failure in just about every system ever created by man.
We as human have a flaw in our psychic. It is as if we set up ourselves to fail.
Look at the history of the Internet for example. An electronic invention that revolutionized humanity.
I remember in it’s early stages. NO, one had computers and even less internet.
The technology was reserved for higher education and government institutions. I remember bringing the internet to Durham. I could not give it away. I approached all municipal government. They did not want it due to cost of updating their outdated computers.
During the early days, there were no browsers and no social media. ICQ was one of the first communication platforms. People could actually chat in live time. The internet during those days was self governed. People acted with respect and with civility. There was no commercialism. All operated on dial up modems with limited bandwidth.
Then came the introduction of very primitive browser. This opened the door to commercialism. People would sell books, booklets and self help books.
One of the first to appear online as a business was small companies like PayPal. Companies that offered the ability to make transactions over the internet.
This flooded the internet with porn site for pay. Online casinos running illegally. With the sudden surge in commercial interest online. The Google, Yahoo and many other browsers began investing millions in the development of their browsers.
Offering a platform for start up, home, and small businesses to sell their wares. Then the Amazon, Craig List and the like.
This realization of being able to make millions if not billions was the begging to the end of the internet. Today, the internet is nothing short of a commercial public toilet.
Flooded with all kind of tracking devices that produce millions of pop up windows offering you all kinds of merchandize.
The once internet that self governed and a marble for human communications has become a social public toilet.
Superegos - expressing all kinds of misinformation that set patterns of information controlled by governments through further misinformation. The old belief use to be. The most successful governments are those that can keep their population ignorant of the facts and fighting among themselves.
The internet is such arena. Now compounded by a false labeled Artificial Intelligence. We are doomed, as there is nothing intelligent about an artificial system set by our ignorance. AI is nothing but a new browser. A browser that can compose information faster than any human. This is not intelligence. This is just a show of our ignorance. The internet is slowly coming to it’s end.
Misinformation, over saturation of commercialism and the human need for interaction will soon deem the net absolete.
AI should be best labeled Artificial Ignorance of the facts.
Friday, February 20, 2026
Don’t let them scare you
Don’t let them scare you
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
Don’t let them scare you into overpaying! For quite some time now we have been in a full-blown buyers’ market. For some reason, currently, we are seeing bidding wars creeping in again. The last property that I collaborated on had a bidding war so to speak.
There were two offers, ours being one of them. I strongly urged my clients not to pay more than the asking price because the property was priced well, but with so many properties on the market and many of them simply not moving, it seemed ridiculous to pay more than the actual value of the house. Some agents welcome this but in fact it is not good for either side.
If you find yourself in a position of wanting to put an offer on a house be aware that the minute you put an offer on a house, the listing agent for that property fires off a blast notification to all parties who have booked a walkthrough of that property. The notification is to let them know that there is an offer on the property and if they would like to submit an offer as well, they need to do that now. The hope here is to create a bidding war. I find for the most part that unless the property has been viewed very recently by a few people, that there is generally no problem and no competition. If a property was viewed two weeks ago by someone and they have not yet put in an offer, chances are that they do not intend to.
So, the notification they receive just goes into the deleted file. That notification, however, can rile some people into action and before you know it you are in a bidding war. That is when you really need to think about your personal needs when it comes to a new home for you and your family.
The message here is clear. The market is saturated with houses that are not moving. If you are in the market this spring, you have a great opportunity to negotiate on any property you choose.
Never fear that you will lose out if you don’t pay their price because there are more properties coming on the market every single day. Do not be intimidated and do not act in haste. What is meant for you will find its way to you.
By The Numbers
By The Numbers
By Wayne and Tamara
I need some clarification on something my husband has told the world, but first, a little background. We’ve been married four years, and he has cheated on me twice. They were separate affairs, each lasting less than a year.
The first one we moved past by recommitting to each other. Well, at least I did. I was getting back to my old self, and we were going out on weekends canoeing, swimming, hiking, and bicycling. Shortly afterward I discovered the second affair. That one really threw me for a loop because he led me to believe things were getting much better.
Then yesterday I saw him on a website I thought was a site for uploading pictures of family and friends. I learned it is a social networking site. On the website he lists his relationship status as “it’s complicated.” When I asked him what that means, he said I read too much into things.
To me it sounds like “I am married but still available.” That doesn’t sit well with me. Now he is talking about us moving out of state away from my family. Does “it’s complicated” mean to him what it says to me?
Daphne
Daphne, the British psychologist Peter Wason conducted a revealing experiment. He gave university students three numbers—2,4,6—and asked them to tell him what rule they followed. Before they suggested a rule, the students were allowed to guess sets of numbers and ask if they followed the rule.
