Saturday, March 14, 2026
Municipal Interests - As Simple as ABC
Municipal Interests - As Simple as ABC
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
One of the most interesting things about municipal politics is how simple it is to become a candidate, and how difficult it is to actually win.
The basic requirements to run for municipal council are surprisingly straightforward. A candidate must be 18 years old, be a Canadian citizen, and either live in the municipality or own or lease property in the municipality in which they choose to run.
In many ways the system is designed this way on purpose. The local government is meant to be accessible to ordinary everyday citizens who care about their community and are ready to step forward and serve.
While the qualifications to run may be simple, earning the confidence of the voters is another matter altogether. Running a successful campaign requires time, energy, and a genuine connection to the community, People want to know who you are, what you stand for and perhaps most importantly, if you truly understand the issues that matter to them in their neighbourhood.
Municipal politics is often less about political ideology and more about practical leadership. Voters tend to look for candidates who are visible in the community, approachable and willing to listen. They look for someone who understands the day-to-day concerns of the residents, whether that involves roads and infrastructure, responsible growth and development, property taxes, or simply maintaining the services that make the community function well.
Name recognition can also play a role. Candidates who have already been involved in community organizations, volunteer work, local business or neighbourhood initiatives often begin with an advantage because people know them and trust their commitment to the community.
Running for council also requires a willingness to put yourself out there. Campaigns involve meeting residents, attending community events, knocking on doors, answering questions and sometimes facing criticism. It takes a significant investment of time and energy, often for many months leading up to election day.
At the end of the day, voters are not simply choosing a name on the ballot. They are choosing someone they believe will represent their interests and make thoughtful decisions on behalf of the entire community. Municipal government is the closest level of government at the people, and the choices made at the council table can shape the future of a city for many years to come. 
Who Told You to Spend Time Tailoring Your Resume?
Who Told You to Spend Time
Tailoring Your Resume?
By Nick Kossovan
Spend time on LinkedIn, and you’ll notice the self-proclaimed “gurus” preaching about tailoring your resume for every job you apply for. Repeating themselves endlessly, they promote the unsubstantiated self-serving narrative that if job seekers don’t customize every bullet point of their resume to match the keywords in a job description, their application will vanish into the black hole of the Applicant Tracking System (ATS).
Charlatan-like career coaches and influencer-wanderers love endlessly evangelizing the resume “tailoring” myth because it validates their service, which relies on job seekers’ vulnerability. Their goal is to make job hunting seem complicated and labour-intensive, so you’ll pay them to help you navigate the job market. However, while you’re spending your time playing “keyword bingo,” rearranging your resume for the umpteenth time this week, you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Following wrong advice, which is usually self-serving, wastes your time and money.
The harsh reality—which I’ve repeatedly stated in The Art of Finding Work columns—is that employers don’t care about your ability to mirror their job description. Employers care about one thing and one thing only: Can you add value to their profitability? Can you make them money? Can you save them money? Can you make their operations more efficient? If you’re not clearly answering these questions, which most job seekers aren’t, in a no longer than 2-page resume, no amount of “tailoring” will get you an interview.
If your resume and LinkedIn profile don’t clearly show how you added value to your previous employers, you’re choosing to remain unemployed longer.
Instead of creating twelve versions of a mediocre resume, create one stellar resume. Create a “Master Value Document” that shouts, “I improve an employer’s profitability!” When a recruiter or hiring manager reviews your resume, they aren’t looking to see if you used the words “synergy” or “team-player” because they were in the job posting; they’re looking for evidence that you understand the bottom line.
Most resumes are essentially a list of "who gives a sh*t" responsibilities. "Responsible for managing the budget." "Handled customer inquiries." That's not a resume; it's a job description in the past tense, not a way to convey your value to an employer.
When it comes to capturing the reader’s attention and helping them picture your value to their company, your bullet points must be “value-add,” using quantifying numbers (numbers are the language of business) to highlight your results, not just your tasks.
No value: Led a team of 10 inside sales reps.
Value-Add: Scaled inside sales team revenue from $8.5M to over $12M by coaching 10 reps on asking open-ended discovery questions, increasing the 2025 close rate by 45%.
No value: Reduced company expenses in the shipping department.
Value-Add: Decreased LTL (Less-Than-Truckload) costs by 18% ($65k/year) by consolidating 12 regional carriers into 3 primary strategic partners.
No Value: Managed 5 customer service agents.
Value-Add: Boosted customer retention 20% by architecting an automated FAQ system that cut resolution times by 70% (from 48 to 14 hours).
No value: Created marketing materials for a variety of social media platforms.
Value-Add: Designed a “Flash Sale” story series that generated $18k in attributed revenue within 48 hours, achieving a 6.5x Return on Ad Spend (ROAS).
No value: Managed help desk.
Value-Add: Lowered support cost-per-ticket by 22% ($15 to $11.70) by migrating 40% of inquiries to a self-service AI chatbot.
Notice the difference? In each of these examples, the employer can see how the candidate contributes to a universal concern among employers: financial health. Whether you’re applying to a tech startup or a 100-year-old manufacturing firm, profitability and efficiency are always in style.
You may be thinking: “But Nick, what if the job is slightly different? Don’t I need to show I have specific skills?”
That’s what your LinkedIn profile is for.
Think of your resume as your "Value Executive Summary." It's your hook. Your LinkedIn profile, however, is your digital portfolio, where you have more room to explain the "how" behind your value. Use your LinkedIn "About" section to tell your career story.
Use the "Featured" section to link to projects, testimonials, or presentations that demonstrate your expertise and value-add. If a recruiter is impressed by your value-packed resume, they'll go straight to your profile, which your resume provides a link to, to get a full picture of your career, value-add, and what your LinkedIn activity looks like (read: can you manage your emotions).
Maintaining one high-impact resume and a robust LinkedIn presence will not only save you hours of soul-crushing “I hope these edits will get me an interview” work; it’ll position you as a specialist in achieving results that impact an employer’s profitability.
Don’t worry about being the “perfect fit” for a mythical robot; that’s not universally programmed the same way. Hyper-focus on showing employers that you’re a “profitable choice.” Write one resume. Make it about the money.
Use your LinkedIn profile to expand on your value-add and show how you think. Most importantly, stop letting the “gurus” rent space in your head with their manufactured complexity, trying to sell you aself-serving lie because a simple truth—that one value-driven resume is all you need—doesn’t make them money. 
