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.

LEADING THE LIFE YOU WANT

Leading the Life You Want Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones There’s something quietly heartbreaking about waiting too long to start living the life you might have had all along. An 83-year-old reader wrote to me recently. For decades, this person lived with social exclusion, low self-esteem, and fear. Then, just last year, they did something about it. They signed up for modern line dancing at a local community centre. I don’t know if it was a decision taken after a lot of soul searching, or if it was a whim, something more frivolous. But the same result, either way. Everything changed. Some things were evident right away. Others came over time, and they were physical, mental, emotional, and social. Enough for the reader to report, with a sense of regret, “It makes me want to start life over again… and do things differently. Better. With more enjoyment.” That last line lingers. It invites the question. Why do people wait? Not everyone does. Hopefully not long-time Gifford-Jones readers. But my suspicion is that a lot of people do. They wait until retirement to travel. They wait until illness to value health. They wait until loneliness becomes noticeably painful before reaching out. They wait for permission to be a little bit different than everyone has come to expect. Well, guess what? That permission is not coming. Years ago, I heard a story about a young man who didn’t know what he wanted to do with his life. He asked an older, wiser fellow for advice. The answer was stark. “Go to the beach. Sit there. Look at the ocean. And don’t come back until you know.” The suggestion to go away and think deeply about it sounds absurd in today’s lightening-paced, hyperconnected world. But it’s not that hard to do, in fact. Just put the phone down and shut away any other distractions. Schedule time for focused thinking in blocks of two or three hours. Set up a spot for thinking – someplace not too comfortable, but attractive. Then go there and do your thinking – for as many sessions as it takes. You’ll figure something out soon enough. And then you have to go for it. We don’t give ourselves the time or the discomfort needed to think clearly about what we want. We fill every quiet moment with noise and distraction. And so the years pass, not in crisis, but in drift. Research in psychology has long shown that novelty and social connection are powerful medicines. Trying something new. Even something as unassuming as line dancing can stimulate the brain, improve balance and cardiovascular health, and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s not just about the activity. It’s about stepping outside the box quietly built around ourselves. At 83, you can still change your life. At 63, you can still change your life. At 23, you can still change your life. The difference is how much time you have left to enjoy it. But if you are at the older end of the spread, you know it’s not all about duration. Quality of experience, even if flirting, can last a lifetime, even retroactively. So here’s the drill. Take a step. A small one is enough. Sign up for something. Call someone. Go somewhere. And if you truly don’t know what you want? Find your own “beach.” Sit quietly. Think deeply. And don’t get up until you know. I did just this upon the passing of my father several months ago. And now I’m writing this column. It’s an intensely high-quality weekly experience that I hope will last for a long time.