A student who suggested 8,10,12 would be told those numbers follow the rule. If the student then offered 14,16,18 or 1,3,5, again they would learn those numbers follow the rule. At that point the student would guess the rule is each number is two larger than the previous number.
But that is not the rule. If we tell you that 1,300,996 follows the rule, can you guess what it is? You’re right. The rule says each number must be larger than the one before it. What the experiment demonstrates is that human beings suffer from confirmation bias. We try to confirm our beliefs rather than trying to disconfirm them.
That’s what you are doing with your husband. You think when he is nice to you he is recommitting to you. It appears more likely he is trying to keep you from calling a lawyer, telling his parents, or stopping his behavior. When he takes you out for the evening, he may be celebrating what he just got away with.
Now he hopes to take you away from your support system, your family. Take a page from his book and do something without telling him. Contact the only person likely to solve your problem: a good divorce lawyer.
Wayne & Tamara
Benched
For four months I sporadically dated a woman I know from church. I fell in love with her. When I told her how I felt, she said she wasn’t ready yet. She felt I lacked self-confidence and that made me less attractive.
But she became interested again when she learned I was going to meet someone else at church. She asked if I would come by her house later that week. We had a great time, and the night ended with a passionate kiss or two. Maybe three or four, I lost count.
She says God has put three great men in her life, and I am one of them. She feels I am a different person now, and she is awaiting clarity on what to do next. However, when I asked her out for this weekend, she said she is going to the lake for the weekend with one of the other two men. Should I continue the relationship or move on?
Greg
Greg, you’re not a starter on her team. You’re second- or third-string. If you want playing time in the romance league, find another woman.
Wayne & Tamara
Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening. They Fail Trust.
Most Resumes Do Not Fail Screening.
They Fail Trust.
By Nick Kossovan
The crux of all hiring decisions comes down to one word: trust.
AI, combined with a growing number of malicious actors in the job market, has eroded trust between employers and job seekers, an issue that is worsening.
Today, everyone's resume looks great. Same buzzwords. Same frameworks. Same: "I managed," "I built," "I scaled." Miraculously, every candidate is strategic, results-driven and cross-functional. With AI, it is easy to create a slick veneer of tripe, filled with buzzwords from the job posting, at best, making hollow promises. Most job seekers, especially bad actors, focus on looking smooth.
In contrast, savvy job seekers focus on presenting evidence—quantifying their impact on their employer's business (read: profitability)—to build trust.
ATSs and, to a large extent, humans struggle to distinguish between effort, outcomes, and mimicking the job posting; therefore, hiring managers and recruiters seek job seekers who do what most don't: quantify, with numbers, the friction they caused in their previous employer's business.
What does "Led a team of inside sales reps to achieve sales quota" mean? What value does this sentence offer? Does it build any trust or credibility? The same for:
· "Managed and maintained the organization's social media accounts to strengthen Wayne Enterprises' online presence."
· "Managed the team calendar."
· "Handled customer inquiries."
· "Filed reports."
· "Supported sales and marketing efforts."
· "Improved office efficiency."
· "Hard worker with a go-getter attitude." (Isn't every jobseeker?)
These sentences list duties and opinions ("Employers don't hire opinions; they hire results") instead of what employers want to see: your accomplishments (read: results). Moreover, they fail to answer the critical "so what?" question.
Hiring managers and recruiters aren't asking, "Is this candidate impressive?" They're asking, "Can I trust this person to deliver the results we need?" Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles don't fail screening. They fail trust.
A highly effective job search strategy is to concentrate intensely on demonstrating to recruiters and employers that you are results-oriented. Candidates who come across as trustworthy, result-driven, and reliable, and who aren't afraid to own their results, are the ones employers swoon over.
A common job search myth, perpetuated by a sense of entitlement, is that one's experience, which is subjective, speaks for itself. It doesn't. Experience only holds value for an employer if the person with the "experience" can be trusted to produce measurable results. Job seekers need to understand that hiring doesn't occur in a reflective environment that gives a job seeker, who's a stranger to the hiring manager, the benefit of the doubt. Hiring occurs under pressure. Resumes and LinkedIn profiles are rapidly scrutinized for evidence of impact at prior employers. When a resume or LinkedIn profile doesn't provide evidence of impact, it becomes, without a second thought, a "No."
Hiring isn't mysterious, as many would like you to believe, especially those who benefit—make money—from you believing it is. It's layered. The first layer is answering the question every hiring manager asks themselves when scanning a resume: "What has this person achieved?" If what you've achieved leads the hiring manager to think, "[Name] could be someone we can use here," then the candidate moves on to the second layer, determining whether you can be trusted.
