Will Getting Active Make Aching Joints Worse?

Will Getting Active Make Aching Joints Worse? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones Few health problems are more discouraging than the pain of osteoarthritis. Day after day, aching knees, hips, or ankles can make simple tasks seem like major obstacles. Suffering people ask, "Should I start exercising to help my joints, or will it simply make the pain worse?" For years, there has been a common belief that walking on an arthritic joint is like driving a worn-out car on a rough road. The fear is that every step causes more damage. Fortunately, research suggests the opposite. One large study followed older adults who had knee osteoarthritis and found that those who walked regularly for exercise were less likely to develop new episodes of frequent knee pain than those who remained inactive. Researchers also found no evidence that walking accelerated damage to the knee joint. This is important news because osteoarthritis is already one of the leading causes of disability among older adults. Osteoarthritis is the wear-and-tear type of arthritis. It develops when cartilage, the smooth cushion between bones, gradually deteriorates with age. As the cushioning disappears, joints become stiff, painful, and inflamed. Understandably, many sufferers feel that resting painful joints is the safest course of action. But our bodies were designed for movement. Just as a ship tied up too long in port develops barnacles, joints that are not used become stiffer, weaker, and less functional. Muscles lose strength, balance deteriorates, and everyday activities become more difficult. The objective of exercise for osteoarthritis treatment is not simply to reduce pain today. It is to preserve the ability to enjoy life for years to come. It’s not about training for a marathon. The goal is to remain independent. Can you climb the stairs? Carry groceries? Visit friends? Travel? Enjoy a walk around the neighbourhood? These are the activities that determine quality of life as we age. Researchers have repeatedly shown that regular physical activity helps older adults maintain mobility and independence. Walking, combined with exercises that improve strength and balance, remains one of the most effective non-drug treatments for osteoarthritis. Of course, use your common sense too. People with severe joint damage should consult their physician. And in all cases, when beginning a new exercise program, start slowly. A ten-minute walk may be enough at first. Increase activity gradually as strength and endurance improve. One of the biggest mistakes people make is doing too much too soon. A sore muscle after exercise may be expected. Sharp or worsening joint pain is not. For those who find walking difficult, swimming and water exercises can be excellent alternatives. Water supports body weight while allowing joints to move through a comfortable range of motion. There is another important point that deserves emphasis. Many people spend their time and money on gym memberships or physiotherapy appointments while ignoring one of the most effective treatments available. For those carrying extra pounds, weight loss is an excellent objective. Excess body weight places tremendous stress on hips, knees, and ankles. Experts estimate that losing just one pound removes roughly four pounds of pressure from the knee joint with every step. Imagine the benefit of losing ten or twenty pounds. As said many times before, the bathroom scale can solve a surprising number of health problems. The bottom line? If you suffer from osteoarthritis, don't assume that sitting in a chair is protecting your joints. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said, "Motion is the best medicine." Unfortunately, it doesn't come in a pill bottle, which may be why so many people overlook it.

Human Psychology Influences Hiring Decisions

By Nick Kossovan If you think the hiring process is a fair, objective, or scientific evaluation of your skills and experience, you need a wake-up call. Hiring is far from a logical process or an objective checklist of qualifications; it's a chaotic, subjective blend of human psychology, risk avoidance, and pure instinct disguised as corporate procedure. Stop expecting fairness; instead, learn to influence your interviewer's psychological triggers. Four psychological pillars influence how recruiters and hiring managers make hiring decisions. 1. The Risk Mitigation Mindset (Loss Aversion) Hiring managers don't look for superstars; they look for safety. Their hiring decisions are visible to their peers, bosses, and the leadership team. Humans are hardwired to fear loss far more than they desire gain. In psychology and economics, this is loss aversion. When a manager reviews your application, they're not imagining how you'll revolutionise the department. They are sweating over not making a catastrophic mistake. Understandably, a hiring manager's biggest fear is hiring someone who'll destroy morale, be completely incompetent, tank productivity, or jump ship at the first sign of a challenge or being held accountable, which is why employers avoid candidates with a history of job hopping or employment gaps. Making a bad hire reflects poorly on their judgment and can get them fired, which I've witnessed more than once. At its core, loss aversion isn't about you; it's about the hiring manager's survival. Hiring is like buying a used car. You’re not searching for the fastest vehicle on the lot; you’re cautiously looking for possible engine problems. You want a car that won’t likely leave you stranded on the side of the highway. If you’re serious about getting hired, stop selling your infinite potential and start proving you’re a low-risk hiring investment. 2. The Thin-Slicing Phenomenon (First Impressions) You’re evaluated faster than you think. Psychologists use the term “thin-slicing” to describe our subconscious ability to find patterns and make split-second judgements based on narrow windows of experience. Hiring managers and recruiters don’t read your resume; they skim it. Interviewers don’t assess you over 45 minutes; they make up their minds in the first 30 seconds. The remaining time is an exercise in confirmation bias, where they search for evidence to justify their initial gut reaction. In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Malcolm Gladwell explored the power of snap judgements and the concept of "thin-slicing" to make rapid decisions, often without realizing our subconscious has reached a definitive verdict. Humans don't form judgments based on data; we tend to make rapid decisions based on initial fragments, then spend our energy defending those quick impressions. Mastering your initial presentation is critical; an immediate negative reaction from an interviewer is often impossible to overcome. View your resume and your greeting as a movie trailer: a high-impact, rapid hook designed to convince the audience that the entire production is worth their investment rather than revealing every detail. You must learn to seize control of your personal narrative from the very first moment. 3. The Halo and Horn Effects Human decision-making is notoriously lazy. Once that initial impression locks in, the halo and horn effects take complete control of the interviewer's brain. If a hiring manager likes one specific detail about you—perhaps you worked for a prestigious competitor or attended the same university—they subconsciously project competence onto your entire profile. That's the halo effect. Conversely, the horn effect is lethal. A single typo on your resume, or a nervous, rambling response to the first question, taints everything else you say. Your entire 30-year career will be viewed through the lens of that one blunder. Identify how you can contribute to an employer's profitability and lead with it before the horn effect takes hold. 4. Groupthink and Consensus Biases Often, job seekers must navigate the exhausting reality of groupthink and consensus bias. Today, nobody wants to make a corporate decision alone. HR managers love committees because they can spread the blame when a new hire goes sideways. If five people interview you, the primary goal isn’t to assess your skills, experience, and fit; it’s finding a candidate all five can agree on without triggering internal conflict. Social psychology research indicates that when a group evaluates an individual, its shared objective undergoes a subtle transformation. Rather than prioritizing the “best candidate for the job,” the focus shifts toward achieving the safest consensus, which makes individuality a liability for any committee member to advocate for. You can't simply impress the person sitting across from you. You must arm them with punchy, easy-to-repeat bullet points they can use to sell you to their colleagues when you leave the room. Give them the ammunition they need to defend hiring you. Job seekers need to understand and accept that hiring is deeply flawed because it’s a human activity, driven by fear, snap judgments, and professional liability-dodging. Your job search will only change when you cease presenting yourself as a desperate job seeker looking for a chance and start positioning yourself as a low-risk hire who'll be a positive influence on an employer's profitability. Stop targeting the hiring manager's wishlist; target their fears.