A warning Canada should hear
A warning Canada should hear
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
A warning has come out of the Vatican, and whether people are religious or not, it should make them stop and think. The message is simple. Christians are now being described as the most persecuted religious community in the world. Archbishop Ettore Balestrero, speaking in Geneva on March 3, said almost 400 million Christians around the world face persecution or violence, and nearly 5,000 were killed for their faith in 2025. Vatican News and Open Doors both point to the same broad picture, saying more than 388 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination worldwide. That is about one in seven Christians.
That number is so big it can feel distant. It should not. Behind it are real people. Families. Churches. Children. Workers. Old people trying to pray in peace. Some are attacked with open violence. Some are jailed. Some are driven from their homes. Some lose jobs, safety, or standing in their community because of what they believe. The Vatican’s point was not only that Christians are being killed. It was that persecution also comes through false detention, seizure of property, forced exile, and pressure that makes people afraid to live openly by their faith.
That matters because many people still think persecution only counts when it is bloody and obvious. They picture mobs, burned churches, gunmen, or prisons. Yes, that is part of it. But the quieter forms matter too. A person can be punished without being dragged off in chains. A society can weaken freedom little by little, until people learn to keep their beliefs to themselves. That is often how decline begins. Not with one loud moment, but with a slow change in what people are allowed to say in public without fear. This is the part that should concern Canadians.
Canada likes to believe it is above that kind of danger. We tell ourselves we are calm, fair, and balanced. We like to think the ugly things happen somewhere else, in countries with obvious corruption or open hatred. But history is full of places that thought they were too decent to lose their way. Free countries do not usually change overnight. They change step by step. First comes the language. Then the rules. Then the pressure. Then people begin to understand, without being told directly, that some beliefs are welcome in private but risky in public.
That is why Bill C-9 deserves attention.
Bill C-9 is called the Combating Hate Act. It is now before a House of Commons committee. Parliament says it would amend the Criminal Code on hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places. The federal Justice Department says the bill would create offences tied to intimidation and obstruction at places such as houses of worship, create a specific hate motivated crime offence, add a definition of hatred to the Criminal Code, create an offence for publicly displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols to wilfully promote hatred, and remove the need for Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid.
Now, a fair person should admit this right away. Some parts of that bill sound reasonable. Most Canadians would agree that nobody should be intimidated on the way into a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, school, or community centre. Most people would also agree that real violence and clear threats should be taken seriously. The government says the bill is aimed at serious conduct, not ordinary disagreement, and its Charter statement says the law is supposed to target extreme detestation or vilification, not simple dislike or mere offence.
Still, that is not the end of the story. Laws are not judged only by how they are introduced. They are judged by how they can be used later, especially when the mood changes. The same Charter statement says Bill C-9 engages freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, liberty, and bail rights. That should tell Canadians something important. Even the government knows this law touches core freedoms. Once the state gives itself stronger tools around speech, motive, and legal definitions of hatred, people have a right to ask where that road leads.
This is where many Christians, and many civil liberties supporters too, get uneasy. In Canada, the line between hate and strongly stated belief has already become a battle zone. Traditional Christian views on marriage, sexuality, gender, sin, and morality can now bring public backlash very quickly. In that kind of climate, some people fear new hate tools will not stay aimed only at obvious extremists. They fear those tools will slowly expand outward. First a complaint. Then an investigation. Then a lesson is sent to everybody else watching. Stay quiet. Soften your words. Keep your faith inside the walls.
To be clear, Bill C-9 does not say Christians are the target. It does not openly attack churches. The concern is different. It is that Canada may be building a legal and cultural climate where traditional religious belief is treated with growing suspicion. That kind of shift rarely arrives with a drumroll. It comes through policies, complaints, workplace rules, school standards, tribunal language, and public pressure. It comes dressed as safety and fairness. But if the result is that believers become afraid to speak plainly about what their faith teaches, then something vital has already been lost.
This is why the Vatican warning should not be treated as a faraway church story. It connects to a bigger truth. Freedom of religion does not mean very much if it only protects silent belief. Real freedom means a person can live by that faith, speak it, teach it, and bring it into public life without being treated as a threat. Once that right starts shrinking, the damage does not stop with Christians. It reaches everybody. Rights that only protect approved views are not really rights at all. They are permissions handed out by whoever holds power at the time.
Canada is not yet a country where Christians are being rounded up for their faith. That is true. But it would be foolish to think freedom can only be lost in dramatic ways. Often it is worn down more quietly. A sermon gets flagged. A speaker is cancelled. A teacher is disciplined. A pastor gets a visit. A believer learns the cost of speaking too clearly. By then, the law may still look tidy on paper, but the culture has changed under people’s feet.
That is the warning here. Around the world, Christians are already paying a terrible price. Canada should be learning from that, not drifting toward its own softer version of the same mistake. People do not need to panic. They do need to pay attention. By the time a country admits faith has become a problem in public life, the damage is already well underway. 
Municipal democracy is not just about votes
Municipal democracy is not just about votes.
It is also about conversation.
The Municipal Severance Loophole Nobody Talks About.
In municipal politics, there are many policies that sit quietly in the background—rarely discussed, rarely questioned, and often assumed to be functioning exactly as intended. But every once in a while, when you look closely at the language of these policies, you discover something remarkable: a structural oversight that has been hiding in plain sight for years. One such issue exists within the severance policies governing elected officials in many municipalities, including the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham.
On its face, the policy appears straightforward and reasonable. Councillors who leave office receive severance calculated as one month of remuneration for every year of service. The rationale behind this type of policy is not difficult to understand. Municipal councillors often dedicate years—sometimes decades—of their lives to public service. Unlike many private sector positions, elected officials do notaccumulate pensions in the same way and do not enjoy traditional job security. Severance provisions are therefore often framed as a modest bridge between terms of office, providing a transition cushion as individuals move back into private life.
But when we examine the policy more carefully, a fundamental question emerges.
What happens when a councillor leaves office, collects severance, and then returns to serve again? The current language of the policy, at least as publicly understood, does not appear to address this situation directly. It simply provides that a councillor is entitled to one month of remuneration for each year of service upon leaving office. What it does not explicitly clarify is whether previous severance payments are taken into account if that individual later returns to council. This seemingly small omission opens the door to a scenario that many taxpayers would likely find surprising.
Consider the following example.
A councillor serves ten years in office. At the conclusion of their time on council—whether through electoral defeat or voluntary retirement—they receive severance equal to ten months of remuneration. At that point, the policy has functioned exactly as intended.