AI or not, resumes never tell someone's full story. As I pointed out at the beginning, the job market abounds with bad actors and job seekers who exaggerate or outright lie about their experience and qualifications, or whose behaviour (personality traits) isn't conducive to being an employer's ideal employee. Nowadays, employers understandably seek a comprehensive view of a candidate, so they:
· Google the candidate—check their digital footprint (read: behaviour)—and review their social media activity (articles, blogs, comments, posts), especially on LinkedIn, to determine whether they're interview-worthy. Does the candidate's online presence raise any questions? Are they associated with (written, commented on, reposted) any industry- or profession-related articles or blogs? What charitable activities do they engage in? Do any illicit or questionable activities appear?
· Look them in the eye, listen, and observe how they communicate during the interview. Speaking for myself, a lack of communication skills—the ability to articulate with confidence—is a non-negotiable requirement when I hire. The way a candidate communicates with me—I'll also ask candidates to write something to gauge their written communication skills and how they think (writing is thinking)—is how they'll communicate with customers, prospects, and their colleagues.
"The ability to communicate is critical to building relationships, to leadership, and to learning." Sheryl Sandberg, American technology executive, philanthropist and writer.
· Ensure the applicant can walk their talk by asking them to take an assessment test or complete an assignment. I've lost count of how many candidates I've interviewed who talked a good game but didn't pass an assessment or submit a subpar assignment.
Resumes and LinkedIn profiles have always contained a great deal of fluff, embellishments, and falsehoods. As employers grow increasingly weary of job seekers' claims, the core issue job seekers face is communicating their value in a few seconds and convincing employers they can be trusted. Job seekers who empathize with employers, have trust issues, and therefore focus on building credibility to gain trust will be far ahead of their competition.
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Karmageddon
By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton
CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE
Opinion: Municipalities need economists, not just accountants
Municipal governments in Ontario are widely regarded as financially disciplined. Balanced-budget requirements, strong audit practices and conservative debt management have created a culture of fiscal caution. That discipline has value. But in an era defined by housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and constrained revenue tools, caution alone is no longer sufficient. Most municipalities structure their finance departments around accounting expertise. Treasurers and chief financial officers are typically trained in audit compliance, financial reporting and budget administration. Their mandate is to ensure that spending aligns with revenues, that reserves are properly allocated and that statutory requirements are met. These functions are essential. But they are not economic modelling.
Accounting is, by nature, retrospective. It records and categorizes what has occurred. Economic modelling, by contrast, attempts to forecast behavioural responses to policy decisions. An accountant asks whether the budget balances. An economist asks what will happen if a variable changes. The distinction matters. Municipal councils today are routinely making decisions about development charges, property-tax rates, infrastructure financing and long-term debt issuance. These decisions influence housing supply, business location, migration patterns and assessment growth. They shape the local economy for decades. Yet many municipalities approach these questions primarily through an accounting lens. Consider development charges. When rates are increased to fund capital projects, the financial logic is straightforward: growth should pay for growth. But what is the elasticity effect? At what point do higher charges suppress housing starts? How does that affect long-term assessment growth?
Could a lower rate generate higher total revenue over time? These are economic questions. They
require modelling. The same applies to property-tax policy. What level of increase begins to influence business investment decisions? How sensitive are commercial properties to tax differentials across municipal borders? How do households respond to cumulative cost pressures? Without economic forecasting, councils risk making technically balanced but economically inefficient decisions. The consequences are rarely immediate. A budget can be balanced while housing starts decline. Debt ratios can appear manageable while assessment growth slows. Tax rates can rise incrementally without recognizing the point at which competitiveness erodes. Over time, however, these effects compound. Senior levels of government routinely integrate economic modelling into fiscal policy decisions. Provincial and federal ministries publish forecasts, stress-test assumptions and examine
behavioural impacts before implementing major changes. Municipal governments, which now manage increasingly complex infrastructure and growth mandates, should do the same. This does not mean replacing treasurers with economists. Accounting discipline remains indispensable. But municipalities would benefit from institutionalizing economic expertise alongside traditional finance functions. An in-house municipal economist – or a formalized economic modelling unit – could evaluate development-charge sensitivity, tax elasticity, infrastructure return on investment and long-term debt sustainability under varying growth and interest-rate scenarios. Major fiscal decisions would then be informed not only by compliance requirements, but by forward-looking analysis. Ontario’s municipalities
are being asked to grow faster, build more housing and maintain affordability, often with limited fiscal tools. In that environment, optimizing spreadsheets is not enough. Municipal governance must evolve from budget management to economic strategy. Balancing the books is necessary. Modelling the future is essential.
