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

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

The Awkward Reality of Inheritance

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

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags

Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. Two Policing Models. Two Philosophies. Two Very Different Price Tags. There is something happening across Ontario that taxpayers need to start paying very close attention to. Policing in Ontario is no longer just about policing. It has increasingly become about massive capital infrastructure empires. Across the province, police headquarters and policing campuses are becoming larger, more architecturally elaborate, more consultant-driven, and dramatically more expensive than what many other jurisdictions across Canada and the United States are building. Meanwhile, provinces like Alberta appear to have taken a far more pragmatic and operationally focused approach. And taxpayers should be asking why. The Ontario “Police Campus” Model In Ontario, modern policing infrastructure increasingly resembles institutional corporate campuses. Large headquarters. Massive administrative wings. Architectural showcases. Integrated civic complexes. Multi-phase expansions. Endless consultant studies. New buildings replacing perfectly functional older buildings. The result? Hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs that ultimately land on the backs of property taxpayers.In some municipalities and regions, police infrastructure has evolved far beyond what is operationally necessary and has entered the realm of prestige infrastructure. Taxpayers are told: - the buildings must be state-of-the-art, - the facilities must be consolidated, - the campuses must be future-ready, - and every department must be centralized under one roof. But few people ever ask the obvious question: Does this actually improve policing outcomes enough to justify the cost? Because operational policing and expensive real estate are not necessarily the same thing. Alberta’s More Practical Approach By contrast, Alberta has historically appeared to maintain a more practical model. Not flashy. Not over-designed. Not campus-oriented. Just functional policing infrastructure. More emphasis appears to be placed on: - operational efficiency, - practical deployment, - adaptive reuse, - phased modernization, - and maintaining functional buildings longer. In many Alberta communities, policing facilities still resemble what policing facilities were traditionally intended to be: working operational buildings. Not monuments.And importantly, Alberta’s approach often appears far closer to the American municipal model. Across much of the United States, police departments commonly continue operating from: - upgraded legacy facilities, - industrial-style buildings, - phased retrofits, - decentralized operations, - and lower-cost modernization programs. The emphasis is often: “Does the building function properly?” —not— “Does the building impress people?” That difference matters. The Cost Explosion Problem Ontario taxpayers are now living through an era where virtually every public-sector institution appears to believe it requires: - a new headquarters, - a major expansion, - a flagship campus, - or a transformational capital project. Police. Municipal administration. Libraries. Transit facilities. Public works yards. Health facilities. Everything becomes bigger. Everything becomes more expensive. Everything becomes consultant-driven. And taxpayers are expected to quietly absorb the consequences through:- higher property taxes, - increased debt, - development charges, - and long-term operating costs. The problem is not policing itself. The problem is whether Ontario has lost sight of the difference between operational necessity and capital ambition. Bigger Buildings Do Not Automatically Mean Better Policing This is the uncomfortable conversation many politicians avoid. A larger headquarters does not necessarily reduce crime. A newer building does not automatically improve response times. An architecturally impressive campus does not inherently make communities safer. Good policing is ultimately about: - leadership, - deployment, - accountability, - staffing, - training, - community trust, - and operational effectiveness. Not marble floors and oversized atriums. Taxpayers Need To Start Asking Hard Questions Before approving another massive police capital project, Ontario taxpayers should be asking: - Can existing facilities be modernized instead? - Can phased retrofits achieve the same result? - Is consolidation actually necessary? - Are administrative expansions excessive? - Is the architectural scope reasonable? - How does this compare to Alberta or U.S. jurisdictions? - Are we building for operational need—or institutional prestige?These are not anti-police questions. They are pro-taxpayer questions. And in an era of affordability crises, exploding property taxes, and infrastructure deficits, they are questions that desperately need to be asked. Because somewhere along the way, Ontario appears to have drifted from practical policing infrastructure toward institutional empire-building. And taxpayers are paying the bill.

There’s No One Medical Truth

There’s No One Medical Truth Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Advice has a habit of changing. One decade, eggs are dangerous. The next, they’re back on the plate. Butter was once a villain. Now it’s got its place. Coffee? Bad, then good, then possibly essential – depending on which expert you ask. It leaves people wondering: if the science is so clear, why does it keep shifting? Medicine has never been one unified story. Believing that can lead you badly astray. This is an opinion column, and for over 50 years, a lot of what’s been shared has rubbed the medical establishment the wrong way. That’s because there has been little patience for hypocrisy and groupthink. If something doesn’t make sense – in medicine, politics, or anything else – you might read about it here. All things in life are shaped by human nature. Bright ideas compete. Smart people argue their cases. Institutions defend themselves. And when a belief becomes widely accepted, questioning it can be problematic. Yet history shows that today’s “settled science” often becomes tomorrow’s revision. Part of the problem is that we talk about medicine as though it were a single, consistent approach. It isn’t. Around the world, and across time, very different models of health have developed. Some focus on drugs and surgery. Others emphasize nutrition, environment, or the body’s internal balance. Even within modern Western medicine, there are competing schools of thought. And they don’t always ask the same questions or look at the same evidence. Take something as simple as vitamins. Most of us were taught vitamins are there to prevent deficiency diseases. A little vitamin C to avoid scurvy. Enough vitamin D to protect bones. Just enough to get by. But some researchers have asked a different question: what happens if the body is given not just “enough,” but far more, under careful supervision? Could higher levels change how the body functions under stress or illness? That idea makes many experts uncomfortable. Yet it reflects a broader truth about biology: the dosage matters. A cup of coffee can sharpen your mind. Ten cups will do something very different. The same principle applies throughout the body. Substances that are helpful at one level can behave in entirely different ways at another. There’s another layer to this as well. The body doesn’t operate one chemical at a time. It works as a complex network – systems interacting with systems. Nutrients, hormones, and enzymes influence each other in ways that are still not fully understood. Some approaches to medicine look at these interactions closely. Others study one factor at a time, because that’s easier to measure and test. Neither approach is inherently wrong. But they can lead to very different conclusions. And that’s the point. When experts disagree, it’s not always because one side is foolish or uninformed. Often, they are simply looking at the problem through different lenses, asking different questions, using different methods, and defining success in different ways. Unfortunately, once a particular way of thinking becomes dominant, it tends to crowd out alternatives. Medical training, research funding, and professional reputation all reinforce what is already accepted. Over time, that can make the system less open to new or unconventional ideas. The Gifford-Jones mantra has been to push back against that tendency. It means you should be cautious about believing that any one voice speaks for all of science. When you hear a confident medical claim, it’s worth asking a few simple questions. What exactly was studied? What wasn’t? Are there other experts who see it differently? And if so, why? These aren’t the questions of a cynic. They’re the habits of an informed consumer.