But suppose that individual decides to return to politics a few years later. They run again, win a seat on council, and serve another term or two. When they leave office a second time, the policy once again calculates severance based on years of service. If the policy does not account for prior severance payments, that individual could potentially receive another full severance payout for the subsequent period of service. In other words, the policy could allow multiple severance payouts to the same individual over the course of their political career. To be clear, this situation is not necessarily the result of wrongdoing by any councillor. Elected officials operate within the rules that are established by the municipality. If the rules permit multiple severance payouts, then those payouts occur because the policy itself allows them. The issue, therefore, is not about personalities or individual councillors. It is about policy design. Most modern compensation frameworks—whether in the private sector or the broader public sector—contain safeguards to prevent this type of repeated severance exposure. Organizations typically address the issue through one of several mechanisms.
One approach is the lifetime cap. Under this model, severance payments are limited to a maximum amount—often twelve months of remuneration—over the course of an individual’s entire service history. Once that cap is reached, no additional severance can be paid.
Another approach is the prior payment deduction model. In this system, any severance previously received is deducted from future entitlements. For example, if a councillor previously received six months of severance and the policy allows a maximum of twelve months, the most they could receive in the future would be the remaining six months.
A third method involves defining severance strictly in terms of continuous service immediately preceding departure from office. Under such a structure, if an individual leaves council and later returns after a break in service, their earlier tenure does not accumulate again toward severance calculations. Some municipalities have adopted an even simpler solution: severance may only be paid once to any individual regardless of the number of separate terms served. Each of these approaches addresses the same core principle—ensuring that severance functions as a transitional support mechanism rather than a recurring benefit. Without such safeguards, severance policies can begin to resemble something they were never intended to be: a form of episodic compensation tied to electoral cycles rather than genuine employment transition.
Why does this matter?
Municipal government operates on public trust. Every dollar paid in compensation, benefits, or severance ultimately comes from taxpayers. Even when payments are legally permissible under existing policies, the perception of repeated severance payouts can undermine confidence in municipal governance.
In an era when municipalities are asking residents to absorb higher property taxes, infrastructure levies,and development charges, transparency and discipline in compensation policies become especially important.
The solution to this issue is not complicated.
A simple amendment to the severance policy could read as follows:
“For the purposes of severance entitlement, cumulative severance payments to any individual shall not exceed twelve months of remuneration over the course of their service to the municipality. Any severance previously paid shall be deducted from future entitlements.” Such language would immediately close the loophole while still preserving the original purpose of severance—to provide reasonable transitional support for those leaving public office after meaningful service.
Importantly, this type of policy reform is not punitive. It does not target current councillors, nor does it diminish the value of public service. Instead, it aligns municipal compensation frameworks with widely accepted governance standards. Good policy should anticipate real-world scenarios. It should account for the fact that political careers are rarely linear. Councillors may step away from office and later return. Electoral outcomes can change over time. Policies should therefore be robust enough to handle those realities without creating unintended financial exposure.
At its best, municipal governance is about stewardship—of infrastructure, of community resources, and of taxpayer dollars. Reviewing compensation policies through that lens is simply part of responsible administration. Sometimes the most important governance reforms are not dramatic. They do not involve billion-dollar infrastructure projects or sweeping legislative change. Sometimes they are as simple as tightening a few lines of policy language to ensure that the rules operate exactly as intended. The severance framework governing municipal councillors may well be one of those cases. And as with many issues in municipal government, the first step toward improvement is simply asking the question.
If You Can’t See It, You Can’t Stop It Why Ontario’s Democracy Is in Danger
If You Can’t See It, You Can’t Stop It
Why Ontario’s Democracy Is in Danger
When those in power decide the public no longer has the right to see their decisions, the first thing to disappear is trust. That is exactly what Ontario’s Conservative government is proposing with changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If these changes pass, cabinet ministers, political staff, and even the premier’s office could operate entirely out of public view, hiding emails, messages, and communications from the citizens they are supposed to serve.
This is not a small administrative change. This is a fundamental attack on democracy. The people making the decisions that shape land, finances, communities, and programs would be shielded from scrutiny. Citizens would have no way of knowing what deals are made, what advice is given, or who benefits. Decisions that should be public could vanish behind closed doors, leaving the public entirely in the dark.
I am profoundly disappointed in Premier Doug Ford for even considering this. After scandals have already emerged under his government, one must ask: what is left to hide? What conversations with developers, lobbyists, and well-connected insiders are happening right now that the public will never see? Why would any government want to operate in secret unless they are avoiding accountability?
Freedom-of-information requests are the only reason Ontarians know the truth about past scandals. Without them, we would never have discovered the Greenbelt scandal here in Pickering, where decisions about protected land enriched private interests. We would not have learned about the ArriveCAN contracts that raised troubling questions, or the WE Charity student grant program mismanagement. These were not minor missteps—they were decisions made in secrecy, affecting millions, and in some cases, benefiting private interests while the public paid the price.
And make no mistake: without FOI laws, this pattern would continue unchecked. Ministers could meet, communicate, and direct policy behind closed doors, with no accountability. Citizens could never know if decisions are made for the public good or for special interests. That is not government. That is power without responsibility. That is corruption, in the broadest sense, and it is what transparency laws are designed to prevent.
The problem is not limited to Queen’s Park. Across Ontario, citizens are using FOI requests to understand how their local governments operate. In Pickering, residents have challenged the city over incomplete responses, while record-retention policies are being changed, leaving citizens wondering what is being withheld and for how long. These are not abstract concerns. They are a warning about what happens when power is hidden from the people.
Democracy does not survive in the shadows. Every conversation, every email, every note from a minister, every meeting with a developer or lobbyist should be accessible to the people who elected them. Public office is not private property. It is a public trust.
If governments are making decisions in the public interest, why hide them? If there is nothing to hide, why reduce access to records? When transparency is limited, suspicion flourishes. When accountability disappears, corruption can thrive. And when citizens cannot see, they cannot stop it.
Ontarians should not accept a system where power operates in secret. We deserve the right to ask questions, to see the evidence, and to hold those in power accountable. Every conversation that shapes policy, every deal that impacts communities, every decision that affects public funds belongs to the people. Not to ministers. Not to political staff. Not to special interests.
The question we must all ask ourselves—and our government—is this: why are they hiding? What are they hoping we never see? And what else is happening behind those closed doors that will affect our communities, our land, and our lives?
Because if the public cannot see it, they cannot stop it. And a government that the people cannot see is no longer a government for the people—it is a government for itself.
EXCUSE ME… EXCUSE ME AM I THE ONLY RETARD HERE?
EXCUSE ME... EXCUSE ME
AM I THE ONLY RETARD HERE?