Saturday, February 14, 2026
When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames
When Common Sense Goes Up in Flames
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
By any measure, what happened in Switzerland a couple weeks ago is a human catastrophe. A room filled with young people full of promise was turned into a scene of lifelong grief. Families shattered. Futures erased. Survivors left with horrible scars.
Authorities will do what they must. Investigators will trace the ignition point. Building inspectors will scrutinize ceiling materials, fire exits, sprinkler systems, and renovations. Prosecutors will decide whether criminal negligence was involved. All of this matters. We should insist that regulations are enforced, and that those who ignored them are held accountable.
But more troubling than regulatory failure, this was also a failure of common sense.
That night, someone thought it was a good idea to set off flaming champagne sparklers in a crowded, enclosed space. Not outdoors in open air. But inside, with people packed shoulder-to-shoulder. That decision set in motion consequences that will echo for decades. And the truly chilling truth is this: it will happen again.
After every nightclub fire, warehouse inferno, or stadium stampede, we say “how could anyone have allowed this?” And yet, it happens again. Because novelty and spectacle overpower judgment. Because risk feels theoretical.
We like to think safety is something others provide. But real safety begins between our ears.
When was the last time you didn’t do something because your analytical internal voice said, “This isn’t smart”?
A snowstorm is rolling in. You’ve been waiting months for that weekend getaway. The hotel is booked. The car is packed. Do you pause? Or do you say, “We’ll be fine” as icy roads turn highways into high-speed skating rinks?
Your smoke detector hasn’t chirped in years. You can’t remember the last time you changed the battery. You assume it’s working.
There’s no carbon monoxide detector in the house. You’ve meant to buy one. But it keeps getting bumped to next weekend.
Your barbecue sits against the siding of your home. You know embers can blow. You know vinyl melts. But you’ve done it a hundred times without incident—so why move it now?
Your phone buzzes while driving. You glance down. Just for a second.
These are not rare behaviors. They are risks that get normalized. Most of the time, nothing happens. And that’s what makes them dangerous.
The tragedy in Switzerland was not caused by mystery physics. It was not an unforeseeable freak accident. Fire and sparks in confined spaces have been setting buildings alight since long before electricity was invented. Every firefighter knows it. Building codes reflect it. Insurance companies price it.
So what possessed someone to light flaming devices indoors? The answer is brutally simple: the same human instinct that tells us, “It’ll be fine.”
The heartbreaking reality is that many of the victims in Switzerland were young. They did not light the flame. They were simply there, trusting.
If there is anything to be salvaged from grief on this scale, it is a renewed commitment to thinking ahead and to pausing in the moment.
The families of victims are living with terrible grief. Our hearts are with them. But sympathy is not enough. If we truly honor the victims, we must change how casually we flirt with danger.
I’ve written about fireworks before, and I am not a fan. It is beautiful what they do in the night sky with ever more sophisticated displays. But without caution and common sense, there will be more horrible accidents.
In celebrating life’s joys, let’s choose to marvel at the things that will keep us alive, not make us dead. 
Dead and Gone… So What Does It Actually Cost?