Middle Man

Middle Man By Wayne and Tamara I'm torn about how to handle this. My 23-year-old daughter got engaged last November. This weekend she and her fiancé visited us. Yesterday I sat down at my computer and her fiancé’s email was still open. In the sent mail I found pictures of his ex-girlfriend wearing nothing but a partially-open robe. This email is one he sent to himself in January. I’m no prude, but I think if nothing else this was stupid on his part. It would cause a major issue if she discovered it. Best case, they're pictures from years ago, and he simply wanted to keep them. Worst case, she is still sending him photos. I’m thinking of confronting him, and if he’s honest with me, then I’ll bury this. But if he lies, I will make him come clean with my daughter. I don't want to cause a problem where there isn't one, but I don't want to ignore something that may be a real issue. Leo Leo, one of the failings of honest people is they expect dishonest people to think as they do. The liar and the victim of the lie have a huge difference in perspective. If your daughter’s fiancé is actively involved with his old girlfriend, he has no reason to tell you the truth. If you talk to him, you should expect the same answer—denial—whether he is telling the truth or lying. The easy way out is to say nothing and pretend you never saw the photos. But the power to keep quiet is not something you have. It is better for your daughter to know now rather than knowing later. She is the one you have a relationship with. When you see someone breaking into your neighbor’s house and don’t tell your neighbor, who are you siding with? The thief. This young man brought consequences on himself. You will always have this in your head when you deal with him. You can’t stop your daughter from making mistakes, but you can give her the information you now possess. Talk to your daughter, alone and soon, in a calm and collected manner. Carefully tell her, “If something came of this, and I didn’t tell you, I would be kicking myself forever. I don’t have the knowledge to know what this means, but I saw something which hurt me because it may hurt you.” Then trust her to do the right thing. Wayne & Tamara Suspicions I work for a small company. Since I have been on board our very young owner has made accusations, but today was the worst. He was getting ready to leave and next to me was a check from one of our customers. It was similar in color to the ones I cut and he signs. He wasn't gone 10 minutes when I got a phone call, asking me why I signed one of our checks. I was dumbfounded then looked around and saw the customer’s check. I told him what he had seen and assured him I do not sign checks because I'm not authorized. There was great hesitation in his voice, and since then he has been rude and snappy with me. Meghan Meghan, your boss “saw” something he didn’t see. Rather than be disproven, he wants to defend himself and carry around the idea he wasn’t wrong. Perhaps he’s under stress, sensitive about his authority, or likes to bully others. Perhaps he is suspicious of others because he knows himself to be untrustworthy. Whatever the case, you have to protect yourself. Document the date and time of the phone call and details about the check involved. Explain to others what happened. In the meantime, act absolutely above board and professionally. If you think your job is in danger, act like your job is in danger and take steps to find a more welcoming workplace. Wayne & Tamara

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Is Canada’s Strategic Wake-Up Call