Names Some Hate Symbols. Why Not Communist Ones?

Bill C 9 Names Some Hate Symbols. Why Not Communist Ones? By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canada is writing a hate symbol law, but one of history’s most feared symbols is missing. The Nazi Hakenkreuz is named. The Nazi SS bolts are named. Symbols tied to listed terrorist groups are named. The Senate has now added the noose. But the hammer and sickle, a symbol tied to communist regimes from Russia to China, is not named. Why not? That is the question Parliament should answer before Bill C 9 moves any further. Bill C 9, the Combating Hate Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons on March 25, 2026. The Senate later added the noose, so the bill has to return to the House before it can become law. The bill is aimed at the public display of certain symbols when they are used to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. That is serious. It should be handled with care. A noose is not just rope when it is used as a threat. Nazi symbols are not just old markings when they are used to frighten Jewish Canadians or promote Nazi hatred. Symbols can carry fear. They can carry memories. They can say something ugly without a person saying a word. So why did Parliament stop there? For many Canadians, the hammer and sickle is not harmless politics. It is not just a poster, a flag, or a shirt worn by someone trying to look rebellious. It is tied to regimes that jailed people, silenced churches, watched neighbours, punished farmers, broke families, and made ordinary citizens afraid of their own government. For some Canadian families, this is not old history. It is the reason their parents or grandparents came here. The numbers are not small. Historians argue over the exact totals, and they should, because truth matters. But the scale is still awful. Estimates tied to Stalin’s rule reach into the millions, including deaths from labour camps, forced collectivization, famine, and executions. Millions also died in the Holodomor period. In China, estimates for the Great Leap Forward famine also reach into the tens of millions. That is not a small footnote in history. Canada already knows this. The federal government opened the Memorial to the Victims of Communism in Ottawa in 2024, saying it honours victims of communism and recognizes Canada as a refuge from injustice and persecution. So how can the same country honour victims of communism with a national memorial, but leave the hammer and sickle out of a national hate symbol debate? Was it missed? Was it political caution? Was it because some people still romanticize communist symbols? Was it because the government did not want to upset activists who treat the hammer and sickle like fashion? These are fair questions. They are not wild claims. We do not have proof that anyone high up ordered communist symbols left out. Without proof, that should not be stated as fact. But citizens have every right to ask why it happened. The Che Guevara image raises a related problem. Some call him a freedom fighter. Some wear his face on a shirt and probably know very little about him. His image has been turned into fashion, but for many people who fled communist rule, it carries a very different meaning. It can mean prisons, executions, fear, and the loss of freedom. Does that mean every young person wearing a Che shirt should be charged? No. Ignorance is not hatred. But when that image is used to glorify communist violence, mock people who fled communist rule, or celebrate political terror, why should Parliament pretend it carries no weight? This is where common sense matters. The swastika proves why the law must be careful. Long before Nazi Germany stole it, the swastika had religious and cultural meaning. It remains important in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions. Under Nazi Germany, it became the Hakenkreuz, a symbol tied to hatred and genocide in the West. That difference matters. Canada should target the Nazi Hakenkreuz when it is used to promote hatred. It should not punish a Buddhist temple, a Hindu home, a Jain symbol, an old Chinese restaurant, a museum, a history book, or an old building where the symbol had peaceful meaning long before Hitler poisoned it. Hitler stole that symbol. The law should not let him own it forever. Bill C 9 includes protections for legitimate purposes, including education, journalism, art, and public interest use. That matters. A reporter must be able to show a symbol in a story. A teacher must be able to show one in class. A museum must be able to tell history properly. But protections for history do not answer the bigger question. Why were communist symbols left out? A hate symbol law cannot play favourites with suffering. It cannot say one group’s pain matters while another group’s pain is too inconvenient to mention. The noose belongs in this debate. Nazi symbols belong in this debate. Terrorist symbols belong in this debate. And yes, the hammer and sickle belong in this debate too. If Parliament is brave enough to name Nazi terror, racial terror, and terrorist symbols, then it should be brave enough to debate communist terror as well. Anything less is not courage. It is a selective memory.