Dead and Gone…
So What Does It Actually Cost?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
When someone dies, the first day is about shock, phone calls, and trying to understand what just happened. Very quickly after that, another reality shows up, whether families are ready for it or not. Questions about cost start to appear, sometimes quietly, sometimes all at once. If I were gone, I would want my family to know that this is normal, and that feeling uncomfortable talking about money at a time like this is something almost every family experiences. This is not always an easy topic to talk about. Cost and grief do not belong together, but in reality they often meet very quickly. I hear this from families across Durham more often than people might expect. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that price differences are common, and that they do not automatically mean something is wrong. When families first start asking about cost, this is usually where the conversation begins. In Durham Region, direct cremation is often one of the lower cost options families consider. In many cases, families may see prices starting somewhere in the lower thousands, but that number can change depending on timing, transportation, paperwork, and third party fees. Some providers include more services in their base price, while others separate them into individual line items. That alone can make two quotes look very different even if the final service feels similar. As families begin looking at other types of arrangements, costs usually increase simply because more is involved. Traditional burial or full service funeral arrangements often include visitation, staffing, facility use, vehicles, and coordination with cemeteries or churches. Cemetery costs in particular can vary widely depending on location, availability, and what is selected. That is why families sometimes see a total price that is several thousand dollars higher than what they expected when they first started asking questions. One thing I would want my family to know is that funeral homes do not control every cost. Crematorium fees, cemetery fees, clergy or celebrant fees, and government paperwork costs are often outside the funeral home itself. If one estimate includes those items and another does not, it can create confusion. It can feel like one provider is dramatically more expensive when in reality the quotes are simply structured differently. Timing can also matter more than people expect. After hours transfers, weekend arrangements, or urgent timelines can affect cost. Some providers build flexibility into their base pricing. Others only add charges if those services are needed. Neither approach is automatically better, but families deserve to understand how pricing works before making decisions. Many families I speak with are surprised by how normal it is to ask for written estimates and to take time to review them. There is no rule that says decisions must be made in a single conversation. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel comfortable asking for information in writing and taking a day to talk together before making final choices. If I could leave my family one practical piece of advice about cost, it would be this: ask which costs belong to the funeral home, and which costs are paid to someone else. That one question often makes quotes much easier to understand. I would also want them to remember that lower cost does not automatically mean lower care, and higher cost does not automatically mean better service. What matters most is whether the family feels supported, informed, and comfortable with the decisions they are making. These conversations are not about finding the cheapest option. They are about understanding choices clearly enough to make decisions without pressure or confusion. During grief, clarity matters more than anything else. Next week, I will write about something families often hear about but rarely understand clearly before they need it: how price lists work, what they are supposed to show, and how families can use them to compare options more confidently. 
RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA
RRSP vs TFSA vs FHSA
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
Which investment option is best for you!
When it comes time to decide which mix of savings is best for you, your options can look quite confusing. There are registered retirement saving plans (RRSP’s) Tax free saving accounts (TFSA’s and First Home Buyers saving accounts (FHSA).
Establishing which plan or combination of plans works best for you depends on your own personal, goals and financial situation.
RRSP’s, TFSA, s FHSA’s
Most Canadians hold RRSP’s where they can claim deduction and then the deferral of tax until they withdraw funds at retirement. RRSP’s have numerous other benefits and as Canadians many do not use these upon reaching retirement. Something you may wish to discuss in your preretirement years.
The introduction of TFSA has provided another powerful saving tool that allows investments to grow tax free with the opportunity to withdraw funds when need. This does have some restrictions if funds are withdrawn same year of contributions. The withdrawal of TFSA can create costly penalties if funds are repaid to quick.
First Homebuyers saving accounts FHSA is the newest registered plans that gives first time home buyers the opportunity to invest up to $40,000.00 in a lifetime for the purchase of a first homeowner tax free basis. This plan be open if you are over the age of 18. This plan is a great tool for grandparents that wish to help kids and grandkids with saving for a first home. Ask a qualified investment advisor how to arrange suggest a plan.
Like RRSP contributions are tax deductible and withdrawals for the purchase of a new home are non taxable like a TFSA
All plans have limits and maximum contribution limits, and you should always confirm your contribution limit in you CRA my Account.
Before making contributions discuss your options with a qualified investment advisor to ensure you are in vesting in plans that follow your risk tolerance.
Simple planning gets you where you need to go never chase the larger returns can bring larger loses.
It Is Not What It Seems!!!
It Is Not What It Seems!!!
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
This may seem like a personal rant but after speaking with several of my neighbours over the last couple of weeks I can guarantee you it is not.
What I am referring to is communication, or to be more precise, the lack there of between the public and their elected City Councillors.
Why is it that some Councillors are master communicators and others are missing in action? Take Rick Kerr and Brian Nicholson for example, they are both known for responding to their constituents. Actually, because they both communicate so well, a lot of people that are not residents of their wards will ask questions of them on Facebook regarding community matters and they will respond.
One Councillor in particular, Derek Giberson, who has been basically invisible for the last three years has now predicably started posting on Facebook that he is doing this or that in the hopes of having people think that he’s been doing this community work since he got elected three years ago, but he has been for the most part unseen and unheard. Now all of a sudden, he has taken to Facebook to post that he is hosting a series of meetings on the housing crisis, like he’s some kind of rock star. Well, the housing crisis is not new. In fact, the only thing that is new in this whole situation is that he is talking to the public.
I happened to notice a post that Derek Giberson made on Facebook a few weeks ago and it really irritated me. It irritated me because he is a Councillor that is well known for next to no interaction with his constituents. The people who elected him. His post on Facebook had the commenting turned off. It prompted me to make a post myself asking what kind of Councillor makes a post and turns commenting off? Well, the kind that is not interested in what the public has to say. That’s exactly who does that. Within one hour, Derek Giberson had the commenting turned on. Hmm…looks like someone took notice.