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis Is Canada’s Strategic Wake-Up Call by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Every time tensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz, Canadians watch images of naval deployments, oil tankers, missile exchanges, and diplomatic ultimatums as though these events belong to another world. They do not. What happens in that narrow maritime corridor between Iran and Oman has direct implications for Canada’s economy, national security, inflation, trade, defence posture, and geopolitical relevance. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways on Earth. Roughly, one-fifth of global petroleum consumption passes through it. Major energy producers in the Gulf depend on it to export oil and liquefied natural gas to Asia, Europe, and global markets. Even the mere possibility of disruption immediately affects international energy prices. Markets react not only to war itself, but to uncertainty, fear, and perceived risk. When Hormuz becomes unstable, gasoline prices rise in Toronto and Vancouver. Shipping insurance costs increase. Airlines face higher jet fuel expenses. Food transportation becomes more expensive. Inflationary pressure spreads across the global economy. Stock markets fluctuate. Supply chains tighten. The consequences eventually reach Canadian households, manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. But beyond short-term economics lies a much larger issue — one that Canadians have avoided confronting for too long. The Hormuz question is ultimately about whether democratic nations are prepared to secure their own economic survival in an increasingly unstable world. It is also about whether Canada is prepared to recognize its own strategic importance. For years, Canada has treated energy policy largely as an internal political dispute instead of understanding it as a matter of national and allied security. Successive governments have often approached pipelines, LNG facilities, ports, and resource development defensively, apologetically, or through narrow regional lenses. Meanwhile, authoritarian states and unstable regions continue to dominate critical segments of global energy supply. A major Hormuz crisis would expose the risks of that approach overnight. The reality is simple: when global instability rises, countries look for reliable partners. Stable democratic producers suddenly become indispensable. Canada is one of the few nations in the world with the combination of resources, institutional stability, engineering expertise, environmental standards, and geographic scale necessary to play such a role. This should fundamentally reshape Canada’s national conversation. Canadian energy infrastructure is not merely an economic matter. It is strategic infrastructure. Pipelines, ports, LNG terminals, rail corridors, refineries, electrical grids, and Arctic transportation routes are now directly tied to global geopolitical stability. In many ways, infrastructure has become the modern equivalent of national defence preparedness. Projects such as LNG Canada on the Pacific coast are therefore far more significant than many Canadians realize. Canadian LNG exports can help allies reduce dependence on unstable energy corridors and authoritarian suppliers. European countries learned painful lessons after the ongoing conflagration in its eastern border regarding overreliance on geopolitical adversaries for energy security. Asia faces similar vulnerabilities regarding Hormuz. Canada has an opportunity to become part of the long-term solution. That does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility. On the contrary, Canada can demonstrate that responsible democratic energy production under rigorous labour and environmental standards is preferable to dependence on regimes where transparency, accountability, and environmental protections are weak or nonexistent. The global transition toward cleaner energy will take decades, not years. During that transition, democratic energy suppliers remain essential for global stability. The same logic applies to Canada’s vast critical mineral reserves. Modern economies and military systems increasingly depend on lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, uranium, and rare earth elements. Canada possesses many of these resources in abundance. Strategic competition in the coming decades will increasingly revolve around secure supply chains for both energy and advanced technology. A Hormuz crisis would reinforce another uncomfortable reality: globalization alone cannot guarantee security. For years, Western democracies assumed that economic interdependence would reduce geopolitical conflict. Instead, the world is entering a period of renewed great-power competition, regional instability, cyber conflict, strategic coercion, and supply-chain vulnerability. Energy chokepoints such as Hormuz demonstrate how interconnected and fragile the global system has become. Canada must adapt accordingly. - That adaptation includes defence policy. The Royal Canadian Navy has previously contributed to coalition operations protecting maritime security in the Gulf region and elsewhere. Canadian naval personnel have earned respect internationally for professionalism and operational effectiveness. Future crises may once again require allied maritime patrols, escort missions, surveillance operations, or deterrence deployments to ensure freedom of navigation and protect international commerce. Yet Canada’s military readiness challenges are increasingly visible. Procurement delays, aging equipment, personnel shortages, and insufficient naval modernization weaken Canada’s ability to contribute meaningfully to collective security. If Canada wishes to maintain influence within NATO and among democratic allies, it must rebuild strategic credibility through sustained investment in defence, Arctic sovereignty, cyber resilience, and maritime capability. This is not militarism. It is realism. A country that benefits enormously from global trade cannot assume that others will indefinitely guarantee the security of international shipping routes and economic stability without meaningful Canadian contributions. At the diplomatic level, Canada still possesses valuable assets. Historically, Canada has often functioned as a constructive middle power capable of coalition-building and pragmatic diplomacy. In moments of heightened international tension, balanced diplomacy matters. Canada can work with NATO allies, Gulf states, Asian democracies, and multilateral institutions to support de-escalation and stability. However, diplomacy without strategic weight eventually loses influence. Statements alone do not stabilize energy markets or protect maritime corridors. Nations are respected internationally when diplomacy is supported by economic capability, credible defence commitments, and national coherence. A Hormuz crisis would also force Canada to confront broader questions about productivity, national unity, and long-term strategic planning. Canada remains blessed with enormous advantages: abundant resources, freshwater, agricultural capacity, technological expertise, Arctic access, strong institutions, and multicultural social stability. Few nations possess such a combination of strengths. Yet too often Canada behaves like a country uncertain of its own purpose. At a time when many democracies face political polarization, demographic pressures, supply-chain instability, and geopolitical fragmentation, Canada should position itself as a pillar of democratic resilience and strategic reliability. That requires confidence, investment, and a willingness to think beyond short-term political cycles. The Strait of Hormuz may seem geographically distant from Canadian daily life, but its lessons are immediate and profoundly relevant. Energy security is national security. Economic resilience is strategic resilience. Infrastructure is geopolitical power. Defence preparedness supports prosperity. Stable democracies cannot afford complacency in an increasingly unstable world. Canada should stop viewing itself merely as a spectator observing global crises from afar. The world increasingly needs secure energy suppliers, reliable allies, stable democracies, advanced engineering capacity, and responsible resource producers. Canada possesses all of those attributes. The real question is whether Canadians are prepared to recognize and act on their country’s potential for strategic importance before the next global crisis forces them to the sidelines.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECODING THE MIND OF A MAD MAN OR A GENIUS Joe Ingino coined (and popularized) the phrase “I live a dream in a nightmare world.”He uses it as his personal tagline/signature at the top or bottom of nearly all his newspaper columns, blog posts, social media writings, and publications. It appears consistently in his work for the Oshawa/Durham Central Newspaper and related outlets. Key Details:It functions like a branding motto for his commentary series (often called the “‘I Live a Dream in a Nightmare World’ series”). No credible evidence shows the exact phrase being used before Ingino adopted it — searches for earlier uses turn up nothing significant. He has referenced it for years in his role as editor/publisher, making it strongly identified with him locally in the Durham Region / Oshawa area. In short, it’s his signature catchphrase — he created and popularized it through his extensive writing. "I live a dream in a nightmare world" is Joe Ingino’s personal motto and signature tagline. Meaning (as used by him)It expresses a personal philosophy about navigating life in a flawed, often chaotic or disappointing reality:"I live a dream" — He pursues ideals, optimism, personal vision, integrity, and what should be (e.g., better community standards, accountability, common sense in politics and society). "in a nightmare world" — Acknowledges that the actual world around him frequently feels broken, corrupt, hypocritical, or nightmarish — filled with declining standards, political failures, social issues, media problems, and human shortcomings. In essence, it captures the tension between aspiring to something better while being grounded in (and commenting on) a imperfect, frustrating reality. He uses it at the top or bottom of almost every column, post, and article as a framing device for his often critical, outspoken commentary on local Oshawa/Durham issues, politics, society, and human behavior. It functions similarly to how other writers or commentators use a recurring slogan to brand their worldview — part idealism, part realism/cynicism. Ingino has not given one single "official" paragraph-long explanation, but the phrase consistently appears alongside his critiques of the world as it is versus how he believes it should be. Here are clear examples of Joe Ingino’s philosophy, drawn directly from his columns and writings. His core outlook — captured in “I live a dream in a nightmare world” — contrasts personal idealism, traditional values, and calls for accountability against what he sees as a hypocritical, declining, and unfair society. 1. Human Nature, Hypocrisy, and Societal Decay“We are nothing but animals with the fortunate ability to communicate and socialize like no other animal. ... The difference in humans is in the way we interact and live in a system of hypocritical beliefs that hamper our success in life. ... We go for the first 20 years of our lives living a code of ethics and morals that slowly ravels with the realities of living in a society that rewards unfairness... governed by laws that oppress and prosecute the innocent. ... Good people that live a dream in a nightmare world of constant struggle.” Philosophy takeaway: Society starts with good intentions and moral upbringing but erodes into hypocrisy, where systems reward the wrong behaviors and punish or exploit the good. 2. Loss of Traditional Values and “Salvajes” (Wild/Savage) Society. In a column on why peace is difficult, Ingino contrasts his childhood in Uruguay — where people upheld social norms, civic duty, religion, and nationalism to avoid being “Salvajes” (those living wild without rules) — with modern multiculturalism and declining standards:He argues that mixing cultures with lower standards has turned society into a “jungle of uncivilized beings.” Strong unified culture, fear of God, and strict codes once built strong nations; today’s lack of these leads to fragmentation and lowered standards. Philosophy takeaway: Strong societies require shared values, discipline, and higher (often Western/traditional) standards. Without them, we regress into chaos. 3. Criticism of Local Politics and Leadership Ingino frequently attacks Oshawa/Durham politicians as opportunists lacking business experience, focused on pensions or vendettas rather than results. Examples:He calls for removing most of Oshawa council, criticizing them for downtown decay, high taxes, crime, and homelessness while ignoring taxpayers. Downtown councillors are labeled inexperienced “punks” or “dream catchers” who fail businesses and residents. Philosophy takeaway: Leaders must have real-world credentials and put people first. Most current ones are ineffective insiders who worsen quality of life. 4. Optimism vs. Harsh Reality (The Motto in Action)He pairs sharp critiques with motivational closers like:“Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. — ONE DAY AT A TIME —” This reflects living ideally (“the dream”) while confronting daily struggles (“the nightmare”). Overall Themes in Ingino’s Philosophy Idealism vs. Reality — Pursue better standards, accountability, and common sense despite corruption and decline. Traditional Values — Hard work, personal responsibility, strong families, unified culture, and moral codes (often tied to religion or nationalism). Anti-Hypocrisy — Calls out systems, politicians, and society for pretending to help while failing or exploiting good people. Local Populism — Strong focus on practical improvements in Oshawa/Durham: lower taxes, safer streets, pro-business policies, and competent leadership. His style is blunt, opinionated, and repetitive — using his newspaper platform to voice what he sees as common-sense truths ignored by the establishment. This aligns with why some observers note a populist or “Trump-like” flavor in his approach, though he is very much his own local character. Over all it appears that some may see him as a mad man is proven to be a respected genius in his community and his profession.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND VOTERS NEED LONG MEMORIES Ontario’s municipal elections are coming this October, and if there was ever a time for voters to wake up, pay attention, and hold politicians accountable, this is it. Municipal government impacts your life more than almost any other level of government. Property taxes. Roads. Water. Development. Infrastructure. Emergency services. Housing approvals. Garbage collection. Recreation. Your local government touches virtually every aspect of your day-to-day life. And yet municipal elections continue to have embarrassingly low voter turnout. People complain about taxes. They complain about traffic. They complain about overdevelopment, poor planning, endless delays, lack of accountability, and political insiders running the show. But then election day comes, and many either stay home or vote based on name recognition, slogans, or empty campaign promises. That has to stop. The public needs to start paying close attention not just to what candidates say during campaigns — but to what they actually do once elected. Because far too often, politicians campaign one way and govern another. In Clarington, residents have seen this firsthand. Many will remember the statements made by Mayor Adrian Foster and Councillor Willie Woo regarding the incinerator issue before election campaigns — only for positions to later shift once elected and in office. Whether one supported or opposed the project itself is almost secondary to the larger issue: public trust. When elected officials say one thing to secure votes and then proceed in a completely different direction afterward, it damages confidence in the democratic process. And once trust is broken, it is very difficult to rebuild. This election cannot simply be about personalities, signs, slogans, or social media photos. It needs to be about accountability. Voters need to ask difficult questions: Has this person been accessible to the public? Have they answered tough questions? Have they been transparent? Have they voted consistently with what they promised? Have they demonstrated integrity over time? Have they represented the people — or protected insiders and political allies? And perhaps most importantly: Do they deserve another term? Not every incumbent should be removed. Some elected officials work extraordinarily hard for their communities. Some are accessible, honest, responsive, and accountable. Those individuals deserve recognition and, where earned, reelection. But others have built careers on carefully crafted talking points, selective memory, political maneuvering, and saying whatever is necessary during campaign season. The public needs to stop rewarding that behavior. Democracy only works if voters have memories longer than campaign flyers. This October, the electorate must do three things: First — get out and vote. Second — pay close attention to who is running and what they truly represent. And third — stop re-electing politicians who have repeatedly misled the public or demonstrated questionable integrity over time. Municipal politics should not be a lifetime appointment. If elected officials lose the trust of the people, they should lose the privilege of governing them. The ballot box is the ultimate accountability mechanism. Use it.