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice

The Quiet Majority: When Survival Replaces Voice By Dale Jodoin Columnist I am a columnist . I deal in facts, not noise. And here is a hard one to sit with. Most Canadians are not part of the fight you see every day. They are trying to survive. That is not a slogan. That is the reality showing up at kitchen tables across this country. Bills stacked. Phones buzzing with payment reminders. People doing the math in their heads before they even get out of bed. Something has shifted. You can feel it. This is not just about politics anymore. It is about pressure. The kind that builds slowly, then all at once. The kind that makes people pull back from everything except what keeps them afloat. Rent is high. Food costs more than it should. Gas prices jump without warning. One week it feels manageable. The next, it does not. A simple drive to work turns into a quiet stress you carry all day. People are not arguing about big ideas. They are asking simple questions. Can I afford groceries this week.Can I fill the tank. Can I keep the lights on. That is where the country is sitting right now. And while that is happening, something else is going on at the same time. There are voices with time, energy, and support pushing hard for attention, for change, for recognition. Some of that is fair. Some of it is needed. But it is loud. Constant. Hard to ignore. And then there is everyone else. The majority. They are not pushing anything. They are not organizing. They are not showing up to every debate. They are working. Raising families. Looking after aging parents. Trying to hold their lives together. They are not silent because they do not care. They are silent because they are overwhelmed. That difference matters. When you are stretched thin, you do not take on extra weight. You drop what you can. And for many Canadians, what gets dropped is the larger conversation. Not out of anger. Out of survival. But silence has consequences. When the majority steps back, the conversation does not stop. It shifts. The loudest voices fill the space. Policies get shaped. Narratives get built. Decisions move forward. And the people who stepped back look up one day and think, when did this happen That is where the unease starts. It is not loud anger. It is something quieter. A feeling that things are moving without you. That your daily struggle does not count the same way. That your problems are too ordinary to matter. Because being able to pay your bills is not seen as an urgent policy. But it is urgent to the people living it. Look at the systems people rely on. Education is under strain. Parents worry about what their kids are learning, but also about what is missing. Classrooms are stretched. Teachers are doing what they can, but it feels like something is slipping. Then there is health care. This is where the fear turns real. People are afraid to go to the hospital. Not because they doubt the people working there, but because they know what they might face. Long waits. No doctors available. Hours that turn into a full day sitting in a chair, watching the clock. And it is worse when it is not you. It is your father struggling to breathe. Your wife is in pain. Your child with a fever that will not break. You sit there, waiting, hoping nothing gets worse before someone can help. That stays with people. It changes how they think. It changes what they fear. So when another debate starts, when another issue demands attention, people look at their own lives and think, I cannot carry that too. That is how the quiet majority is formed. Not by choice. By pressure. At the same time, there is a growing push to tell people how they should think, what they should say, what they should support. Even when the intention is to help, the delivery can feel forced. That creates a quiet resistance. People do not argue. They do not protest. They step back further. They nod, stay polite, and return to their lives. But here is where it gets dangerous. When the majority steps away, even for good reason, it leaves the direction of the country in fewer hands. Not necessarily bad hands, but fewer. That is how imbalance grows. A small group, driven and active, can shape the path. A large group, tired and silent, can lose its influence without even noticing. And over time, that gap widens. The country starts to feel unfamiliar, not because it changed overnight, but because most people were not part of the change as it happened. That is the quiet shift happening right now. It is not loud. It is not dramatic. It is slow. And that is what makes it harder to see. Most Canadians are not extreme. They are not hateful. They are not looking for conflict. They want stability. They want fairness. They want a chance to live without constant pressure closing in on them. They wake up tired. They go to work. They come home and try to make things work again the next day. If you listen, really listen, you hear the same line everywhere. I do not have a problem with anyone. I just want to live my life. That should mean something. But right now, it is getting lost. Because systems do not respond to quiet. They respond to pressure. So the people who are struggling the most, the ones holding everything together, are also the ones least heard. That is not just unfair. It is risky. A country cannot stay balanced if its majority is too tired to take part. It cannot stay steady if the people carrying the weight feel like they are not part of the direction. Eventually, something gives. Not all at once. Not with a bang. But slowly. People disconnect. Trust fades. The sense of shared ground weakens. And when that happens, it becomes harder to bring things back together. This is not about picking sides. It is about recognizing what is happening before it goes too far. The quiet majority is not the problem. But if it stays quiet for too long, it may not recognize the country it helped build.And by then, speaking up will feel a lot harder than it does today.