Just the other day my post received a message from another constituent. He said that he had hand delivered two letters to this Councillor at City Hall and made a few phone calls. This gentleman got no response to his hand delivered letters nor did he receive a return phone call.
Why does any Councillor anywhere think that that type of behaviour is alright? Moreover, why in the world would someone think they stand a chance of being reelected by people that they’ve ignored for their entire term in office? It certainly makes one wonder. 
Case Closed
Case Closed
By Wayne and Tamara
I met my boyfriend on an online dating service four months ago. About a month ago I went to the dating service website to take my profile off. Out of curiosity I looked his up, and it was still there. When I mentioned it to him, he said he would take his profile off because he wanted to be with me.
Now I know I should have trusted him, but something told me to test him. So I created a fake profile with a picture of an attractive woman and e-mailed him as the other woman. When he didn't respond, I e-mailed again. He still didn't respond. I realized then he must have canceled his membership, so I looked him up and inquired if he was the guy on the dating site.
I told him I was new to the site, thought he was attractive, and maybe we could meet for a drink sometime. When I asked if he was seeing someone, he said he met someone who could be serious and had a lot of potential. I asked again if he wanted to meet, and eventually he said maybe.
That broke my heart. I got my girlfriend to phone him as the other girl. When she got him on the line, he was suspicious but hesitantly agreed to meet her for a drink. At that point I told him I was the girl who didn't exist. He said he thought it was either me or some kind of prank.
I am not a jealous person by any means, but I wonder if we can get past this.
Eva
Eva, the law does not permit entrapment. Entrapment occurs when the idea for a crime is suggested by the police, the police talk a person into committing the crime, and the person was not previously willing to commit the crime.
Once you realized your boyfriend canceled his membership you should have stopped. He is innocent of any crime, but you have proven you are by nature a jealous person.
Tamara
Favorite Son
My husband's parents own a dairy farm, and his brother works full-time on the farm and draws a wage. My husband has a very demanding job, yet he is expected to work on the farm each weekend, count cattle in the morning, and does not get paid even for gas.
Our family time is nonexistent. The phone rings and my husband runs. The only time we get together is when I book a holiday. I really think my husband is frightened of his parents. They say his brother needs time with his child, but what about me and our children?
When we go away, my husband is so burnt out he is ill for the first few days of our break. But when we are away, he is like a different person. I'd do anything to save my marriage, but I'm not sure how much more I can take.
Mona
Mona, there is a South American bird with two subspecies, one which builds a nest on the ground and one which nests in a tree. Occasionally a male of one subspecies will get together with a female of the other.
When this happens the birds live in great confusion. One puts nesting material on the ground, while the other continually moves it to the branch of a tree. The two never succeed in building a proper nest and usually this results in a mating failure. Occasionally, however, they do struggle and successfully raise chicks.
Good parents raise their children to be independent and self-sufficient, knowing that love is the bond which will hold their children to them always. Some parents, however, use demands and obligations to tether their children. That is your husband's problem.
There is no resolution to this problem unless your husband decides he wants to build his nest with you.
Wayne
Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst
Durhams Regions New Hate Reporting Program” Is Orwellian Bureaucracy at Its Worst
Durham Region has launched what it calls a “Community-Based Hate Reporting Program,” and it is being sold to residents as a progressive step toward safety and inclusion. But I’m going to say what too many politicians are too afrai
d to say: this program is Orwellian, dangerous, and an insult to every Canadian who believes in freedom, due process, and democratic accountability. As a Pickering Councillor, I am 100% opposed to it, and I believe Durham residents should be outraged that taxpayer dollars are being used to create a system that encourages anonymous accusations, bureaucratic surveillance, and the quiet erosion of our rights.
Let’s be clear about something. Canada already has laws that deal with hate crimes. We already have a Criminal Code. We already have police services and courts that investigate and prosecute actual criminal conduct. Assault is illegal. Harassment is illegal. Threats are illegal. Vandalism is illegal. The promotion of hatred toward identifiable groups is illegal. If someone commits a crime, police can lay charges, evidence is reviewed, and the justice system determines guilt or innocence. That is how a free society functions. So the obvious question is this: what exactly is Durham Region solving here? Because there is no legal gap. There is no crisis that requires municipal staff to collect anonymous complaints about speech, opinions, “bias,” or interpersonal disagreements. This program doesn’t prevent violence, it doesn’t stop criminals, and it doesn’t make anyone safer. What it does do is create a government-run system for tracking allegations against ordinary residents without evidence, without verification, and without accountability.