THE LAND GAME

THE LAND GAME Why Ontario Needs to Rethink Who Sits on Municipal Councils. The discussion is particularly relevant today as former Oshawa councillor and real estate broker Roger Bouma seeks a return to public office. This column is not about one individual. It is about a broader question voters should ask whenever candidates whose livelihoods depend on land transactions, development approvals, planning matters or property values seek elected office. Every few years, someone raises the question. And every few years, the political establishment quickly dismisses it. But perhaps it is time to ask it again. Should active real estate brokers, developers, planning consultants and land speculators be permitted to sit on municipal councils? For years, Oshawa residents watched former councillor Roger Bouma serve on council while simultaneously operating a successful real estate business. To be clear, there was never any finding of wrongdoing against Mr. Bouma, nor am I suggesting there was. But the controversy surrounding his time in office highlights a larger issue that extends far beyond one individual. The real question is whether the system itself creates circumstances that erode public confidence. Having sat at council tables, regional committees, budget meetings and closed sessions for years, I can say without hesitation that municipal politicians are often exposed to information long before the public. Most elected officials handle that responsibility honourably. The question is whether the rules themselves are sufficient when those same elected officials earn their living in industries directly affected by municipal decisions. Municipal government is unlike any other level of government. Municipal councils decide where roads will be built. They decide where sewers will be extended. They determine growth boundaries. They approve official plans. They influence zoning. They establish development priorities. And every one of those decisions can dramatically increase or decrease land values. A farmer's field can become a subdivision. Industrial land can become commercial land. Rural property can become urban property. A sewer extension can transform worthless acreage into land worth millions. Information matters. Timing matters. Relationships matter. If a stockbroker were given advance knowledge of a future market-moving event, regulators would immediately recognize the concern. Yet in municipal government, elected officials routinely receive information regarding future infrastructure investments, growth planning, servicing strategies and development priorities that can dramatically influence land values.Whether or not that information is ever misused is almost beside the point. The public should never be left wondering. The issue is not corruption. The issue is confidence. The issue is not whether someone breaks the rules. The issue is whether the public believes the rules are sufficient. Imagine a developer sitting on council. Imagine a planning consultant sitting on council. Imagine a major landowner sitting on council. Most residents would immediately recognize the concern. So why does the conversation suddenly become uncomfortable when the profession is real estate? A broker may not own the land. But a broker operates in a business where information, timing and relationships are often worth significant money. Even if every councillor acts honourably, the public is left wondering. That doubt alone damages trust. The problem extends well beyond Oshawa. Across Ontario, municipal councils are increasingly populated by individuals with direct financial interests in development, land transactions, planning approvals and growthrelated industries. At the same time, residents are being told that housing decisions, intensification policies and servicing priorities are being made solely in the public interest. Can both things be true?Perhaps. But public trust requires more than honesty. It requires independence. The appearance of a conflict can be almost as damaging as an actual conflict. Perhaps Ontario needs a serious discussion about reform. Perhaps active developers should be prohibited from serving on municipal councils. Perhaps active planning consultants should be prohibited from serving on municipal councils. Perhaps active real estate brokers should face enhanced disclosure requirements or restrictions. Or perhaps there should be mandatory blind trusts and independent oversight for elected officials whose businesses operate directly within the development industry. Because municipal government is where fortunes are often made. It is where land values are created. It is where growth is directed. And it is where public confidence is most easily lost. Trust is difficult to earn. Easy to lose. And impossible to regulate after it has disappeared.