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget

Fun on Empty: Making Memories on a Tight Budget By Dale Jodoin Columnist Raising a family when money is tight can quietly break your spirit. Not all at once. It happens in small ways. You say no to dinner out. No to the movie. No to the weekend trip. No to the new restaurant everyone is talking about. After a while, you start feeling like the bad guy in your own house. Then friends talk about going away with their family, or trying some place where the menu looks like a car payment. You smile and say, “I have to work.” That sounds better than saying, “I can’t afford to take my family.” That part hurts. Nobody wants to say it out loud. But here’s the truth. A tight budget does not mean your family has to live a small life. Across Canada, more families are feeling the squeeze. People are working long hours and still going to food banks. Seniors are counting every dollar. Parents are choosing between gas and groceries. It’s not rare anymore. It’s everyday life for a lot of people. And yet, something else is happening too. People are learning how to live differently. Not louder. Not flashier. Just smarter. Take a picnic. It sounds simple. Maybe even a bit boring. But it works. Stop at a grocery store. Grab buns, some deli meat, maybe a bit of fruit. Skip the expensive drinks and mix your own. Pack it into a bag or a cooler. Bring a blanket, or whatever you have, and head out. I remember watching a dad once, sitting on a park bench, quietly counting change before walking back to his kids with a couple of drinks. The kids didn’t notice. They were too busy laughing, chasing a ball, falling over themselves in the grass. To them, it was a great day. Give it ten minutes once you’re there. The air feels different. The pressure eases. It’s not about what you spent. It’s about being present. In a place like Oshawa, there are more options than people think. Parks, open fields, trails. They’re there for everyone. You just have to use them. The same goes for sports. You don’t need a ticket to enjoy a game. Local leagues are everywhere. Baseball, soccer, cricket, and more rugby. Just show up. Stand near the fence or sit on the grass. Watch. Cheer a little. Lacrosse is another one people forget about. Fast, tough, and exciting. Many local games are open to the public. The same goes for school sports. Places like Ontario Tech University and Durham College often have games and events, especially in the summer. Bring your own food. A couple of sandwiches. Some drinks. You sit there together, and for a while, nothing else matters. Transit can open things up too. Not everyone drives, and gas adds up fast. A simple bus ride can take you somewhere new. A different park. A lake. A spot you forgot about. If there’s water nearby, even better. Bring a towel. Let the kids swim if it’s safe. Sit back and take it in. Those are the moments that stay. And don’t overlook what’s already around you. A pickup soccer game. Kids playing baseball. A cricket match in a field. You don’t need to join. Just being there can make you feel part of something again. Local newspapers and city websites are worth checking too. They list events most people skip past. Small festivals. Community days. Local gatherings. Many are free or low cost. You just have to look. Here’s something that matters more than most people realize. Kids don’t measure their childhood by how much money you spent. They measure it by time. By attention. By whether you showed up. You can spend a lot and still miss that. Or you can spend almost nothing and get it right. That doesn’t mean things are easy. They’re not. Working hard and feeling stuck is frustrating. Prices go up. Pay doesn’t always follow. It wears people down. But inside that, there’s still a way forward. For seniors, it might mean asking for a discount and not feeling bad about it. For families, it might mean choosing fast food over a sit down place because tipping just isn’t possible. For others, it might mean skipping one thing so you can enjoy something else. You start to see your city differently. Not as a place full of things you can’t afford, but as a place full of things you can still enjoy. And that changes things. Money can be short. The fridge can be thin. The bills can sit on the table like they own the place. But your kids don’t need rich parents to have good memories. They need time. They need laughter. They need a parent who still tries, even when things are hard. A sandwich in the park can matter. A bus ride to the lake can matter. Watching a free game can matter. Taking pictures on your phone can matter. Because one day, your kids may not remember what you couldn’t buy. They’ll remember that you showed up. And that is how a family finds a way to have fun on empty.

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System

The Easiest Thing To Fix in A Struggling Healthcare System Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones The Easiest Thing to Fix in a Struggling Healthcare System No country has it perfect. But a few give us envy. Switzerland combines universal health coverage with rapid access and strong patient choice. People are required to buy private insurance, but the system is tightly regulated, and wait times are generally far shorter than in Canada by comparison. The Netherlands is another standout. It has universal coverage, strong primary care, and insurers compete within strict public rules. It ranks high for patient satisfaction and access. Germany is praised for its social insurance model – broad coverage, quick specialist access, and a large hospital network. Singapore is admired for efficiency and outcomes. It spends far less of GDP on health care than many Western countries while maintaining excellent results, though its system relies more heavily on personal savings and individual responsibility. Among Nordic countries, Denmark is praised for integration and digital health systems, while Sweden is respected for quality but can struggle with wait times. Canada adheres to the principle of universal access. No one should go bankrupt because they got sick. But universal coverage is nothing to celebrate if you can’t see a doctor. And Canadians are frustrated by access delays, and increasingly, by service quality too. In the U.S., money talks. Those with means can get world-class care. For those without insurance, and there are many, it’s a lot harder and the statistics tell a grim story.Regardless of where in the world, or socioeconomic status, no senior citizen should wait 14 hours in emergency with a fractured wrist. No individual with chest pain should sit in a hallway because there are no beds. No one should have to wait eight months to see a specialist, only to be told they need another referral because the original one expired while waiting. We hear promises of “transformational reform” when parts of our systems breakdown. Yet patients continue to experience delay, frustration, and the sense that no one is in charge. What’s the one thing we could easily fix? That would be communication. What drives people to frustration is often not the illness itself but feeling invisible inside the system. Even when right in the middle of it. Medicine has become highly technical, but healing still begins with a person looking you in the eye and explaining what is happening. Patients want two things from a physician: competence and caring. They hoped for the first, but they remembered the second. And caring means diligent communication – in both directions, with give and take, until there is a common understanding. Hospitals measure everything – wait times, readmissions, staffing costs, infection rates. All important. But do we measure whether families are actually informed? Whether discharge instructions are understood? Whether patients know who is responsible for their care? Imagine if every emergency department had one person whose sole role was to keep patients and families informed. Not to provide treatment, but to explain delays, next steps, and realistic expectations. There is an old saying in medicine: “Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.” We seem to have forgotten the last part. Comfort is not a complex concept. It is clarity. It is dignity. It is the assurance that someone sees you not as a chart number, but as a human being who may be frightened and trying to make sense of what comes next. Can communication alone fix health care? Of course not. But if we are looking for the easiest place to start, it may be right there. For a lot of things in life, it might help to lay it out. “Here is what is happening, and here is what happens next.”