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Ok. Before anyone goes on a hyper fit:... Retarded definition: The term "mentally retarded" is an outdated and derogatory term formerly used to describe individuals with intellectual disabilities, characterized by significant limitations in cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior (IQ below 70). Ok now that is out in the clear... that may include most of us. As for the rest of you intellectual disabilities troopers. Let’s get real. How else may you describe how the government and the world treats us consumers. Coca Cola sells for 3 dollars a two Litre bottle. $1.50/litre. Gas sells for $1.20. Are we to assume that the production of gasoline is cheaper than mixing water with syrup?
Ok. Here is where my intellectual integrity is compromised to the IQ of a chimp. I am guilty as charges as my fat ass can’t do without Coke... and i don’t mean that of which you snort.
Coca Cola is in my blood... I drink so much, I urinate Sprite. Ok you Intellectual disability village people stop laughing.
But think about it. We finally have a president with balls. He finally puts the boots to the Iranians and call their bluffs. The same Trump rips out Venezuelan government and takes their oil. Yet, Trump turns Iran into the swiss cheese of the middle east and our prices here at home go through the roof.
Are we to assume that every time we pull up to the pumps. Some how that hose is connected right to the source?
What a bunch of retards. we are.. Now I don’t know to point that finger to me or them. Cause I am the retard for paying. And oil companies have to be retarded for charging. I guess they think we are to believe that we live in a world that can be fooled.
The question that lingers... who is the bigger retard. Now much like some that are becoming offended by reading this.
WELL EUREKA.
We finally hit a nerve. This is what we in the west need. To put our foot down and say enough is enough. We will not fall for higher prices as an excuse by oil producers to shoot up their profits.
Fat ass of America unite and send a message that those of us addicted to Coca Cola will turn to poisoning ourselves by drinking tap water. Enough is enough. We the retards of America will not take it. We demand accountability. Trump’s F.A.F.O mentality should be employed by all of us modern day slaves and call general strikes. Take up arms and put our foot down. We are openly being ripped off. OK. My fellow retards. Let’s head to the pumps
and pretend you never read this...
The New Wars and the Next Oil Crisis
Saturday, March 7, 2026
Dead and Gone… When the Funeral Is Over
Dead and Gone…
When the Funeral Is Over
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
There is a moment most families do not expect. It happens after the funeral is over. The service has finished. The chairs are folded away. The flowers have been taken home or left behind.
People hug goodbye in the parking lot and promise to stay in touch. Then, slowly, life around you returns to normal. But inside the family that just lost someone, things rarely feel normal yet.
If I were gone, I think this is the moment I would worry about most for the people I love. Not the paperwork. Not the arrangements. Not even the day of the service itself. Those things, difficult as they are, come with structure. People help.
Funeral homes guide families. Friends bring food. Neighbours stop by. The days feel full. It’s the days after that can feel unexpectedly quiet. I have spoken with many families who told me the same thing later.
The arrangements kept them moving. Once those were finished, the reality of the loss settled in more deeply. Grief does not follow the same timeline as the funeral. A service might last a few hours. The emotional part rarely fits into that window.
Some families feel a strange emptiness when the activity stops. Others feel relief that the decisions are behind them. Many feel both at the same time. And sometimes, that is when the second wave of questions begins.
Did we do the right thing? Would they have liked the service? Should we have chosen something different? If I were gone, I would want my family to know something simple. Those questions are normal. Grief has a way of revisiting decisions, even when those decisions were thoughtful and made with care. But no single choice defines the love people had for someone who died. Not the music. Not the number of people who attended. Not whether the arrangements were simple or traditional. What matters most is the intention behind them. I have seen families hold very modest gatherings that felt deeply meaningful. I have also seen large services that brought comfort because they allowed many people to share stories.
There is no universal formula. The truth is that funerals exist partly for the living. They create a moment where people can acknowledge that something significant has happened. But healing rarely ends when the service does. Sometimes it begins there. If I could leave one quiet message for my family, it would be this.
Take care of each other after the funeral, not just before it. Call each other a week later. Sit together again. Tell the same stories that were told during the service, even if you have already heard them. Grief softens slowly when it is shared.
One of the gentlest things families can do for each other is to keep talking about the person who died. Not just during the formal moment when everyone gathers, but in the weeks and months that follow. Because the service may be the public goodbye. But the private remembering continues long after the flowers are gone.
Next week, I will write about something many families only discover after arrangements begin: why two funeral homes can present quotes that look very different - even when the services being considered are nearly the same.
Feeling Alone? Take Comfort — You’re in Plentiful Company
Feeling Alone? Take Comfort — You’re in Plentiful Company
Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones
It’s a sad irony. But the truth is, loneliness is one of the most crowded experiences in modern society. Some prefer their own company and are emotionally stable. There’s no harm in letting them be. But there is an astonishingly high number of people who can be called “situational loners”. These are people who may have recently retired, become empty nesters, have moved to a new community, or lost a spouse.
Some people, once embedded in a tight group of friends, may find themselves geographically or generationally isolated. Maybe they were part of a scene that was once vibrant, but for one reason or another, the scene changed, and they didn’t. They long for the past and may feel socially out of place in today’s society.
Others have outright rejected a world that offers constant online contact as a proxy for companionship. They see some people thriving with it, but the digital world is not for them.
As a society, we’ve never been more connected. But on a human level, we are disconnecting. Smaller families mean fewer close-in relatives. The ease of mobility uproots connections to the communities our families called home for generations. Our convenience economy means we don’t know basic source information about things that are elemental to our lives.
Call it instability, disconnection, isolation, or uneasiness. It’s a societal malaise that is evident as an upward trend in chronic high blood pressure, increased inflammatory markers, weak immune systems, hormonal imbalance, poor sleep, declining cognitive function, and worsening cardiovascular outcomes.
A recent large-scale study has added a striking insight. Investigators analyzing tens of thousands of adults found that loneliness and social isolation are associated with measurable changes in proteins circulating in the blood, many linked to inflammation, immune function, and heart disease. In other words, the body registers loneliness as a form of biological stress, not just an emotional state.
During the latter part of the winter season in particular, problems are magnified. After weeks of less daylight and reduced physical movement, the negative effects start to mount.
What many people don’t realize is that the human body responds to connection the same way it responds to good nutrition or exercise. A brief conversation, a shared task, even a familiar greeting can lower stress hormones. These are small interactions, but biologically, they have a beneficial effect.
The mistake many make is waiting to feel better before reaching out. In reality, reaching out is what produces the improvement. Health rarely returns by withdrawal. It improves through participation, however modest.
Late winter is not the time for grand resolutions. It is the season for simple, repeatable habits. A daily walk at the same hour. A regular coffee with a neighbour. A volunteer shift. A phone call made every Sunday afternoon. These patterns rebuild rhythm, and rhythm is deeply reassuring to both mind and body.