D-Day: Remembering the Victory, Confronting the Warning

D-Day: Remembering the Victory, Confronting the Warning by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Each year, Canadians pause to commemorate the anniversary of the D-Day landings of June 6, 1944. We gather at cenotaphs, watch documentaries, listen to the stories of veterans, and pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of the young men who crossed the English Channel and stormed the beaches of Normandy. For Canada, the name that resonates most deeply is Juno Beach, where thousands of Canadian soldiers fought their way ashore against determined German resistance and helped begin the liberation of Western Europe. D-Day was not simply a military operation. It was a defining moment in the struggle between freedom and tyranny, democracy and dictatorship, human dignity and barbarism. The Allied soldiers who landed on the beaches of Normandy knew that the outcome of the battle would shape the future of Europe and, indeed, the world. Many would never return home. Their sacrifice deserves our enduring gratitude. Yet remembrance is not enough. The worsening of the geopolitical situation in the world with new conflagrations emerging, make it important that the lessons learned in defeating the Nazi Germany be not forgotten As we commemorate D-Day more than eight decades later, we must also recognize an uncomfortable truth: the hateful ideas that fueled Nazism did not disappear with Germany's surrender in 1945. The military defeat of Nazi Germany was decisive, but the ideologies of hatred, racism, antisemitism, and authoritarianism continue to find adherents in different forms and under different names. The warning of D-Day remains as relevant today as the celebration of victory. The generation that fought the Second World War understood the consequences of indifference. They witnessed how extremist movements exploited economic uncertainty, political polarization, and social resentment. They saw how propaganda transformed prejudice into public policy and how democratic institutions could be weakened from within. Most importantly, they learned that freedom can be lost gradually before it is lost completely. The rise of Nazi Germany did not happen overnight. It emerged through a combination of political opportunism, economic hardship, fear, and the willingness of too many people to remain silent in the face of growing intolerance. The lesson for our time is clear: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires constant vigilance, civic engagement, and a commitment to the rule of law. Today, the world faces challenges that differ from those of 1944 but contain echoes of the past. Antisemitism, once thought to be discredited forever by the horrors of the Holocaust, has reappeared in many societies. Hate crimes directed against Jewish communities, religious minorities, and ethnic groups have increased in several countries. Extremist organizations exploit social media to spread conspiracy theories, misinformation, and prejudice. Political discourse has become increasingly polarized, and trust in democratic institutions has eroded. Canada is not immune to these trends. Our country has long been admired for its commitment to pluralism, tolerance, and democratic governance. Canadians rightly take pride in a society that welcomes newcomers and respects diversity. Yet we have also witnessed incidents of hatred and intolerance that remind us that no nation is exempt from the darker currents of human nature. The values defended by Canadian soldiers at Juno Beach must be renewed by each generation rather than assumed to be permanent. Remembering D-Day therefore requires more than ceremonies and speeches. It demands reflection on the responsibilities of citizenship. Democracy depends on informed citizens who are willing to participate in public life, challenge misinformation, and defend the rights of others. It requires political leaders who place principle above division and institutions that remain accountable and transparent. The anniversary of D-Day is also an opportunity to reflect on the meaning of sacrifice. The average age of the soldiers who landed in Normandy was astonishingly young. Many were in their late teens or early twenties. They left behind families, careers, and dreams because they believed that some causes were greater than themselves. Their courage was not rooted in a desire for conquest but in a determination to liberate occupied peoples and restore peace. For younger Canadians, the Second World War may seem increasingly distant. The number of surviving veterans diminishes each year. First-hand memories are giving way to history books and archival footage. This makes education all the more important. Future generations must understand not only what happened during the war but why it happened and what lessons it offers for the present. Historical memory is a safeguard against complacency. When societies forget the consequences of extremism, they become more vulnerable to its appeal. When citizens lose confidence in democratic institutions, they become susceptible to voices promising easy solutions to complex problems. When prejudice is tolerated in small forms, it can grow into something far more dangerous. The veterans of D-Day did not fight for a perfect world. They fought for a better one. They understood that freedom requires effort and that peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, opportunity, and mutual respect. Their achievement was extraordinary, but the responsibility for preserving it belongs to us. As we remember the Canadians who landed at Juno Beach, let us honour them not only with words but with actions. Let us reject hatred in all its forms. Let us defend democratic institutions when they are challenged. Let us promote respectful dialogue even when we disagree. Let us teach our children the lessons of history and ensure that the sacrifices of the past continue to illuminate the future. D-Day was a victory over one of the most destructive ideologies humanity has ever known. However, it was also a reminder that freedom is never guaranteed. The soldiers who crossed the beaches of Normandy entrusted future generations with a profound responsibility. The greatest tribute we can pay them is to remain faithful to the values for which they fought: liberty, democracy, human dignity, and the rule of law. Their battle ended on the shores of Normandy. Ours is the ongoing task of ensuring that the forces they defeated never again find fertile ground in our societies. That is the enduring meaning of D-Day, and it is a lesson worth remembering every year.

THE REALITY OF MY DREAM

THE REALITY OF MY DREAM By Joe Ingino A behind-the-scenes view of my dream in a nightmare world... People always ask, “Joe, how do you do it? What is your secret?”In reality, there is no secret. Just a long list of regrets, guilt, and sacrifices. We are approaching the celebration of Father’s Day, a rare time when fathers receive recognition for their role in the family. As a single-income family, the hardships throughout the years have been plentiful. As I look back, I regret many things. I regret not being able to spend more time with my family, watch them grow, and feel as though I could have been there more. I could have done more.I feel guilt because so much of my time was sacrificed to ensure that my family could sustain a comfortable lifestyle. I feel guilt for not being able to explore more opportunities. Then, as stated in my byline, “DECODE YOUR LIFE BY LIVING IT WITHOUT REGRET OR SORROW — ONE DAY AT A TIME.”In part, I guess that is the real secret. My love for my nation, my community, and my family has guided everything I have done.I look around and see that I am constantly contributing back to my community. I contribute by bringing an award-winning newspaper to the people of Durham Region and by making my country proud in an industry that knows no borders.I look at my family and see that none of them struggle with drug addiction, substance abuse of any kind, or serious mental health challenges. I sacrificed and guided them throughout their lives whenever needed. Today, they are all productive members of the community. I always gave them everything I could, while teaching them the value of a dollar. I respected their freedoms and choices because the light of my love and guidance has always led them toward opportunity.Father’s Day, to me, is not about me. It is about them. It is about knowing they are safe, self-dependent, and able to give back to their families, their communities, and their country.It would be selfish not to sacrifice in the name of duty to my family. It would be irresponsible not to provide guidance. Life has many lessons to teach. Some are less pleasant than others.We are fathers. We are leaders of our families and are responsible for providing guidance and creating opportunities when they are few and far between. I remember being asked by one of my children:“Why is life so hard all the time? ”I looked into their eyes and told them: “Life is not hard. Life is about opportunity. It is about perspective and the never-ending test of whether you are worthy of the rewards that follow. Failure is expected and welcomed as a lesson never to be repeated. Opportunity comes as a result of many failures. Success is merely the by-product of many favorable opportunities. ”I think the ultimate gift from your family is the assurance that, when they are faced with raising their own families, they are prepared to make similar sacrifices and live their lives “one day at a time.”We live a dream encapsulated by a nightmare that constantly challenges us. It takes us on emotional roller coasters, pushing our feelings to places we have never been and never wish to return. We are faced with darkness as we search for the future, only to keep seeing that distant light. A promised light that we truly reach only when we die. A light that promises eternal life. Living every day to its fullest is true success. Appreciating every second in our journey toward that perfect light at the end of destiny's tunnel. We need not spend our lives searching, but rather living responsibly and without regret, for our destiny has already been determined. In part I thank my father for his teachings of his dream in his own nightmare world.