When Other People Start Weighing In

Dead and Gone…

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a point where the circle around a family starts to widen. It doesn’t happen all at once, but over a day or two, word spreads, calls are made, messages go out, and people begin to reach in. Friends, extended family, neighbours, people who have been through something similar before. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand that this is a natural part of what follows. People care, and most are simply trying to be helpful in the only way they know how. But something else begins to happen at the same time. As more people enter the conversation, more opinions begin to surface. Suggestions are offered, sometimes gently, sometimes more directly. Someone shares what they did when they went through it. Another mentions what they think is expected. Someone else focuses on keeping things simple, while another leans toward something more traditional. None of this comes from a bad place, but when it all starts to arrive at once, it can be harder to sort through than people expect. I have seen families reach that point, even if they don’t say it out loud. The decisions are still theirs, but the space around those decisions starts to feel more crowded. It becomes less about choosing what feels right, and more about trying to reconcile everything that has been said. That can create a kind of pressure that doesn’t come from any one person, but from the accumulation of voices. It can leave people second-guessing themselves before they’ve even had a chance to think things through together. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady in that moment. Not closed off, not unwilling to listen, but grounded enough to recognize the difference between hearing someone out and feeling like they need to follow what’s being suggested. It’s reasonable to take in ideas. It’s reasonable to consider what others have experienced. But it’s also reasonable to step back and ask, quietly and honestly, what feels right for the people who are actually making the decisions. One of the things that makes this more complicated is that people tend to speak from their own experience. They remember what mattered to them, what felt meaningful at the time, what they wish they had done differently. Those reflections are real, and they often come from a good place, but they don’t always translate in the same way for another family. Every situation is different, and what brought comfort to one person may not carry the same meaning for someone else. I have spoken with families afterward who said this part surprised them. Not because they expected people to stay silent, but because they didn’t realize how much outside input could influence the way they were thinking. Some found themselves leaning in a direction that didn’t quite feel like their own, simply because it had been suggested more than once. It wasn’t intentional, but it was noticeable once they stepped back and reflected on it. If I were gone, I would want my family to trust themselves enough to come back to each other before making any decisions. To take a moment, even briefly, to ask what feels right between them, without the noise of other opinions layered on top. That doesn’t mean ignoring people or shutting anyone out. It simply means recognizing that the final decisions don’t belong to the wider circle. They belong to the people closest to the situation. In the end, what tends to stay with families isn’t what others thought they should do. It’s how they felt about what they chose. Whether it reflected the person they lost, and whether it felt honest to them in the moment. If I were gone, that’s what I would want for my family - not certainty, not perfection, just a sense that what they decided felt like their own. Next week, I will write about something that often becomes clearer once that space settles again: how to recognize which decisions truly matter, and which ones don’t need to carry as much weight.

Meeting Them in Their Game

Meeting Them in

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Video games have a reputation – and not a good one, at least among parents. For years, I kept my distance. “Brain rot” some experts say. I’ve said it myself, often and with conviction. I’ve worried as my four children have grown up, eyes glued to screens. But over the recent holiday weekend, I caved. My now adult children – gamers, all of them – convinced me to join them. When I sensed their genuine excitement at the possibility that I might finally enter their world, how could I refuse? The game was Minecraft, where players explore, build, and survive in a blocky, pixelated universe. Think digital Lego meets wilderness survival, with a dash of engineering. Before I could begin, however, there was the small matter of getting set up. This, I discovered, was no small matter. Out came an assortment of computer equipment that had been gathering dust in closets. A screen, keyboard, and headset. I was instructed to wear ear pods underneath the headset so that I could simultaneously hear a voice chat on my phone and the game’s audio through the computer. There followed a symphony of muting and unmuting on the phone, on the computer, and on the headset. I was assured not to worry. “We’ve got this,” they said. I did not. But soon enough, there I was: seated, wired, and ready. My grown children, now giggling playmates, were scattered across three different cities, with one just down the hall. Yet we were all together in the game. I could literally see their characters running circles around me. Then the real test began. “Click here, Mom.” Easy enough. Except that was merely the beginning of what felt like a neurological stress test. First, I had to grasp perspective. With the click of a button, I could switch from seeing the world through my character’s eyes to viewing my character from the outside. Then came movement. To walk, I had to use the W, S, A, and D keys with my left hand while my thumb hovered over the space bar to make me jump. My right hand controlled the mouse, which required sliding, clicking left and right, and scrolling with the middle finger. This was no walk in the park. My brain and coordination were being tested. At one point, I was tasked with making an iron pickaxe. “Simple,” they said. Except it wasn’t. First, you need to get wood for a handle. Then you must craft a furnace. Next, the mining, for coal and iron ore. Then comes the crucial insight: coal goes in the bottom of the furnace, iron ore in the top. The game requires players to use reason, but I would have been helpless without my kids telling me how to survive. There was laughter. Lots of it. Belly-bursting laughter. There we were: a family spread across distances, connected by technology, having a blast. But I was thinking about the health benefits. Mental agility, hand-eye coordination, memory, and perhaps most importantly, social connection. Most researchers don’t focus on games like Minecraft; they use cognitive-training tests that miss the elements found in the family fun I’m talking about. So they report modest improvements in attention, reaction time, and memory. But my guess is that a little bit of Minecraft among people of my generation goes a long way in boosting cognitive flexibility, spatial reasoning, and the wholesome happiness factor. Will I play again? I’m counting on it. Much as I love a good book or a quiet walk in the woods, I’m intrigued by the potential for games like Minecraft to keep me sharp as I age.