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox

Mr. X Explains the Development Charge Paradox A comprehensive Ontario municipal finance white paper on Development Charge rates, housing supply, and long-term fiscal sustainability 1. Introduction Ontario municipalities rely on Development Charges (DCs) to fund growth-related infrastructure. While intended to ensure that growth pays for growth, Development Charges can unintentionally suppress development activity when set beyond optimal levels. This paper explains the Development Charge Paradox using an adapted Laffer Curve framework. 2. Ontario Development Charge Framework Development Charges are governed by Ontario’s Development Charges Act and implemented through municipal background studies. Recent reforms, including Bill 23, reduced recoverability, introduced mandatory discounts, and constrained indexing. These changes increase development sensitivity to DC rate decisions. 3. The Development Charge Paradox At a Development Charge Rate of zero, Development Charge Revenue is also zero. As rates increase, revenue initially rises. Beyond an optimal point, higher DC rates suppress housing development faster than per-unit charges increase, resulting in declining Development Charge Revenue. 4. Equal Revenue, Unequal Outcomes The curve demonstrates that the same Development Charge Revenue can be achieved at two different Development Charge Rates. A low-rate, high-growth environment produces strong housing delivery and assessment growth. A high-rate, low-growth environment produces stagnation, even if short-term revenues appear similar. 5. Benefits of Lower Development Charge Rates Lower Development Charge Rates improve project feasibility, accelerate housing starts, support missing-middle and rental housing, and broaden the long-term municipal tax base. 6. Risks of Development Charge Rates Set Too Low If Development Charge Rates are set too low, municipalities may face infrastructure funding timing gaps. These risks can be managed through capital phasing, debt financing, and improved growth planning rather than suppressing development. 7. The Optimal Development Charge Rate The peak of the curve represents the optimal Development Charge Rate. At this point, Development Charge Revenue and housing delivery are maximized simultaneously, aligning municipal revenue objectives with housing supply goals. 8. Laissez-Faire Economics and Necessary Government Intervention Development Charge policy should generally follow laissez-faire economic principles, allowing market forces to determine pricing, supply, and investment decisions. However, where Development Charges are reduced to stimulate housing delivery, a degree of targeted government intervention is necessary to ensure that these reductions are reflected in housing prices rather than being absorbed entirely into developer margins. 9. Consequences of Excessively High Development Charge Rates Excessively high Development Charge Rates delay or cancel projects, encourage land banking, shift growth to other municipalities, and ultimately reduce Development Charge Revenue. 10. Long-Term Municipal Fiscal Impacts Development Charges are a one-time revenue source, while property taxes are recurring. Municipalities that prioritize long-term assessment growth over short-term DC maximization achieve greater fiscal sustainability. 11. Conclusion The Development Charge Paradox demonstrates that higher Development Charge Rates do not guarantee higher revenue. Optimal outcomes occur when Development Charges balance infrastructure funding with housing supply, economic vitality, and long-term municipal prosperity.

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership

Canada’s Housing Crisis Is Now a Test of Leadership by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada’s housing crisis is no longer a market fluctuation. It is a structural failure, one that now tests the country’s economic credibility, social cohesion, and political leadership. For too long, housing was treated as a local issue, shaped by municipal zoning and market forces. That approach has collapsed under the weight of reality. Population growth has surged, supply has lagged, and affordability has deteriorated to the point where even middle-class Canadians are under strain. What we face today is not simply high prices. It is a system that no longer delivers fairness. Recent signals from policymakers suggest that governments are beginning to understand the scale of the challenge. The economic framing associated with Mark Carney and the more assertive supply-side actions of Doug Ford point in the right direction. However, direction alone is not enough.Execution is what will matter. Canada’s housing shortage is the result of years of underbuilding relative to population growth. Immigration—vital to our economic future—has increased demand, but without a matching expansion in supply. The consequences are visible across the country. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for younger Canadians. Rent consumes a growing share of income. Skilled workers are priced out of the very cities that depend on them.This is no longer just an affordability issue. It is a question of whether Canada still offers a viable path to stability and upward mobility. Mark Carney’s recent interventions have helped reframe the debate. Housing is not merely a private asset; it is core economic infrastructure. Canada has been highly effective at attracting capital. But too much of that capital has flowed into existing real estate, inflating prices, rather than into new housing supply. The policy implication is straightforward: we must redirect incentives. Governments should prioritize purpose-built rental construction, support long-term institutional investment, and reduce the distortions that reward speculation over building. If we treat housing as infrastructure—like transportation or energy—we begin to understand the scale and urgency of what is required. At the provincial level, Doug Ford’s approach has targeted a long-standing obstacle: municipal gatekeeping. Zoning restrictions, slow approvals, and local opposition have limited density in precisely the areas where it is most needed. Ontario’s efforts to mandate housing targets and streamline approvals reflect an uncomfortable truth. Left to their own devices, many municipalities will not approve enough housing.These measures are not without controversy. But the alternative is continued paralysis. Canada cannot solve a national housing crisis if local constraints consistently override national priorities. The central weakness in Canada’s response remains a lack of coordination.The federal government sets immigration levels and provides funding. Provinces control planning frameworks. Municipalities regulate land use. Each operates within its mandate, but the system as a whole lacks alignment. This fragmentation produces predictable outcomes: delays, inefficiencies, and missed targets. A credible strategy would link these elements. Immigration levels should be aligned with housing capacity. Federal funding should be conditional on municipal performance. Provinces must enforce timelines and accountability. Without coordination, even the right policies will fail. Housing is not just an economic issue. It is the foundation of social stability. When working Canadians cannot afford to live where they work, the consequences are far-reaching. Healthcare systems struggle to recruit. Businesses cannot find employees. Commutes lengthen, productivity declines, and inequality deepens. More fundamentally, public confidence erodes. A country where effort no longer leads to security risks losing the trust that underpins its institutions. Canada has faced national challenges before. Each required leadership willing to move beyond incrementalism. We need to build at scale, not at the margins. We need to rebalance incentives toward supply, not speculation. More importantly, we need governments prepared to confront local resistance when it conflicts with national interest. The early signals from leaders like Mark Carney and Premier Doug Ford suggest that the diagnosis is improving. However, diagnosis is not delivery. The real test is whether Canada can translate intent into action which is coordinated, sustained, and ambitious. Because in the end, this is not just about housing. It is about whether Canada remains a country where opportunity is attainable—or becomes one where it is quietly out of reach. What do you think?