It is also worth remembering that nearly everyone you meet at this time of year is carrying some degree of the same burden. The person beside you in the grocery line, the neighbour shovelling snow, the acquaintance you haven’t called in months – many are waiting for someone else to make the first move.
So if you are feeling alone, take comfort in knowing you are not uniquely afflicted. You are experiencing a very human signal that it is time to reconnect with light, movement, purpose, and people.
Winter will pass. In the meantime, don’t hibernate from life. Step outside, reach out, and give your health the companionship it was designed to enjoy.
Travelling With the Environment in Mind
Travelling With the Environment in Mind
by Larraine Roulston
‘Protecting Our Ecosystem’
During March break, are you anxiously awaiting a week of warm sun and beaches, or several days of winter sports activities? Even when visiting out-of-town relatives, parents should think about ways to make their mid-winter adventure gentler on our ecosystem.
To help you make responsible and sustainable choices before, during, and after your trip, Rachel Dodds and Richard Butler prepared a 272 page informative guide on eco travel entitled, 'Are We There Yet?: Travelling More Responsibly with Your Children’. This book donates 100% of the profits to the nonprofit World Animal Protection organization focused on ending animal cruelty.
With detailed advice regarding all types of travel, it becomes essentially a blueprint for making the adventure with kids of all ages more enjoyable while focusing on reducing the impact on our ecosystem. It includes advice, resources, and facts, as well as many stories aimed at informing guardians on how to keep children happy and amused, while travelling and enjoying their destinations.
Begin your holiday by turning down your home thermostat. Should your trip be spent on a Caribbean island, pack a reusable shopping bag for purchasing locally crafted souvenirs that support your destination’s local economy. Take your own thermos to be filled at water bottle stations. Enjoy varieties of fresh foods by shopping at local markets.
At hotels, occasionally place the ‘Do Not Disturb’ sign on your door so that housekeeping won’t clean your room when you go out.
To save energy, turn off the air conditioner, lights, and fans when you’re not using your hotel room. Taking shorter showers – even a minute or two less can make a difference in water consumption, which is really important in places where water is scarce.
En route, inquire about environmental ideas offered by tour operators, hotel staff, as well as search websites that support responsible and local travel.
If you are planning either a ski get-away or just a relaxing time at a local resort with a pool, there are apt to be down times for the kids. Allowing for their suggestions keeps everyone happy. Also, pack a deck of cards and a game for all ages to keep kids away from screens and continue to be happily engaged with the adventure.
In hotels, hang up your towel so that the housekeeping staff will not replace it —you can even take your own hotel towel to the pool as washing towels for a single use, wastes both energy and water. ‘Are We There Yet’ helps you to navigate when travelling, and offers tips and inspiration on raising resilient, responsible children who will grow up aware of the many ways to protect and enjoy their environment.
The familiar phrase, ‘are we there yet’, that resonates with parents, can also be interpreted to mean, ‘has our society reached the point of zero waste, lessened carbon emissions, and mitigated water/electricity usage’? Teaching by example is not just one way children learn, it’s the only way.
Market Volatility
Market Volatility
By Bruno Scanga
Financial Columnist
If market volatility has caused you to transfer your money into GICs or cash, you may want to ask yourself if you are still on track to meeting your personal goals.
Whether it’s saving for retirement, a home or a child’s education, travel, keeping money in a lower-earning investment option may not give you the growth you need.
If your goal is to find the most effective way to put your money to work and build up your wealth. There is a tried and tested strategy for investing called Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA), which smooths out the costs of investing by regularly buying over time.
One way to do this is investing a lump sum of money into a temporary investment holding (ex: money market) to avoid market volatility and then systematically switch portions of that into your target investment(s) over a regular period.
This helps you avoid the risk of market timing. Another way the DCA strategy can be achieved is by Pre-Authorized Contributions (PACs).
PACs allows you to make deposits directly from a saving or chequing account and then deposit the amount to a particular investment(s) on a regular basis, such as monthly or bi-weekly.
This will allow your savings to grow automatically.
Dollar Cost Averaging is right for all markets - In a falling market: DCA can let you purchase more securities In a rising market: DCA can protect you from paying too much In a flat market: DCA ensures you always stay invested. Benefits of Pre-Authorized Contributions.
Helps you stick to your plan - Takes advantage of compound growth. Eliminates the guesswork of when to invest. Helps you avoid the rush of yearly RRSP & TFSA contributions.
Double your PAC -Even small increases to a PAC can help you reach your long-term goals faster.
This investment strategy helps you minimize volatility and avoid the risk of market timing. It is not a one-day initiative but rather a continuous long-term activity.
The earlier you start investing, the better you will be in the future. See how these strategies could assist you in achieving your goals. Let’s get started today!
Beyond Inappropriate
Beyond Inappropriate
By Wayne and Tamara
I have an ex six years older than me. Our relationship was troubled in the end. He was doing drugs and drinking excessively, and I was obsessive about fixing him. Finally I moved out without a goodbye and went back to my hometown many miles away. As terrible as our relationship was, he was my first love, and it took me a long time to get over him.
I fought myself from trying to contact him. At the destructive rate his life was going I was sure he would end up dead. I thought of him often but never tried to reach out. Until recently. One night I punched his name into a computer people search and out came his work phone number.
I called him, chatting like a nervous magpie. We both cried as we spoke, and he apologized and said he often thought of me. He wished things could have been different. I have been married 10 years with three children, and he is married a year with a new baby. After I hung up I thought about what I really wanted to say, so I sat down and wrote an email.
It was totally inappropriate because it reminisced on intimate details, but I made it clear I wasn’t going to be able to carry on the platonic relationship we discussed on the telephone. I told him I would always love him and wish him well in the world, and ended with, “This is the last time I will ever intrude in your life again.”
I then deleted his email, threw away his phone number, and went on with my life—until I received an email from his wife. She was furious. I only read the first few angry lines. Since I promised not to intrude again, I asked a close friend to send my apologies and intimate they would never hear from me again.
His wife must have gone to some lengths to email a second time because I blocked her email address. She said I ruined her marriage and hoped I was happy. Then she told me to “be woman enough to respond yourself.” I know I sent a letter I should have kept to myself, but I sent it and now don’t know what to do to make it better.
Barb
Barb, in one episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” the Enterprise is carrying an unusual cargo: a cocoon containing a beautiful young woman. This woman, Kamala, is an empathic metamorph, designed to mold herself to one man. She is on her way to be married, a marriage which will end a feud between warring factions.
By mistake, however, the cocoon is opened and the first man Kamala sees is Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Seeing Jean-Luc, Kamala announces, “I am for you.” Though her mistake is explained and she goes through with the wedding, Kamala tells Picard she is bonded to him, not her husband-to-be.