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council

When Procedure Becomes a Weapon at Clarington Council In theory, municipal democracy runs on rules. In practice, it runs on whether those rules are applied consistently — or selectively. And lately, at the Municipality of Clarington Council, the line between the two is starting to blur. The Illusion of Order You’ll often hear references to Robert's Rules of Order — the gold standard of meeting procedure. It sounds reassuring. Structured. Fair. Democratic. But here’s the truth most residents don’t know: Clarington doesn’t actually run on Robert’s Rules. It runs on its own Procedural By-law, under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001. Robert’s Rules are, at best, a guideline of last resort — not a free pass for improvisation. So when they’re invoked loosely, or selectively, something else is happening. The Referral Motion Loophole Let’s talk about referral motions — the procedural equivalent of “send it back for more work.” On paper, these motions are simple: - Where is the matter going? - When is it coming back? That’s it. They are not supposed to be: - A second debate on the issue - A political soapbox - A workaround to revisit arguments already made But at Clarington Council, something different is unfolding. When “Where and When” Becomes “Whatever You Want” Repeatedly, we’re seeing: - Members speaking at length on the substance of issues - Arguments being re-litigated during referral motions - The Chair allowing broad commentary far beyond procedural scope And here’s where it gets uncomfortable: That latitude is not always applied equally. Some are cut off. Others are given the floor. Same motion. Different rules. Why This Matters (More Than You Think) This isn’t about technicalities. It’s about control of the meeting. Because when procedural rules are bent: - Debate can be extended or suppressed at will - Outcomes can be influenced without formal votes - Certain voices can be amplified — others muted That’s not governance. That’s procedural engineering. The Real Rule Being Broken Let’s be clear — this isn’t about misquoting Robert’s Rules. It’s about something far more serious: Inconsistent application of the Procedural By-law And under Ontario law, that raises real questions: - Are decisions being made fairly? - Is the process transparent? - Is the Chair exercising discretion — or bias? Because once rules become flexible depending on who is speaking… They stop being rules at all. The Consequence No One Talks About Here’s the part they won’t say out loud: When procedure is applied inconsistently, it creates: - A record of procedural unfairness - Grounds for formal complaints - And in extreme cases, exposure to legal challenge That’s not political theatre. That’s administrative risk. So What Happens Next? There are only two paths forward: 1. Apply the rules consistently - Limit referral debate to process - Enforce scope equally 2. Continue down the current path - And accept that the legitimacy of decisions will be questioned Because once the public starts to see the pattern… They don’t unsee it. The Bottom Line Procedure is supposed to protect democracy. Not be used to shape it. And at Clarington Council, the question is no longer whether the rules exist. It’s whether they’re being used as a framework — or as a tool.

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE…’

MOM - ‘WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE A REFUGEE...’ By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I have seen firsthand the economic struggles many people are facing today—from those on the brink of eviction for unpaid rent, to families losing their homes to financial institutions unwilling to grant even a short extension. Across the country, the overall quality of life appears to be declining. Concerns about crime are rising, and the number of Canadians experiencing homelessness continues to grow at an alarming rate. This week, an announcement drew attention: Pickering to host an accommodation site for asylum seekers.According to Durham Region, a former hotel in Pickering is being converted into temporary housing for asylum seekers. The federal government has provided funding for the purchase of the property; however, neither the total investment nor the projected operating costs have been publicly disclosed. The site will serve as the Durham Reception Centre.Let me be clear—I have no issue with immigration. I am an immigrant myself. I came to this country with the same goal shared by many others: to build a better life, respect the laws of the land, and contribute meaningfully to Canadian society.I recall being asked as a child what I wanted to be when I grew up. My answer never changed. I was inspired by the uniform of the RCMP and the idea of serving a country that had given my family so much. To contribute to that legacy felt like both an honour and a responsibility. Today, however, I sometimes question whether that same sense of purpose is as widely shared. Canada has long been a nation built on diversity, but it has also relied on a shared commitment to integration, mutual respect, and civic responsibility. Increasingly, there are concerns about whether that balance is being maintained. At the same time, local governments are making significant financial commitments—such as the reported $7 million allocated toward a reception centre in Durham Region. This raises difficult but important questions: how do we balance support for newcomers with the urgent needs of Canadians who are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and housing? Behind these issues are real people—our neighbours, our families, our fellow citizens. These are conversations worth having, and perspectives worth sharing.

Anger Is Its Own Illness

Anger Is Its Own Illness Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones “He preaches patience that never knew pain.” That line has been around for more than a century, and it still holds up. Spend time around people who are struggling, and you see why. Some are not just discouraged. They are angry. Angry at their health, at the system, at the people around them, and at life itself. Chronic disease changes everything. Diabetes can lead to amputation of a leg, sometimes both of them. Cancer brings fear and uncertainty. Arthritis limits movement and pain becomes a permanent companion. Others are trapped in situations that are just as damaging – abusive relationships, financial stress, or a system that promises support but delivers nothing of it. It doesn’t take much for frustration to turn into anger. But anger carries a very large cost. Research has shown that chronic anger raises blood pressure, increases stress hormones, and raises the risk of heart disease. It also worsens sleep and can make pain feel more intense. In short, it adds another layer of trouble to people who already have enough to deal with. I knew a man who lived this way. He was angry at everything. Conversations with him went in one direction. Nothing worked. No one was doing enough. Life had treated him unfairly, and he was not going to let it go. Then he had a stroke. Afterward, something changed. He was calmer. Less reactive. The anger that had defined him was no longer there. Doctors reported that the brain controls more than movement and speech. It also regulates emotion. When it is injured, behaviour can change. Neurologists have reported both increased irritability and, in some cases, a reduction in long-standing anger. But most people are not going to have a stroke that resets their outlook. There is growing evidence that certain practices can shift the brain’s patterns over time. Research in neuroscience is showing that even as we age, the brain is not fixed. It doesn’t stop adapting at some particular age. It can continue to be stimulated or exercised in ways that rewire certain circuits. Cognitive behavioural therapy, for example, teaches people to examine the thoughts that drive anger and disrupt entrenched patterns of thought. Mindfulness training helps create a mental pause before reacting. Exercise reduces tension and improves mood. These are not quick fixes, but they are supported by research. Still, many people resist. They feel their anger is justified. But being justified does not make it useful. So what do you say to someone who is angry with life? Telling someone to “stay positive” may not be a helpful message to people who are not yet able to appreciate the intention of the words. When consumed in anger, people perceive even olive branches as kindling to light a bigger fire. But there is a question worth asking. That is, is the anger helping? And it’s best to find the right person to delve into that discussion. Who is able to open and sustain a wholesome discussion about wellbeing? It might not be the most obvious candidate. But the point is to note that if the status quo does not involve good sleep, health, or relationships, then it may be time to try something else. This is not to deny the issues or pretend things are fine. But the goal is to reduce the cost of carrying that anger every day. And time is not always on side with these matters. Managing life’s challenges can be difficult enough on their own. Don’t make them even harder by just waiting for change. Make it happen.