Together We Can Fly..

. By Wayne Ellis Treasurer of COPA FLIGHT 70 This past week, I presented four Cadet Squadrons with a very special surprise. Normally, each Cadet Squadron receives one hour of flight time. I felt that was not enough, so I took the initiative to do something about it. I approached various companies and solicited their help. At first, I was a little reluctant, as it felt unfamiliar. Soon enough, I found out that many people are willing to step up and help. With my efforts, along with the generosity of those I approached, I was able to secure 20 hours of flight time for cadets. This is great news, as the more cadets we can get into an airplane, the better it is. These are young minds who sign up to better their lives through the science of flight. I felt it was the only honorable thing to do—and it worked. This past week, we held our presentation ceremony. It was there that I met the Editor and Publisher of The Central. As soon as I told him what I had accomplished, he wanted to get involved. He wanted to take part in this great effort that is taking off like wildfire. Mr. Ingino was so impressed by the initiative that he invited me to write a column to share my experiences and my role as Treasurer of COPA Flight 70. He was so supportive that he extended a partnership with a proposed fundraising target of $12,000. This would allow us to provide 40 more hours of flight time. This is tremendous news. This new initiative in the paper allows local businesses to take out a 3x5 ad. Normally, one week would cost $400. Mr. Ingino is offering two weeks for $400 plus tax, and in turn, he will donate $200 to COPA toward the $12,000 target. I believe Mr. Ingino has shown great leadership through this partnership with COPA. We need more local business owners to take the initiative and get involved. I am a retired educator, and I know first hand the developmental stages of a young mind—their insecurities, their dreams, and their aspirations. As a former school principal, I saw that every student had the potential for greatness. Many, with the right coaching and motivation, can achieve it. Others, however, fall to the side due to many factors—economics, family circumstances, and unforeseen challenges that can impede academic growth and development. As a member of COPA, I see these cadets enter the program with great aspirations—open minds and the spark of hope to one day take to the sky.As it stands, due to the cost of flight time, access has been limited to only a few. The goal is to leave no young mind behind—to give them the opportunity to experience flight first hand. I can tell you from personal experience as a pilot: there is no greater feeling than taking flight. To feel the freedom and the ability to control an aircraft in the air is something truly special. I remember when I purchased my first aircraft and had to fly it a long distance home. I was scared, tired, and concerned—but I could not have been happier. To be in my own aircraft for hours, flying home, is a feeling no one can ever take away from me. This is, in part, why I started this initiative. I am grateful to all who have been generous enough to donate and contribute so far, and I am thankful for this new partnership with The Central Newspaper. Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can truly take off and fly wherever our imagination leads us. There is no limit to the possibilities. There is no limit to our ability to dream. If you can help, we would greatly appreciate it. The cadets will be forever grateful. Thank you.