Sneaky Little Dance

Sneaky Little Dance By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Have you ever stopped to think about the sneaky little dance happening in your wallet every single day? It’s a constant tango between inflation and its inseparable partner, purchasing power. The truth is you really can’t have one without the other! Most of us don’t spend our free time pondering economic concepts, but understanding purchasing power is crucial if you want to hit your long-term goals and achieve true financial independence. Think about what financial freedom really means to you: it’s having the exact standard of living you desire, paid for in inflation-adjusted, after-tax dollars, all without ever having to get out of bed and punch a clock again to keep it going. Sounds pretty amazing, right? But here’s the catch. To reach that level of freedom—and hold onto it—you have to plan for how inflation will slowly chew away at the value of your money over the next ten or twenty years. If you don’t build a sturdy shield around your hard-earned lifestyle, you might end up in the incredibly tough position of heading back into the workforce long after your retirement party. Sadly, we’ve seen this become a harsh reality for retirees who had to find jobs again following the heavy economic shock and soaring living costs brought on by the 2020 pandemic. So, what exactly is purchasing power? It’s simply a measure of how far each of your dollars goes when buying the everyday goods and services you need to live. You’ve probably heard friends or family joke about trying to “stretch their dollars” or feeling like “there’s way more month than money.” That’s shrinking purchasing power in action. When you are living on a fixed income, even a modest annual price increase of 2% (the official target set by Canada’s Central Bank) means you will have to burn through your savings faster just to maintain your current lifestyle. If you ever doubt this, just ask someone who has been retired for a decade or two! Or simply think back to your own childhood. Remember when a chocolate bar cost just a dime instead of $1.50? Ask a senior, and they’ll gladly remind you that an average family car today costs about the same as what they paid for a nice house back in the 1960s. That’s exactly why inflation and purchasing power are two concepts you absolutely must keep in mind when designing your wealth-building and wealth-preservation strategies. Keep in mind that inflation isn’t just about the rising price of groceries or wage bumps. It also shows up as a general surge in asset prices—think real estate and equity investments—and an increase in the total amount of money floating around the economy. So, the next time you hear a news report about a government go ahead with “monetary easing” policies, pay close attention. Often, these large-scale strategies are designed to fix massive public debt problems or solve sluggish economic growth. However, a major side effect is that these actions can stoke more inflation and deliberately reduce your future purchasing power. The great news is that you don’t have to be a victim of inflation. With the right financial strategy, you can use these economic forces to your advantage. Reach out to a financial professional to discuss how you can adapt your portfolio today to protect your financial health for tomorrow Safe Travel happy reading until next time !