Tailor Your Answers to the Employer’s Needs

Tailor Your Answers to the Employer’s Needs By Nick Kossovan Employers don't care about your past; they care about their future. Yet most candidates walk into an interview prepared to recite their career history (read: water under the bridge) as if it were a biopic. They then wait for questions that'll give them a chance to explain why they're the right candidate for the job. When those questions aren't asked, which is very likely, they feel they didn't adequately convey their suitability for the job. Waiting and hoping your interviewer recognizes your value isn't a viable strategy; it's a gamble with very low odds. Savvy job seekers don't just answer questions; they manage the interview. They don't see the interviewer's inexperience, vagueness, or unpreparedness as obstacles; rather, they see them as opportunities to steer the interview towards their value-add. They also understand that interviews are sales meetings, and it's their job to convince the employer that hiring them would be a good investment. Every interaction with an employer, whether through your resume, cover letter, LinkedIn profile, or especially during interviews, is your chance to show that you understand their business and how you can contribute to their profitability. Based on my experience, the majority of those who conduct hiring interviews do so as an appendage to their core responsibilities. Unless you're speaking with a full-time recruiter or HR, the person across from you is likely your future boss, who has a mountain of other responsibilities. Inevitably, there'll be times when your interview will be an interruption to your interviewer's workday, which, if it's filled with 'goings on', they'll have their head elsewhere. I've conducted many less-than-ideal interviews sandwiched between meetings, 'putting out fires,' or while dwelling on pressing matters. This lack of focus is precisely why your interviewer may not have read your resume, may not remember reading it, and may ask vague, unstructured questions. When an interview starts to feel messy, your initial reaction might be to think, "This isn't going well!" However, a messy interview is an excellent opportunity to sell yourself. Remember, an interview is a sales meeting. Don't wait for perfect questions; instead, subtly guide your interviewer. Tailor your answers to show you'd be a value-add to the employer's profitability. · Weak Question: "So… tell me about your experience." · Tailored Answer: "I've spent fifteen years in operations, but to make this most useful for you, I'll focus on the parts most relevant to this role—specifically where I've led teams through high-pressure execution challenges and reduced overhead by 20%." · Why it works: You're setting the direction. Rather than giving a long, unfocused history of your career, as most candidates do, you're presenting your skills and experience according to the job's requirements. · Weak Question: "Tell me about a challenge you faced." · Tailored Answer: "I'll use an example where a delivery was off-track, and the client was at risk. Since this role requires managing complex vendor relationships, this will show you how I navigate friction points." · Why it works: You've tailored your answer to their needs. You're not just telling a story; you're illustrating your value. · Weak Question: "What is your greatest strength?" · Tailored Answer: "My strongest skill is identifying operational bottlenecks before they hit the P&L. For Vandelay Industries, which is scaling quickly, this means I can ensure your growth doesn't outpace your infrastructure." · Why it works: You've turned a personality trait into a business asset. · Weak Question: "Where do you see yourself in five years?" · Tailored Answer: "In five years, I plan to have mastered this market segment. But more importantly, in the first six months here, I intend to have your new regional office operating at full capacity so that the five-year goals we set are starting to be visibly accomplished." · Why it works: You've brought a hypothetical future back to you, being a hire that'll offer an immediate ROI. You're also telling them you're focused on their five-year plan, not just yours. · Weak Question: "Why should we hire you instead of someone else?" · Tailored Answer: "I'm not here just to do a job. I'm here to take on your challenges. This job appealed to me because of your recent expansion into the Toronto market. I have the specific vendor contacts and local regulatory experience that would enable me to shave three months off your rollout time." · Why it works: You've moved from "I'm a hard worker," which every candidate claims to be, to "I am a strategic partner who can provide an advantage." Guiding your interviewer, if necessary, isn't about taking control or appearing boastful. Instead, it's about helping them easily recognize your value. The more specific and relevant your responses are to the value you delivered to your previous employers, the less effort your interviewer needs to assess your value. The quality of your answers (read: their influence on your interviewer) is measured not by how long you talk, but by how effectively you communicate that you can influence the employer's profitability. When your interviewer appears disengaged or seems to be struggling, don't get frustrated. Instead, do your best to provide answers that'll help them see you have the skills, experience, and drive to influence profitability.

We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports?

We scrutinize Rouge Park land. Why not golf courses the size of airports? by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In the Greater Toronto Area, few debates have been as intense—or as politically charged—as the future of farmland and green space around Rouge National Urban Park. For years, governments, environmental advocates and local communities have contested every hectare. The objective is clear: protect prime agricultural land, preserve ecosystems and manage the pressures of relentless urban expansion. Now, with the federal government stepping away from the long-proposed Pickering airport on lands held for decades by Transport Canada, the debate has entered a new phase. Thousands of acres of publicly owned farmland—adjacent to Rouge Park—are once again open to policy decisions. What should be done with them? It is an important question. But it is also an incomplete one. Because while we scrutinize every acre of public land in Rouge and Pickering, we continue to ignore a far larger reality—one that sits in plain sight across Durham Region and the eastern GTA. Golf courses. The land we choose not to see In Durham Region alone, golf courses occupy an estimated eight to 10 square kilometres of land. That is not a marginal figure. It is comparable to the footprint of Vancouver International Airport and not insignificant relative to Calgary International Airport or Edmonton International Airport. If a proposal were brought forward today to build an airport of that size on prime land in the GTA, it would trigger years of environmental assessments, legal challenges and public consultations. Yet that same scale of land already exists—distributed across golf courses—and it is almost entirely absent from serious policy discussion. This is not an oversight. It is a contradiction. A double standard The case for protecting Rouge Park and the Pickering lands rests on the value of Class 1 farmland—some of the most productive soil in Canada. This is a compelling argument. Food security, climate resilience and long-term economic sustainability depend on preserving such land. However, many golf courses sit on the same class of land. They are often former farms, converted over time into low-density recreational spaces serving a relatively small portion of the population. They occupy large, contiguous tracts—exactly the kind of land policymakers now argue is too valuable to lose. Yet, unlike farmland, golf courses are rarely subjected to the same scrutiny or policy pressure. If the principle is that prime land must be protected for the public good, it cannot be applied selectively. The Pickering paradox The cancellation of the Pickering airport proposal has created a rare opportunity. For decades, these federally owned lands were effectively frozen, reserved for infrastructure that never came. Now, they can be reimagined. Some argue they should remain entirely agricultural. Others propose integrating them into Rouge Park. Still others see an opportunity for carefully planned development to address the region’s housing shortage. All of these positions are valid. However, they also reveal a deeper inconsistency. We are prepared to debate publicly owned farmland hectare by hectare, while ignoring privately held land of comparable scale that could offer greater flexibility. It is as if one category of land is considered strategic, while another is simply beyond discussion. Housing and hard choices The GTA’s housing shortage is no longer theoretical. Governments are under pressure to increase supply, accelerate approvals and identify land for development. At the same time, there is strong resistance—rightly so—to building on protected farmland or environmentally sensitive areas. This is where the silence around golf courses becomes consequential. These lands are: · already cleared and serviced · often located near existing infrastructure · large enough to support meaningful development Even partial repurposing—10 to 20 per cent of golf course land—could support tens of thousands of housing units across the region, while preserving recreational use. This is not about eliminating golf. It is about acknowledging that land use must evolve. Why the silence persists The answer is straightforward. Golf courses are politically comfortable. They are established, familiar and rarely controversial. They do not generate the same level of opposition as new development or infrastructure projects. In short, they are easy to ignore. However, good policy is not about avoiding difficult conversations. It is about confronting them—especially when they involve trade-offs of this magnitude. A question of fairness Public lands like Rouge Park and the Pickering lands are subject to intense scrutiny because they are meant to serve the broader public interest. Their use must be justified in terms of environmental value, agricultural productivity or public access.Golf courses, by contrast, are typically: · privately owned or membership-based · accessible to a limited segment of the population · maintained with significant resource inputs This is not an argument against golf. It is an argument for consistency. If one category of land must justify its use in terms of public benefit, then all categories should be held to a comparable standard. Time for a coherent strategy The real issue is not golf courses—or even the Pickering lands.It is the absence of a coherent, region-wide land-use strategy. What we have instead is fragmentation: · intense scrutiny of public land · relative silence on large private land uses · reactive decisions driven by pressure rather than planning A serious strategy would apply consistent criteria across all land uses, evaluate them based on long-term public benefit and explore multi-use models that integrate recreation, housing and green space. The broader test The debate over Rouge Park and the Pickering lands is necessary. However, its credibility depends on its scope. If we are willing to scrutinize public farmland hectare by hectare, we must also be willing to examine other large-scale land uses with equal rigour. Because in a region where land is finite and growth is inevitable, what we choose not to debate matters just as much as what we do. And silence, in this case, is not neutrality. It is a policy choice.