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules

The Illusion of a Social Norm - How Everyone is an Exception to Social Rules By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist In highschool, it can feel almost impossible to be your authentic, full self. Students are constantly influenced by peer pressure, social standards, and comparison to others. It is evident when you walk into a classroom and see every girl in the same leggings and uggs, every guy with the same haircut and sweater. The similarities are clear, however the source of the standard is untraceable. The ending is unclear, as these similarities are not limited to just high school, following us throughout our entire lives. From a young age, we are often taught who we are supposed to be. Friends, family, teachers, and peers all have their own perspective on how you should act, and who you should be. As a kid, your friends may influence you to be louder, funnier, and more social, while a teacher may praise you for being quiet and introverted. None of these influences are directly wrong or negative, they are all trying to form a well-rounded individual. However, it can be confusing and make it difficult to distinguish what you really want from the loudest influences. When everyone around you has a different idea of who you should be, it becomes difficult to hear your own voice and your own wants. You start to wonder if your choices are really yours, or just reflections of others. As you get older, these contrasting expectations don’t disappear, they evolve. You become more aware of the “social norm,” a combination of expectations that seems impossible to avoid. In elementary school, the norm might be as simple as liking certain games or fitting into friend groups. In high school, it becomes more intense, and rigid; what you wear, how you act, who you hang out with, and what you post can feel like they define your entire life. If you make one mistake, reject what is defined as “normal” one time, your entire social life feels endangered. This norm even follows into adulthood, where its focus shifts to success, relationships, career paths, and lifestyle. There is always an unspoken standard which defines behavior, even if we cannot directly see it. The ironic part is, nobody perfectly fits the social norm. It’s an illusion, a constantly moving target which changes based on who you’re around. Since the rule is always changing, we’re all exceptions to a rule that doesn’t truly exist. This just increases the confusion which began at a young age, the question if you are your own person or a combination of the expectations which surround you. It creates a lifestyle of uncertainty and confusion instead of confidence and certainty. The norm isn’t something anyone naturally is, it’s a performance. Both online and in person, there is a constant trend of people being called performative or fake due to their fashion, interests, or behavior. However, it’s all hypocritical, as we are all performing to some capacity. Trying to change ourselves, even if it seems in the smallest way, is the show we cannot escape. Whether it be online or with a social group, it is practically impossible to not let ourselves be changed, especially when it is hard to understand your authentic self in the first place. Social media only intensifies the pressure and performance. Instead of trying to keep up with the standards of the people directly around us, we are now trying to keep up with the standards of thousands of people. We see the carefully curated versions of other people’s lives through a screen, and try to match it to seem trendy or likeable. The result is a constant feeling of falling short, unable to keep up with an online highlight reel. It is clear we are all a little performative, influenced by the norms we cannot control or escape. We adjust how we act depending on where we are and who we’re with. That doesn’t make us fake or ingenuine, it makes us human. The goal isn’t to completely reject the idea of social norms, which is an expectation even harder than keeping up with the norms themselves. Instead, the challenge is to recognize standards without completely losing yourself to them. The first step to moving past the norm is to figure out which parts of yourself feel real when no one is watching. It’s about choosing which standards to keep and what to let go of. Through this, it’s easier to learn about yourself and the interests, new and old, that feel the most “you.” Finding your authentic self isn’t about escaping influence entirely, an impossible goal. Social pressure is something which exists from the second we are born, starting with our parents and evolving into the opinions of everyone we surround ourselves with. These influences are not always negative, and that's important to remember. So, instead of avoiding the influence and standard, the goal is to learn how to exist within the expectations, without letting them define you altogether.