Because first-time intimacy is imbued with an idyllic power and affects social standing and a woman’s psyche, most women feel a bond to the first man they are intimate with. This is true even when they were lied to and told they were loved when they were not. It is true even when the woman was merely rebelling against something and had sex with the worst possible person.
Ask yourself, what could possess a happily married woman with children to contact a former lover who was an alcoholic, drug-using loser? What wrongness might be in her life now? Something must be wrong with your “happily married,” because happily married people don’t go looking for former lovers.
Consider also if you have a trait of taking action regardless of its effect on others. If that trait is negatively impacting your life, then with some guidance you may be able to stop acting inappropriately and temper your impulsivity with reason.
Wayne & Tamara
Charging Stores For The Abandoned Carts
Charging Stores For The Abandoned Carts
A Candid Conversation
By Theresa Grant
Real Estate Columnist
While watching the local news the other night I heard a story regarding Brampton, Ontario. Apparently, according to the newscaster, Brampton is now going to start charging stores for the abandoned shopping carts that are left randomly all over the City. The charge it is stated is $100.00 per shopping cart.
They do pose a real problem, and I know about this firsthand having worked for a municipality in Durham Region for many years. These shopping carts are taken from stores or parking lots by people and left abandoned absolutely anywhere the person feels like dumping them. They often block walkways and sidewalks making it impossible for someone in a wheelchair or a person who is walking with an aide or device to get around them. They are a nuisance.
It made me wonder why this hasn’t been done before. The municipality that I work for gets calls constantly to retrieve abandoned shopping carts form various areas of the city. They then have to send staff to pick them up. There is no charge to the store that the cart came from. In fact, the City is paying the people who go and retrieve these carts. It makes me wonder also, who came up with this idea? I know that here in Oshawa, Councillor Brian Nicholson just mentioned publicly that some or a few of his constituents had brought an idea to him regarding a walkway or pathway in Ward 5. He in turn consulted with the Regional Councillor for the same area, and they are presenting this idea to Council. That is brilliant. Why don’t more Councillors operate that way? It seems that Brian Nicholson is a rare breed. He lives in the community, speaks to his community, listens to his community, and then goes to city hall and represents his community. Imagine! I guess my bigger question here is why aren’t all Councillors doing this?
We here in Oshawa also see the abandoned shopping carts all over our city. But when an idea is suggested by a member of the public, one of the first responses we hear deals with funding. Why can’t we have a Council that thinks outside the box or is at least willing to listen to people who do? There is often either revenue or savings to be had in the ideas of others. They just need to be listened to. 
Embrace the Dichotomy of Control
Embrace the Dichotomy of Control
By Nick Kossovan
The Enchiridion of Epictetus, by Stoic philosopher Epictetus (50 - 135 CE), opens with a straightforward truth: "Some things are in our control, and others are not." What you control are your beliefs, opinions, impulses, desires, fears, perceptions, and responses. What you don't control are others' beliefs, opinions, impulses, desires, fears, perceptions, and behaviours.
I tend to compartmentalize, which is why I strongly recommend job seekers adopt Epictetus's dichotomy of control, which emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between what is within one's influence and control (internal) and what is outside it (external). When job seekers accept that they have no control over external factors and focus on the internal factors they can control, they tend to achieve much better job search results.
Often, when pursuing the success we want, or more likely see others have, such as career advancement, we put all our efforts into learning new skills, attending classes, cultivating professional relationships, working extra hours, and promoting our efforts and results to our bosses and upper management, only to be disappointed with our rate of progression or to fall short of the success we're aspiring to. We thus learn once again that success depends on many factors outside of our control.
A mistake we all make is equating control over our individual contributions with control over the overall outcome.
Having firsthand experience, I’ll share advice that'll help you avoid years of therapy and lessen your stress, frustration, anger, and anxiety. The surest path to an optimal state of mind is to identify what we can and can't change, then focus on the former and accept the latter.
When you job search within your sphere of control, you feel naturally free, independent, and empowered. Outside your sphere of control, you're vulnerable, constrained, and reliant. Every day, I see and hear job seekers pin their hopes on factors beyond their control, such as how employers design their hiring process, how gatekeepers behave (ghosting, lack of feedback), and whether they get hired. If job seekers focused only on what is truly their concern and within their control, and left the rest to recruiters and employers, they'd expedite their job search.
For example, if you're feeling anxious before a job interview, remind yourself that your preparation, attitude, and how you present yourself are within your control. The interviewer's mood, biases, beliefs, company policies, what other candidates offer, and, especially, gut feel—the most crucial factor in hiring decisions—are beyond your control.
Rejection is temporary if you allow it to be. Taking to LinkedIn to complain that you were unfairly rejected—according to you, you were qualified and aced the interview(s)—isn't only not a good look but also shows you don't understand that hiring decisions aren't yours to make.
Take responsibility for your controllables. Don't let uncontrollables occupy your mind. You have no control over:
An employer's timeline
You've done your part (submitted a quality application); now it's up to the employer. Take a moment to breathe and redirect your energy toward another opportunity.
Job market conditions
You have no control over the economy or industry trends. The only thing you can control is making sure you're as good a candidate as possible.
Employer preferences
There's no way to know the preferences and biases of the person reviewing your resume and LinkedIn profile. No two recruiters, hiring managers, or (gasp) ATSs assess candidates the same way.
Internal candidates
Employers often post jobs despite having internal candidates to comply with policies, ensure fairness, compare talent, and maintain transparency, thereby avoiding accusations of favouritism. While competing with internal candidates is beyond your control, showcasing your fresh perspective is.
Random events
Companies downsizing, hiring freezes, AI eliminating jobs, and sending jobs overseas where they can be performed more economically are beyond your control.
What you can control:
The quality of your resume, LinkedIn profile, and cover letter
The information you choose to provide to a company/hiring manager/recruiter is critical to landing interviews. Offer quantifying numbers, not opinions. Show measurable wins and how you enhanced your employer's profitability. Write a cover letter that compels the reader to read your resume. Not including a cover letter is lazy. I don't know a hiring manager who hires lazy.
Your networking efforts
Opportunities are all around you; the catch is that they're attached to people, which is why cultivating connections is the most efficient job search strategy. My networking tip: When meeting someone for the first time, ask yourself, "How can I help this person?"
Interview preparation
Know and understand the company, the role, how you'd fit in, and your interviewer (Google and LinkedIn are your friends). Express genuine interest! Ask questions that show you're focused on what you can offer the employer rather than on what you want from them.