The Right Attitude Helps with a Fractured Hip

The Right Attitude Helps with a Fractured Hip Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones No one wants to get that call. A loved one has taken a fall. There’s always the hope that it will be just a bruise and shaken confidence. But when the ensuing emergency treatment confirms a fractured hip, it’s time for everyone to bring out their best skills in patience. Falls are, unfortunately, very common. But their consequences are anything but trivial. Research published in journals such as the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the New England Journal of Medicine has long shown that a hip fracture in later life is no walk in the park. Yet, the major risks associated with hip fractures are well known, and medical teams are trained to mitigate the ones that can cause problems while in the hospital. Hip fracture surgery has risks, but today, most people come through it. Roughly four in five older adults survive the year following a hip fracture. Few will return to their previous level of mobility and independence. But a hip fracture today is not what it was forty years ago. Dr. Mary Tinetti, Professor of Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, has spent a career studying why people fall. One of her observations is that it is often the more active, capable older adult who sustains the most serious injuries. They move more quickly, take more chances, and neglect preventative measures. Falling, she argues, is rarely due to a single cause. It is the result of small changes accumulating over time. Vision becomes less reliable. Balance is easily lost. Medications interact. Muscles lose strength. Some falls are preventable. The edges of rugs are a hazard, as is poor lighting. Showers, even with grab bars, are slippery places. Preventing a fall means slowing down so that every movement is a safe and steady one. But even with care, falls still happen. The evidence of many studies shows that frailty, rather than age, is the key determinant of rehabilitation outcomes. So whether before, for prevention, or after a fall, for recovery, exercise is critical. That’s why physiotherapy is standard practice for post-operative treatment. At any age, but particularly after 50, experts agree that people should be engaged in resistance training 2-3 days a week, aerobic exercise at least 3 times a week, and balance training just as frequently. Having professional physiotherapists to guide a program of exercise is ideal. Left to their own devices, people fail to do what’s good for them. In the U.S., large-scale surveys show that even after encouragement, about 80 percent of people don’t meet the guidelines. Getting started isn’t hard. Experts say that standing on one foot, then the other, while doing the dishes is one place to start. Slowly standing and sitting without using the arms is another good exercise. But here’s interesting news. In a longitudinal study of nearly 700 people who experienced a fall, researchers found that mindset matters. Independent of other important factors such as age, gender, and pre-fall physical function, people with positive self-perceptions of aging had significantly better outcomes as measured two years after their fall. In sports psychology, there is an expression, “The body achieves what the mind believes.” Athletes understand. Kids too. It’s just the older set that needs to internalize this. So patience, but resolve, if you are the unlucky victim of a fractured hip. It’s a long road to recovery, but with careful and consistent exercise, and a healthy outlook, you can ensure your place in the group of people who come through the trauma.

Practicing Water Conservation

Practicing Water Conservation by Larraine Roulston ‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’ After reading that the Colorado River is experiencing severe low water levels, it’s a reminder that Canadian waters need our safeguarding. If you haven’t already begun, by making small changes to conserve water in your home, your water bills will be lower as well. The family chefs can become water efficient when rinsing fresh produce. Place these foods in a bowl of water rather than running the tap. Add a little salt or vinegar and let the vegetables sit for several minutes to help remove pesticide residue. Vegetable stock that is used to create soups can also be poured over oats to make porridge or used to boil rice. Save pasta water to thicken soups. Allow frozen foods to thaw in the fridge rather than immersing them in running water, unless the instructions on the package state otherwise. Run your dishwasher when full. If washing dishes by hand, rinse them first in a bowl of warm water to keep your soapy water clean and hot. Soak sticky pots and pans overnight. Cooking with a steamer or pressure cooker uses less water than boiling veggies in a pot. Place a jug of water in the fridge so that you don’t have to run the tap for a cold drink. Aerators can be installed on faucets. They will mix air with water which reduces the flow rate without water pressure being compromised. Be on the lookout for leaks and dripping pipes. Opportunities also exist in the bathroom by simply turning off the sink’s tap while shaving, brushing teeth, and soaping hands. Taking showers with cooler water saves energy and has been noted to boost muscle recovery, increase circulation and energy levels. Installing low-flush or dual-flush toilets and water-saving shower heads will reduce water usage. In the laundry room, wash full loads in cold water. If you are able to catch rinse water, use it to wash matts, slippers, or to wipe floors. Wear clothes more than once, thus reducing the amount of laundry. Use a bucket of water rather than a hose to wash the car. Strive for low maintenance landscaping that includes native plants. Replace some grassy areas with a ground cover. Obtain a rain barrel. Water your lawn with grey water. Retain water in your garden by composting and placing mulch around plants. Watering your garden in the early morning reduces evaporation loss and prevents fungal growth by allowing leaves to dry. Sweep walkways, steps, and driveways rather than using a hose. When using a hose, control the flow with an automatic shut-off nozzle. Avoid water toys that require a constant stream of water. If going to a spa, take your own robe and towels. It’s such a waste to see these being washed after a single use. Small challenges and awareness! These simple acts will help retain our waterways.

FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

FACT vs FICTION SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT By Maurice Brenner Regional Councillor Ward 1 Pickering There has been a lot of discussion about intensification across Pickering from Altona Road to the Brock, triggering concerns raised about the impact it will have on our aging limited infrastructure and already congested roads. While it’s fact that Pickering Planning has processed or is actively reviewing (33) development proposals that collectively include (103) towers exceeding seven storeys in height. These proposals represent a mix of high-density mixed-use buildings, retirement residences, long-term care facilities, and a hotel. It’s also fact, that these proposals are at various stages of the planning and building permit approval process, ranging from the initial review of Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment applications, to projects that have received planning approvals, only a limited number are under construction with several towers currently on hold or inactive. In the spirit of transparency , City Planning Staff at my request prepared a breakdown of the current status of towers in the development approval process: -On hold / inactive development proposals (16 towers) -Appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (20 towers) -Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment under Review by the City (30 towers) -Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment approved by Council (19 towers) -Site Plan Applications under review (11 towers) Of this total, only (7) Building permits have been issued and are currently under construction. The following towers have received all required planning approvals and building permits and are currently under construction: • Two high-density mixed-use towers by CentreCourt at Shops at Pickering City Centre. • Two high-density towers by Chestnut Hill Developments at Universal City (UC6 & UC7). • Two mixed-use high-density towers by Tribute at the VuPoint project. • One 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare, which was approved through a site-specific enhanced Ministers ’Zoning Order Contrary to the belief that Pickering is on the verge of becoming a concrete jungle, only (7) of the (103) proposed towers are currently under construction. Of these, (6) are for high-density mixed-use developments located in the City Centre, while the remaining tower is for a 15-storey long-term care facility proposed by Southbridge Healthcare on Valley Farm Road. While additional towers may proceed in the future, City staff anticipates that up to (11) more towers could be constructed over the next 5 to 10 years. Development of the remaining towers is long-term and uncertain, and will depend on many external factors that caused the current condo market to crash, and unlikely to recover for many years. These same developers that saw yesterdays boom as a winning lottery ticket will need to find new ways that meet the new realities of today and into the future.