The Killing Of A Profession Scoundrels - Pretender & Wanabe’s

The Killing Of A Profession Scoundrels - Pretender & Wanabe’s By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States This past week, we witnessed Whitby councillor Victoria Bozinovski asking the town to report back on how to get around the law and not hire legal immigrants. This is illegal, racist, xenophobic, and unacceptable. In turn, it could cost the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend. My stance on immigration is not the issue here. If you want your opinions on immigration reform heard, take them to your local MP. Understanding the law and jurisdiction is an essential life skill. This situation sparked interest from a right-wing, online-only, self-proclaimed news group. Here is where the problem arises. Today, anyone and everyone can claim to be a journalist—and that is far from the truth. It is also an insult to a profession that has played a very important role in society. In this case, Rebel News took it upon itself to go after an elected official. No justification can rationalize unprofessional behaviour. This particular reporter acted more like an activist than a bona fide journalist. Journalism, by definition, involves researching, gathering, verifying, and presenting news and information to the public through print or broadcast. Journalists act as community watchdogs, maintaining accountability while operating under ethical guidelines to provide accurate, fair, and contextual information. What took place was not reporting. It was not journalism. It was an attack driven by an agenda regarding a particular decision by the councillor. She is not innocent either. I think it is wrong for any elected official to politicize their opinions and then hide behind their sexual orientation. Her blunt, label-driven approach toward a very sensitive issue like immigration was inappropriate. It appears that, when faced with limited argument, it has become fashionable to point fingers and label others—as she did in her statement: “not hire legal immigrants is illegal, racist, xenophobic, and garbage.” First and foremost, she should tone down her aggressive position. She is supposed to be a representative of all people. That means everyone. Her statement isolates some and empowers others—and, worse, it shows a lack of national pride and understanding of the issues facing society. For her, it was easier to point and label. Wrong.I believe she should apologize and retract her statement. As for the alt-right activist group masquerading as journalists—their actions are understandable, but not justified. Their aggressiveness may make sense, but it is still unacceptable. So how do we get a right from two wrongs? We don’t. This is a sign of the times. Society is fractured. On one hand, we have elected officials in roles for which they may lack the necessary understanding of society as a whole. Instead, they make personal attempts to deal with issues that are beyond their capabilities. Victoria is not alone—this kind of confusion is evident across Canada. So what does that tell us, as taxpayers and as people who see the bigger picture? Perhaps it is time to reconsider municipal governments, as they are clearly not representing everyone’s best interests. As for activists masquerading as journalists—the same criticism applies. We cannot go around pretending to be something we are not. Activists in the media are a dime a dozen. At best, they are columnists—not journalists. In this case, the activist uses a video camera to justify whatever angle they choose to push. This is wrong because it confuses the public and feeds the highway of misinformation. The fact that they do not print or broadcast in the traditional sense, as per the definition above, speaks to their credibility. To add insult to injury, this reporter has had multiple run-ins with the law for similar occurrences. A good journalist asks the right questions and leaves the subject wanting to have their side heard. What took place in Whitby was unprofessional—from both the activist and the councillor. Two wrongs never make a right, just as two rights will never solve everything or anything —because perfection is an elusive concept that requires a good journalist to help interpret.

Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered?