The Things Nobody Thought Were Important

Dead and Gone… The Things Nobody Thought Were Important By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of Funeral Cost Ontario One of the things I have noticed over the years is that families are not always very good at predicting what will matter later. I do not mean that as a criticism. I think most of us are probably the same when it comes to these things. We protect the things that seem obvious and valuable to us. We keep important documents together. We put certain photographs in frames to look at and have others look at. We also decide which possessions are worth insuring, saving, passing along, or placing carefully in a box where they will not be damaged. That is all reasonable, and it is also incomplete in some sense of the word. After someone dies, families often discover that importance does not always follow the path they expected. The items that were carefully preserved may still matter, of course, but they are not always the things that stop people. Sometimes it is the object that was never meant to survive or to be thought about at all. Something left in a drawer, or something tucked into a book. Maybe it is something kept for no clear reason other than the fact that nobody threw it away. We have all seen people move quickly past things that had obvious value, then pause over something almost accidental. And generally it is not because it was beautiful or rare or financially meaningful, but because it seemed to contain evidence of ordinary life. That is a different kind of value, and it is harder to explain without making it sound more sentimental than it is. Someone's house can be full of possessions and still leave a family looking for traces. That is the part I find interesting, and by no means do I think it is fair to say that most people are always looking for the most important or valuable object. Sometimes they are looking for proof of the person as they actually were, in the middle of regular life, before anyone knew there would eventually be a need to remember them so carefully. And that may be why the ordinary things can become kind of complicated. They were not curated, they were certainly not chosen for legacy, they escaped attention, which is probably why they can feel more authentic later. A formal portrait tells one kind of truth, while a marked-up calendar, an old notebook, or a tool left on a basement shelf tells another. There is also a practical side to this that families know all too well. Not everything can be kept, as most of us do not have the space, time, or emotional energy to preserve an entire household. Decisions have to be made, and many of them are fairly straightforward. Keep it, donate it, sell it, or discard it. Those words are simple until they are applied to objects that belonged to someone who is no longer there to explain why they kept them. I do not think there is a perfect way through that. Some things will be saved that later seem unimportant. While other things will be let go that someone may wonder about years afterwards. That is probably unavoidable. Families are trying to make decisions with limited space, limited time, and often very little emotional distance. What I find myself thinking about is how much of a person’s life exists outside the things we formally preserve. By this I mean routines, their habits, the unfinished projects, or the way a drawer was organized, or not organized. The things they placed on a shelf and left there. None of it was meant to become meaningful and I think that is what makes it different. Maybe that is the part worth noticing, as we all spend years deciding what matters, and then time quietly makes its own decisions for us. It does not always choose the most valuable things. And it does not always choose the things we would have expected. But sometimes it does decide to choose whatever happened to remain. When all is said and done, while standing in front of a box or a drawer or a workbench, a family realizes the object they are all looking at was never really the point. It was simply one of the few places where ordinary life was still visible.

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help?

AI Is Coming To Medicine But Will It Help? Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones This week I’m writing from Berlin, where I’m leading Canadian university leaders on a week-long study of Germany’s higher education and research ecosystem. Our North American penchant for policy by experimentation was in sharp contrast with the coordinated national strategies and infrastructure evident across the German economy. By my observation, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in health is becoming the next national mission. Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, is leading the charge to unleash AI. “I will push to ease the regulatory burden in the EU on AI,” he said recently, “and, where possible, to exempt industrial AI from the current regulatory straitjacket that is too tight.” Now, before readers stop and say, “This has nothing to do with me,” think again. AI is not just about computers and robots. Increasingly, it will shape what happens when you visit your doctor, undergo a test, receive a diagnosis, or fill a prescription. And whether this becomes a blessing or another modern headache depends on our leaders setting the right course. Americans are charging ahead at full speed with AI. In the United States, giant technology companies see healthcare as the next great gold rush. Faster diagnostics. Faster data collection. Faster treatment decisions. Germany has a different attitude and people are asking questions. Who controls the data? Can patients trust computer-generated advice? Will medicine become colder and more mechanical? Will doctors eventually rely too heavily on algorithms? These are genuine concerns. Medicine is not a math problem. Patients are frightened, confused, emotional, vulnerable. They need accurate information, but they also need judgment, experience, communication, and compassion. A machine cannot look a worried patient in the eye and say, “You’re going to be alright.” At least not convincingly. But make no mistake. AI is coming to healthcare everywhere. Soon, if not already, AI will read mammograms, identify skin cancers, flag dangerous drug interactions, predict heart disease risk, and analyze blood tests. In many cases, it will catch abnormalities earlier than physicians can do. That’s the good news. The bad news is that many people are completely unprepared for this transition. Some readers still avoid online banking. Others rarely use email or electronic records. Many older people understandably distrust technology altogether. But avoiding technology is risky in itself. Patients now need “AI literacy in healthcare” to understand enough about how AI works in medicine to ask sensible questions and avoid being fooled. That matters because AI can be brilliant one moment and dangerously wrong the next. A computer program may confidently provide false information. Anyone who has experimented with AI systems knows this. So what should readers do? First, become more engaged in your own healthcare, not less. Too many people drift through the medical system. They take pills they don’t understand and undergo tests they never discuss. Second, become comfortable with digital tools. Learn how to access your medical records electronically. Learn how to verify information from reliable medical sources. Ask family members for help if necessary. Pride is a foolish reason to remain uninformed. Third, know that technology should align with common sense – not replace it. One of the smartest observations I heard in Germany came from a researcher who warned that societies risk becoming “overconfident in technological answers to human problems.” AI may improve medicine. It may reduce errors, shorten wait times, and help physicians make better decisions. But no algorithm replaces healthy living. No computer can exercise for you, stop you from smoking, overeating, drinking excessively, or refusing to manage stress. And no AI system will magically repair a piecemeal healthcare system damaged by leadership indecision or policy blunders.