Your online reputation
Along with gathering information to learn more about you, employers are seeking "social proof" to confirm that you are who you say you are; therefore, take your digital footprint seriously, which most job seekers don't.
Epictetus's dichotomy of control applies to job searching as follows: Letting go of what you can't control is liberating. Knowing what you can control is empowering. How you manage your controllables shapes your job search journey.
Drop the Tax on Tools and Let Canada Build Again
Drop the Tax on Tools and Let Canada Build Again
By Dale Jodoin
Columnist
Here’s something most Canadians do not realize.
If a business in Ontario buys a $250,000 machine built in Ontario, it still pays sales tax on it.
Even though it is Canadian made.
Even though it will create Canadian jobs.
Even though it stays inside Canada.
We tax the very tools that build the country.
In most provinces, businesses pay GST or HST on machinery. Yes, they can claim it back later through input tax credits. But they still pay it upfront. For a small shop, that can mean tens of thousands of dollars tied up before a single product is sold.
At a time when we say we want more manufacturing and stronger productivity, why are we making it more expensive to invest?
If we are serious about rebuilding Canadian industry, here is a simple starting point.
No sales tax on machinery used to create Canadian jobs.
No provincial barriers on Canadian made equipment.
No internal trade walls between provinces.
That is not radical. That is practical.
Around three quarters of Canada’s exports still go to the United States. We can diversify. We should diversify. But we cannot replace that relationship overnight.
Instead of endless tariff battles, focus on what we control.
Lower the cost of production inside Canada.
If a machine shop in Oshawa wants modern CNC equipment, the government should not take a cut. That machine raises output, improves quality, and creates skilled jobs.
Why tax growth?
If a food plant in Manitoba wants Canadian built packaging equipment from Quebec, it should move freely. No extra paperwork. No provincial slowdowns.
It should not feel easier to trade internationally than between provinces. That is a problem we created, and we can fix it.
Removing internal trade barriers would increase efficiency quickly. Canadian companies could sell to Canadians without friction. Skilled workers could move more easily. Equipment could cross borders without red tape.
This is not ideology. It is math.
Lower upfront costs.
Encourage investment.
Increase productivity.
Support better wages.
We hear about labour shortages. We also hear from young Canadians who cannot find strong career paths. That tells us we need better jobs, not just more low paying ones.
Modern equipment changes the equation. A small manufacturer with advanced tools can compete. That company can afford to pay skilled workers properly. That is how you rebuild the middle class.
Countries that focused on productivity did not weaken. They strengthened their industrial base. They exported machinery instead of finished goods.
Canada has the skill and talent to do the same.
But we also need to change how we talk about entrepreneurship.
For too long, security has been tied to large institutions. Risk has been treated like something dangerous. Wanting to be your own boss can sound reckless.
That thinking holds us back.
There is nothing wrong with independence. Building your own company is not selfish. It is how communities grow.
Schools should teach basic business skills. How to start a company. How to manage cash flow. How to price work. How to market a product. These are life skills.
Encourage young people to create jobs, not just apply for them.
Back it up with action.
Create small industrial parks designed for startups. Affordable units. Short leases. Shared loading space. Simple zoning.
Let a young welder rent a small shop without risking everything.
Let a machinist test a new idea.
Let a parts supplier start small and expand.
Right now, cost is the biggest barrier. Rent. Fees. Permits. Upfront tax on equipment.
Lower those barriers and you unlock energy that is already there.
This is not about shouting across borders. It is about strengthening Canada from the inside.
If tariffs remain at ten percent on some exports, fine. We cannot control every global move. But we can control our own policy.
No sales tax on production machinery.
No provincial trade barriers on Canadian equipment.
No artificial walls between provinces.
Encourage independence.
Encourage skill.
Encourage production.
That is not surrender. That is strategy.
We can talk tough.
Or we can build smart.
Let Canadians build again.
When Procedure Replaces Dialogue at Council
When Procedure Replaces Dialogue at Council
Municipal democracy is not just about votes. It is also about conversation.
For more than a century, local councils across Canada have relied on a simple democratic tradition: citizens come forward, present their concerns through a delegation, and elected officials ask questions to better understand the issue. It is a process rooted in parliamentary practice and reflected in frameworks like Robert’s Rules of Order. The purpose is straightforward — allow elected representatives to hear directly from the people and clarify what is being presented before decisions are made.
Recently, however, an email circulated by Clarington’s Chief Administrative Officer has sparked a conversation about how that dialogue actually works.
The email attempts to clarify the role of municipal staff during delegations. According to the message, delegations are presented to Council, and Council members may ask questions of the delegate or staff.
Delegates themselves, however, are not permitted to ask questions directly of staff. If a delegate raises a question and a councillor wishes to know the answer, that councillor must ask staff on the delegate’s behalf. Furthermore, staff will not compile questions from delegations or prepare responses unless 208.Council formally directs them to do so through a motion.
On paper, this interpretation aligns with a basic principle of municipal governance: staff receive direction from Council as a body. In Ontario, that relationship is grounded in the Municipal Act, 2001, which establishes that municipal administration implements the decisions and directions of elected council.
But the question raised by many observers is not whether the statement is technically correct. The question is whether the interpretation risks changing the nature of public participation at council meetings.
Traditionally, delegations have functioned as a two-way exchange. Citizens present concerns, councillors ask questions, and through that dialogue council gains a clearer understanding of the issue at hand. While delegates have never formally directed staff or controlled the meeting, they have historically been able to raise questions and signal what information they believe council should seek.
In practice, a delegation might say something like this: “We would appreciate if council could obtain the following information from staff.” A councillor then decides whether to pursue that information. This system preserves council’s authority while still allowing the public to highlight gaps in information.
The email from the CAO reinforces a much stricter interpretation of procedure — one where staff respond only to formal council direction and do not engage with questions raised through delegations unless a councillor explicitly asks.
The difference may appear subtle, but its impact can be significant.
Municipal councils are one of the few democratic forums where residents can speak directly to decision-makers. Unlike provincial or federal legislatures, local councils routinely allow members of the public to appear before them and discuss issues affecting their community. That accessibility is one of the defining features of local government.
When that interaction becomes overly proceduralized, the risk is that delegations begin to feel less like dialogue and more like monologue.
This is not about blaming municipal staff. Administrators operate within structures designed to ensure accountability and proper governance. Staff are not elected and must be careful about when and how they provide direction or information in a public forum. The principle that staff take direction from Council — and not from individual members of the public — is a sound one. But procedure is meant to facilitate democracy, not replace it.
The spirit behind parliamentary traditions, including those found in Robert’s Rules, is to enable informed decision-making through orderly discussion. The goal is clarity and participation, not rigidity.