Dead and Gone… Are You Sure It’s Covered? By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario There is a question many families ask, often quietly - sometimes sitting together after everything has already happened. “Would it have been easier if this had already been arranged?” They are usually talking about prepaid funeral plans. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand what those plans actually do - and what they don’t. From the outside, prepaid arrangements sound simple. You make decisions ahead of time. You pay in advance. When the time comes, everything is taken care of. In some ways, that is true. But like many things connected to funerals, the details matter more than people expect. A prepaid plan is not always a single thing. Some plans lock in specific services and prices. Others simply set aside funds that will be used later. Some are guaranteed. Others depend on how costs change over time. Those differences are not always obvious at the beginning. I have spoken with families who believed everything had been taken care of, only to discover later that certain items were not included. Not because anyone did something wrong. But because the plan did not cover everything they assumed it would. I’ve seen the look when they realize it wasn’t as clear as they thought. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel steady enough to ask one simple question: “What exactly is included?” Not just generally. Line by line. Does the plan include transportation? Paperwork? Staff services? Facilities? Is it tied to a specific funeral home? Are third-party costs included, or will those be separate later? Those questions matter more than the label “prepaid.” There is another part that can be confusing. Portability. Many prepaid plans are connected to a specific provider. If someone moves, or if the family prefers to use a different funeral home, transferring the plan is not always straightforward. Sometimes it can be done. Sometimes there are limitations. If I were gone, I would want my family to know where the plan applies - and what happens if circumstances change. I would also want them to understand something that is not always talked about directly. A prepaid plan can reduce decision-making. It does not remove it completely. Even when arrangements are set in advance, the family still makes choices when the time comes. Dates. Timing. Small details that were not part of the original plan. I have seen families feel relief knowing certain decisions were already made. I have also seen families feel unsure about whether to follow the plan exactly, or adjust it. If I could leave one quiet message, it would be this: Do not feel bound by a plan in a way that adds pressure. A prepaid arrangement is meant to guide, not to create stress. There is also the financial side. Many people choose prepaid plans to protect their family from rising costs. In some cases, guaranteed plans do lock in pricing. In others, the funds set aside may not keep pace with future costs. If I were gone, I would want my family to understand whether the plan is guaranteed, or simply a contribution toward future expenses. I would also want them to know where the funds are held. In Ontario, prepaid money is typically placed in trust or backed by insurance. That structure exists to protect families. Still, it is reasonable to ask how the plan is funded and how it will be accessed when needed. If I could leave one practical suggestion, it would be this: If a prepaid plan exists, review it. Not just once, and not just when it is purchased. Look at it again over time. Make sure it still reflects what is wanted. And make sure someone else knows it exists. Because a plan only helps if the people who need it can find it and understand it. If I were gone, I would want my family to feel supported by whatever had been arranged - not surprised by it. Preplanning can be a gift. But its value depends on how clearly it is understood. Next week, I will write about something many families hesitate to start: how to have a conversation about funeral wishes without it feeling uncomfortable or overwhelming.

According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre

According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist In 2023 there were over 62,000 reported fraud victims. Seniors in Canada are getting bilked out of more than $500 million every year. It is estimated that as many as one in five seniors have lost money to fraudsters and most don’t report it. Even though seniors today may be mentally sharper than ever, they are still the con artists’ favorite target because they generally have more disposable cash and are often more trusting. Also, with our population living longer, there are more elders in their 80’s and 90’s who are vulnerable because they live alone, have a certain level of memory loss and can be confused or frightened by slick scammers. Scam artists try their tricks on all age groups, but some of their cons they focus on seniors. Here are a few common scams targeting seniors: Grandchild-in-trouble – Henry gets a call from what sounds like a grandson asking for some urgent financial help. Apparently traveling far from home, he needs bail money or emergency car repairs and asks for a wire transfer. In a nasty new twist, crooks knew some things about the grandchild and used a software tool to impersonate their voice. They were told their grandchild had been kidnapped and demanded payment of ransom. Cunningly, the crooks earlier called the grandchild on their cell phone, impersonating the phone carrier, and asked them to turn it off for a maintenance check. Protection – Wire payment or Bitcoin is the dead give-away. Never send money before confirming the grandchild’s whereabouts and call police. Phony bank official – Anne was bilked out of more than $15,000 when she thought she was helping her bank catch a thieving teller. She was instructed to withdraw a large sum of cash from her account and deliver it to the ‘bank official’ at a mall in her neighborhood. He was well dressed and assured her that the funds would be deposited back to her account. Anne was told not to tell her bank because they didn’t want to tip-off the teller, and he was able to get her to make two more withdrawals. Protection – Do not give any personal information to someone claiming they represent your bank. Call the police. Scareware – Shortly after David and Gail got their first computer; a message appeared on their screen telling them it was infected with a virus. They were invited to download a program for a small charge, giving the fraud artist their credit card information. Protection – First thing, have Internet security software from one of the big-name providers installed. Set it to update regularly and ignore the phony pop-up messages.

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.”