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear

Canada Needs More Confidence and Less Fear By Dale Jodoin Columnist Canadians already know the economy is struggling. They do not need another article telling them groceries cost more, housing costs more, and jobs are harder to find. They know. They live it every day. For months, Canadians have been telling politicians, business leaders, and experts that something feels wrong. Families have been cutting back. Young people have been searching for work. Parents and grandparents have been worrying about what kind of future the next generation will inherit. None of that is news anymore. The real question is what comes next. If you listen to enough headlines, you would think Canada is on the edge of collapse. One day it is the economy. The next day it is a war somewhere in the world. Then it is another crisis, another warning, another prediction that the sky is about to fall. Fear sells. It always has. Yet Canadians have heard these warnings before. In the 1970s, inflation was eating away at family budgets. Prices seemed to rise every time someone walked into a grocery store. Fuel costs climbed. Interest rates rose. Families worried about paying bills and keeping food on the table. Many people thought the good times were over for good. They were wrong. Canadians adapted, businesses adjusted, and eventually the economy recovered. The lesson from the 1970s is not that hard times are easy. The lesson is that hard times end. The same lesson appeared again in 2008. The financial crisis spread around the world. Businesses slowed down. Jobs disappeared. Retirement savings took a hit. People watched the news and wondered what disaster would come next. There was fear that entire economies could collapse. Yet Canada weathered the storm better than many countries. Communities carried on. Workers adapted. Businesses found ways to survive. Recovery did not happen overnight, but it happened. Looking back today, many people barely remember how frightening those months felt at the time. That should remind us that today's challenges, while serious, are not the first serious challenges Canada has faced. Many Canadians are no longer worried about getting rich. They are worried about staying afloat. That may be the biggest economic warning sign of all. When people stop dreaming about the future and start worrying only about next month's bills, confidence begins to disappear. The greatest threat to Canada may not be a recession. It may be losing confidence in ourselves. History matters because it reminds us that Canadians are builders. We built railways across a vast country. We built industries that supported generations of workers. We built communities, schools, hospitals, roads, and businesses. We did not build them by panicking. We built them by getting to work. That is one reason many Canadians are watching new energy projects closely. Whether it is pipelines, natural gas, mining, hydroelectric power, or other forms of development, many people see these projects as opportunities to create jobs, attract investment, and strengthen the economy. No project is a magic solution. They cost money and take years to complete. But growth rarely happens without investment. Canada cannot build a stronger future if it is afraid to build at all. A country that stops building eventually starts shrinking. New pipelines and energy projects may not solve every problem tomorrow, but they can help create the kind of long term growth that gives future generations more opportunities. Every major project built in Canada today becomes part of the foundation future Canadians stand on tomorrow. The same conversation applies to education. For decades, trades helped build the middle class. Carpenters, electricians, welders, mechanics, machinists, truck drivers, and countless others helped shape this country. Today, many employers say they cannot find enough skilled workers. At the same time, many young people are struggling to find stable careers. Perhaps it is time to place greater value on the skilled trades once again and remind young Canadians that success can take many different paths. Not every student needs a university degree. Canada will always need people who can build homes, repair equipment, maintain infrastructure, and keep the country running. Strong trades programs can create good jobs while helping solve labour shortages at the same time. Immigration is another issue Canadians discuss openly. Canada has always been a country built by newcomers. Generation after generation, people arrived here looking for opportunity and became part of the Canadian story. Most Canadians do not oppose immigration. What many want is a system that is fair, organized, and focused on helping newcomers succeed while maintaining the values and responsibilities that hold the country together. The conversation is not about rejecting people. It is about making sure Canada remains strong enough to welcome them successfully. What often gets lost in political arguments is that Canadians have more in common than they sometimes realize. Most people want safe communities. They want decent jobs. They want affordable homes. They want their children and grandchildren to have opportunities. Whether someone lives in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Oshawa, Montreal, or a small town in Atlantic Canada, those goals are remarkably similar. Patriotism should not be controversial. Being proud of Canada does not mean believing the country is perfect. No country is. It simply means recognizing what generations before us built and wanting to leave something even better behind. Canadians come from many backgrounds, faiths, cultures, and experiences, but we share a country. That shared identity matters. There are good politicians and bad politicians. There are good business leaders and bad business leaders. There are good ideas and bad ideas. No single group has all the answers. The strength of Canada has never come from a handful of powerful people. It has come from ordinary Canadians helping one another through difficult times. The economy may be slowing, but that is not the whole story. The story is also about resilience. It is about a country that has weathered difficult decades before and emerged stronger. It is about communities that continue to support one another when times are tough. Canadians should not ignore problems. They should not pretend everything is fine when it is not. But neither should they forget who they are. The generation that faced inflation recovered. The generation that faced the financial crisis recovered. The generation that endured the pandemic recovered. Canadians have a long history of proving the experts wrong when times get tough. The economy may be slowing, but Canada is not finished. Not even close. The future will not be decided by fear. It will be decided by what Canadians choose to build next. If history is any guide, betting against Canadians has rarely been a winning strategy.