The most alarming feature is that it encourages anonymous reporting. Think about the implications of that for even a moment. Anyone can report anyone. A neighbour feud. A workplace disagreement. A political argument. A social media comment. A complaint from someone who simply dislikes you. With a few clicks, an accusation can be filed, logged, analyzed, and stored. The accused may never even know it happened, and they will certainly never be given the opportunity to respond, defend themselves, or challenge the claim. That is not justice. That is not fairness. That is not Canadian. That is a system designed to normalize suspicion and fear, where the government quietly collects unverified allegations about its own citizens. And who is reviewing these complaints? Bureaucrats. Municipal staff. Victim services administrators. Unelected individuals who are not accountable to the public in any meaningful way. These are not police officers. These are not judges. These are not trained legal authorities. They are government employees being put in the position of deciding what qualifies as “hate,” what qualifies as “bias,” and what qualifies as a reportable “incident.” That is ideological policing by bureaucracy, and it is exactly how free societies begin to rot from within. People begin to self-censor. They stop speaking freely. They stop questioning. They stop criticizing government. They stop debating controversial topics. Not because they are guilty of a crime, but because they are afraid of being reported, labeled, and quietly added to a database.
Durham Region is now creating a government-held repository of unverified accusations about residents. We are told this is for “trend analysis,” but that phrase should alarm every thinking person. Governments do not build databases and then keep them small. They expand them. They integrate them. They share them. And they eventually justify their existence by claiming they need more power, more funding, and more authority. Today this program is presented as separate from other municipal services, but anyone who understands modern data systems knows how quickly that can change. Integration is not some far-fetched conspiracy. It is the natural evolution of government bureaucracy. A complaint logged today could become an internal profile tomorrow. A pattern of anonymous reports could become a “risk assessment.” And once a government begins collecting subjective accusations, the line between “public safety” and “citizen monitoring” disappears faster than people realize.
Even more disturbing is the complete lack of consequences for false reporting. There are no penalties. No accountability. No safeguards. In a real justice system, making false accusations can carry serious consequences. But in this program, anyone can anonymously accuse someone of being hateful, bigoted, or biased, and there is no legal consequence because it is not a formal criminal process. That means this program is wide open to abuse. It can be weaponized for revenge, harassment, and political targeting. And if you don’t think political targeting is possible in today’s climate, you haven’t been paying attention to what has happened across this country over the last several years, where dissent is increasingly treated as dangerous and disagreement is increasingly treated as hate.
This is where history matters. Because we have seen this before. Anyone who has studied Nazi Germany understands that authoritarianism did not begin with camps and uniforms. It began with propaganda, fear, and citizen reporting systems. It began with governments encouraging neighbours to report neighbours. It began with people being labeled as “problematic” or “dangerous” for speech, opinions, or associations. It began with the normalization of surveillance culture, justified in the name of “public good.” It began with bureaucrats collecting information and quietly building files. That is how totalitarian systems grow: not all at once, but step by step, policy by policy, database by database, until citizens no longer speak freely because they fear the consequences of being reported. That is why this program should not be dismissed as harmless. The infrastructure of authoritarianism is always built under the banner of safety and morality. That is exactly what makes it so dangerous.
And make no mistake, this program raises serious Charter concerns. Freedom of expression is not protected only when speech is popular. It is protected precisely because people must be allowed to hold and express opinions that others may dislike. Freedom of association matters because citizens must be able to gather, organize, and participate in public life without fear of being tracked. Privacy matters because the state should not be building databases about its residents based on anonymous allegations. Due process matters because no person should be accused, recorded, and categorized without being given a chance to respond. Even if Durham Region claims this is “non-criminal,” the chilling effect is the same. People will stop speaking. They will stop engaging. They will stop questioning. That is how democracy dies—not through force, but through fear and compliance.
And all of this is being done with taxpayer money—approximately $89,000 over two years—for a program that does not stop crime and does not prosecute criminals. At a time when families are struggling to afford groceries, housing, and fuel, Durham Region has decided to spend public money creating a bureaucratic pipeline for anonymous complaints. That should outrage every resident, regardless of political affiliation. Government should be focused on real public safety, real crime prevention, and real support for victims—not building reporting portals that act as a mechanism for social control.
If Durham Region truly wanted to combat hate and violence, there are real solutions: stronger policing, better mental health supports, outreach programs, education initiatives, and direct support for vulnerable communities. But instead of focusing on criminal conduct and real threats, they have chosen to create a system that encourages grievance reporting and expands government monitoring. This program does not protect the public. It trains the public to spy on each other. It creates distrust. It chills speech. It empowers bureaucracy. And it lays the groundwork for future expansion.