That is why questioning delegations has been such an important part of municipal practice. Councillors ask questions not to challenge citizens unnecessarily, but to understand the issues facing their constituents. Often those questions help reveal information that might otherwise be missed. At its best, a delegation is a conversation between the electorate and the people they elected.
The email from Clarington’s administration may simply be an attempt to clarify procedure. Yet it also raises a broader governance question worth considering: how much structure is too much when it comes to public participation?
Democratic institutions depend on more than rules. They depend on trust, openness, and a willingness to listen.
Council meetings should never become theatrical exercises where citizens deliver speeches while answers remain locked behind procedural barriers.
The public deserves a forum where concerns can be heard, questions can be explored, and elected officials can fully understand the issues before them.
After all, the purpose of local government is not merely to follow procedure.
It is to serve the people who show up to speak.
THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM THE DECEPTION OF CHOICE…
THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM
THE DECEPTION OF CHOICE...
By Joe Ingino BA. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800 ,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
If you are like me... a number in a giant bingo game called life. Awaiting our number to be called by some superior entity to end our Destiny... Then we share life. A life that has been predestined at conception and brought to fruition at birth.
A life that we have no choice but that to exist. A life that is dispensed under the predicament of freedom. Freedoms predestined by biological development and or physical growth.
As we have no choice but that to flow with development.
At an early age we learn that freedom is nothing but an illusion that keeps us on a path that is our destiny. In reality we have no freedom as it is predestined by many factors.
An illusion is defined as a distorted perception of reality where the brain misinterprets sensory stimuli (visual, auditory, or tactile), causing us to see, hear, or feel something that differs from objective truth. Unlike hallucinations (absent stimuli), illusions are based on real, albeit misleading, external input. They are categorized as physical, physiological, or cognitive, arising from how our eyes and brain process, anticipate, and interpret information.
This in part is the fundamental root of freedom. An illusion of something that is not. We are taught at an early age to conform. To adapt. To overcome adversity. Our freedoms are restricted by our own distorted perception of reality. This misinterpretation come about due to religion, economics, geography, political among a few things that surround that of wich we call life.
These freedoms force us to choose. These choices are nothing but a cocktail of choices. Choices in a sea of deception of our own minds.
Deception is the act of intentionally misleading others by spreading false information, distorting truths, or withholding information to gain an advantage, avoid punishment, or protect oneself. It encompasses lying, trickery, and fabrication, often severely damaging trust in relationships. It can be a one-time act or a pattern of behavior.
Key Aspects of Deception:
Methods: Includes lying, concealing information, exaggerating, or twisting facts.
Motivations: Common motives include self-protection, gaining an advantage, social politeness (white lies), or intentionally causing harm.
By definition this deception is one that takes part in our minds. Swaying our beliefs in our choices. Society sets forth all kinds of roadblocks in order to deceive us to think that through freedoms we have choice.
In reality we have no choice. Other than that is predestined.
Think for a moment. How much freedom do you really have?
Can you just get up and take a six month vacation?
Can you afford to purchase a luxury car?
Can you walk out wearing nothing but shorts in the middle of winter?
Can you walk in any place and demand service for no pay?
Then what are we truly free to do?
Get up in the morning, shower, breakfast and go to work. Day in and day out. Is that freedom? We work long days to pay bills and barely stay afloat. Is that freedom?
Is that choice? If so then we can say that we have no freedom to choose.
Our illusion of freedom is what fuels our choice to keep going on our daily grind. In reality we are nothing but tumbling balls in that bingo game of life I talked about on the first paragraph.
We go about life from one system right on to the other. Our vicious cycle gives us the illusion of freedom and the deception that it is our choice.
We tumble from social systems that oppress our true being to religious systems that oppress our basic human instincts through the fear of a God. Tumbling through financial systems that keep our choices limited to succeed even thought many of us have failed by the freedom to choose careers that pigeon hole us into vacuum of social restraints. Giving us a false sense of accomplishment and happiness when in reality we are nothing short of slaves of a system that has us tumbling in time as we evolve through our destiny. We are nothing but a number in a bingo game of life.
BINGO!!!
Canada’s Mining Sector at a Crossroads: From Extraction to National Renewal
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Dead and Gone… Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
Dead and Gone…
Who Actually Makes the Decisions?
By Gary Payne, MBA
Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario
After someone dies, there is a moment that families rarely talk about. It doesn’t happen during the first phone call. It doesn’t happen when the paperwork begins. It usually happens quietly, around a kitchen table. Someone asks, “So… what would he have wanted?”
If I were gone, I would hope my family would not feel pressure in that moment. But I know how easily it can happen.
Funeral decisions sound practical from the outside. Burial or cremation. Service or no service. Where. When. How.
But underneath those choices is something more complicated. Who gets to decide?
Many people assume there is a clear answer. Sometimes there is. If someone left written instructions, or prepaid arrangements, that simplifies things. Often, though, there are only conversations half remembered. “I think he said he didn’t want a big fuss.” “Didn’t she once mention cremation?”
“I’m not sure. We never really talked about it.” Grief has a way of amplifying uncertainty. If I were gone, I would want my family to know this: there is rarely a perfect answer. In Ontario, the legal authority to make funeral arrangements usually follows a next-of-kin order. A spouse. An adult child. A parent. But legal authority and emotional authority are not always the same thing.
Sometimes the person with the legal right to decide feels overwhelmed. Sometimes siblings disagree. Sometimes one family member wants something traditional, while another wants something simple.
Those disagreements are rarely about money. They are about love. About memory. About what feels respectful. I have spoken with families who later told me the hardest part was not the paperwork or the cost. It was trying to interpret what someone would have wanted without being completely sure. If I could leave my family one instruction, it would not be about burial or cremation. It would be this: Talk to each other gently. No single decision defines a life.
A modest service does not mean less love. A simple cremation does not mean less honour. A traditional burial does not mean someone was pressured. What matters most is that the people left behind feel united, not divided.
Sometimes that means compromise. Sometimes it means one person stepping back and saying, “What feels right to you?” There is another quiet truth most families discover. Even when someone leaves detailed instructions, the living still carry the emotional weight.
You can follow a plan perfectly and still feel unsure. That is normal. If I were gone, what I would want most is not a particular type of arrangement.
I would want my family to feel steady with one another. I would want them to choose something that reflects our values - without feeling judged by anyone else’s expectations.
Funeral decisions are not about creating something impressive. They are about creating something honest.
Next week, I will write about something families rarely discuss ahead of time, but often struggle with afterward: how long grief lingers once the service is over - and why that part can be harder than the arrangements themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)