Durham residents should be demanding immediate transparency and accountability. Who oversees this database? Who has access? How long is the data stored? What prevents integration with other municipal systems? What safeguards exist against malicious reporting? What rights do accused individuals have? What oversight exists to ensure this program is not weaponized politically? These questions are not optional. They are essential. Because once a government builds the infrastructure to monitor its own citizens, it rarely gives that power back.
This is not about safety. This is not about inclusion. This is about control. And as a Pickering Councillor, I will oppose any initiative that moves our communities closer to a culture of surveillance, anonymous reporting, and bureaucratic profiling. History has already shown us where these systems lead, and Canadians should not tolerate them at any level of government. Not federally. Not provincially. And certainly not locally. If we want a safe society, we enforce laws against real crime. We do not build Orwellian programs that encourage residents to report each other in the shadows. That is not progress. That is regression. And if we do not stop it now, we will one day look back and wonder how we let it happen.
So I ask the people of Durham: when is enough enough? How many red flags do you need before you recognize the direction we are heading? Because the slow demise of Durham will not happen overnight — it will happen one program, one policy, and one surrendered freedom at a time.
Canada Will Find Its Way Back
Canada Will Find Its Way Back
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Canada is in a rough place right now. You can feel it when you talk to people at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, or waiting for the bus. Folks are tired. Not just tired from work, but tired in their bones. Tired of being talked down to. Tired of being told they are the problem.
The job market keeps shrinking. Tens of thousands of Canadians have stopped looking for work because they see no future in it. Young people are stuck bouncing between short contracts and low pay. Seniors, people who worked their whole lives, are now showing up in shelters. Food banks are busier than ever. These are not rumors. They are happening right now.
At the same time, billions of taxpayer dollars are leaving the country. We are told there is no money for housing, health care, or seniors, but there always seems to be money for something else. That makes people angry, and it should.
Many Canadians feel like they no longer recognize their own country. If you speak up, you are labeled. If you ask questions, you are attacked. Disagree with the government and you are called names instead of being answered. That is not how a healthy country works.
There is also a growing feeling that some groups are allowed to be openly targeted. Christians are mocked. White people are told they are guilty just for existing. Many people are afraid to even say that out loud because they do not want to lose their job or friends. But pretending it is not happening does not fix it.
Canada was built on the idea that you earn your keep. You work hard. You help your neighbors. You raise your kids. You do not expect special treatment, but you expect fairness. That idea is being pushed aside and replaced with something else. Something that says your value depends on which group you belong to.
That way of thinking will not last forever.
History shows this again and again. Movements built on division always burn out. They get loud. They get angry. Then they collapse under their own weight. It may not happen fast. It may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen.
Canada has been through worse times than this. The Great Depression nearly broke families. Two world wars sent young men overseas and left scars that never healed. People suffered. People went hungry. But the country pulled together because families stuck together.
That is what matters now.
Pull your family closer. Talk to your kids. Eat meals together when you can. If one of your children has been deeply influenced by a university or online world that teaches them to hate their own country or family, be patient. That is hard. They may say things that hurt. They may call you names. They may tell you that you are everything wrong with the world.
Stay calm.
In time, many of them will learn who really cares. It will not be activist groups. It will not be loud online movements. It will be the people who showed up when life got hard. Family always matters in the end.
Do not stop loving each other. Love is not weakness. It is what holds people steady when everything else is shaking. You can be strong and still care. You can fight for your country and still be kind.
There is a lot of talk about hate these days. But most regular Canadians are not hateful. They are worried. They are stressed. They are trying to protect their kids and hold onto something familiar in a fast changing world.
That does not make them bad people.
It makes them human.
Canada does not need saving by outsiders. Nobody is coming to rescue us. The only thing we have is each other. Neighbors. Families. Communities. That is how this country was built in the first place.
We also need to stop being afraid of our friends. The United States is not our enemy. Americans are just people, same as us. They argue. They vote. They make mistakes. Whoever is leading them at any moment does not change that. Fear helps no one.
What Canada needs now is honesty. Honest debate. Honest media. Honest leaders who remember who they work for. Not activists. Not donors. Not loud online crowds. Regular people.
This period will pass. The anger will burn itself out. New generations will look back and ask how things got so divided. They will also rebuild. My hope is that my grandchildren will live in a Canada that remembers fairness, hard work, and respect again.
That future will not be handed to them. It has to be protected, talked about, and fought for. Calmly. Clearly. Without hatred.
Stay chill, Canada. Do not turn on each other. Hold your ground without losing your heart. That is how countries survive hard times.
We have done it before. We will do it again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)