Stop Fearing Rejection

Stop Fearing Rejection By Nick Kossovan At the risk of stating the obvious, if you're looking for work, you're likely fearful of rejection. I constantly see job seekers paralyzed by fear of rejection, dreading the sting of hearing "No." Rejection isn't a personal tragedy; it's an unavoidable part of job searching, just as my articles are sometimes rejected, is part of "being a writer." Viewing every job application as an emotional investment is why job seekers struggle with their job search. Let go of the dread you're harbouring and approach your job search as an activity that thrives on volume and resilience, not on emotional validation Regular readers know I emphasize mindset. To expedite your job search, adopt a "Business of One" mindset. A job seeker is essentially someone seeking an employer to buy their service(s)—their expertise and labour. An employer choosing not to buy isn't personal; it's just a business transaction that didn't close. I know firsthand that the fear of rejection is a real and exhausting emotion. However, observing those who achieved the success I wanted made it clear that rejection is something to overcome, not something to lean into. Breaking out of the paralysis caused by fear of rejection requires recognizing that rejection is part of a numbers game. Baseball's greatest hitters—Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn—failed to get a hit 70% of the time. They built their careers on failure and still made it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Your job search requires the same resilience. Getting hired only requires one "Yes." However, you'll never hear "Yes" if you're too afraid to swing the bat. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your ability to cope with rejection. 1. Become Comfortable with Not Knowing When you submit an application or leave an interview, don't agonize over what your interviewer(s) might think of you. How people perceive you often has far more to do with them than with you. They might misinterpret your resume or mannerisms, or you might trigger an unconscious association with someone they disliked. Other people's inner thoughts are beyond your control. Obsessing over what you can't control is a massive waste of mental energy. Instead, redirect that energy to your job search. Control what you can—your preparation, skills, and execution—and let go of the rest. 2. Recognize That You Aren't the Centre of Attention We'd worry less about what others think of us if we realized how rarely they do. The idea that a hiring manager is actively dissecting your character and critiquing every flaw is a figment of your imagination. Get that sh*t out of your head. Recruiters and hiring managers are overworked. They're sorting through hundreds, if not thousands, of applications to fill open positions, not sitting around judging your worth as a person. They care about only one thing: whether you'll deliver measurable value to the bottom line. 3. Their Opinion Is Not Your Problem A two-page resume, a LinkedIn profile, or a 30-minute phone screening rarely captures a person's true competence. When a hiring manager forms an opinion of you and decides to pass, consider it their loss, not yours. Never internalize a stranger's judgment. Organizational psychologist Dr. Adam Grant notes that rejection often reflects poor organizational fit rather than a statement about your personal worth. It's a mismatch of timing and needs, not an audit of your underlying value. However (me interjecting), it never hurts to consider how you can better present your skills and qualifications so employers can easily see how you'll enhance their profitability, greatly increasing your chances of hearing "Yes." 4. Stop Trying to Blend In Many job seekers believe that becoming a corporate chameleon, smoothing their personality, using a generic resume, relying on inconsequential buzzwords during interviews, and giving scripted, robotic answers, hoping to "blend in," is an effective job search strategy. Playing it safe doesn't reduce your chances of rejection; it makes you forgettable, which is a job seeker's kiss of death. Recruiters and hiring managers, especially the good ones, value individuality. Your unique skills, experience, and personality are your competitive advantage. 5. Focus Entirely on Execution Rather than focusing on what scares you, focus on what you want to accomplish. Focus your mind entirely on finding work. Think of it this way: if you were administering life-saving CPR in a crowded public square, you wouldn't care what bystanders thought of your hair or jeans. The mission's intensity completely drowns out the noise. Treat your job search with the same mission-critical focus. 6. Run Toward the "No's." Stop running from "No's." Collect them until they mean nothing. Rejection Proof author Jia Jiang demonstrated in his "100 Days of Rejection" experiment that the best way to eliminate your fear of rejection is to actively seek it out. The moment you realize that a "No" doesn't harm you, the word loses its power over you. Make collecting rejections a daily goal. Reach out to people you'd like to connect with and apply for roles that are beyond your current abilities. Accumulating "No's" will quickly show you that "No" isn't the end of the world. You're still standing, your coffee still tastes the same, and you're able to move on. Who knows, you might even get a "Yes."

Mr. X: Clarington's OLT Motion Misses the Point

Clarington Council recently passed a motion calling for reforms to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The motion has been celebrated by some as a defence of local democracy. Unfortunately, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Ontario Land Tribunal exists in the first place. For years, municipal politicians across Ontario have conditioned residents to believe one thing: "The developers always win." "The OLT always overturns council." "The Tribunal is taking away local control." After hearing this message repeated often enough, many residents have come to accept it as fact. The problem is that it isn't true. What residents are often hearing is not an objective explanation of the planning system. They're hearing political cover. The Ontario Land Tribunal was never created to protect developers. It was created to protect good planning. Those are two very different things. The Tribunal exists because municipal councils are political bodies. Planning decisions are supposed to be evidence-based. Councils worry about elections. Tribunal members do not. Councils respond to organized pressure groups. Tribunal members do not. Councils sometimes make decisions based upon political considerations. Tribunal members are required to make decisions based upon evidence, planning law and provincial policy. That distinction matters. In fact, it is the entire reason the Tribunal exists. Yet somehow a narrative has emerged that every time a municipality loses at the Ontario Land Tribunal, it is proof that the Tribunal is broken. Let's think about that for a moment. If a municipality repeatedly loses appeals, is it possible the Tribunal is wrong every time? Perhaps. But is it also possible that the municipality's decision was unsupported by evidence? Absolutely. Is it possible council ignored its own planning documents? Yes. Is it possible politics got ahead of planning? It happens more often than many would like to admit. The uncomfortable truth is that every OLT loss is not necessarily evidence of Tribunal failure. Sometimes it is evidence of municipal failure. That is the conversation many politicians are unwilling to have. Instead, the Tribunal becomes the perfect scapegoat. It becomes the villain in every story. It becomes the explanation for every unpopular outcome. Most residents never hear the other side. They rarely hear that councils write the Official Plan. They rarely hear that councils pass zoning bylaws. They rarely hear that councils establish urban boundaries, density permissions, employment designations and growth strategies. They rarely hear that municipalities already possess enormous planning authority. Because if residents understood how much power councils actually have, they might start asking different questions. Questions such as: "If council wanted this outcome, why didn't they put it in the Official Plan?" "If council disagrees with this development, why does the zoning permit it?" "If council keeps losing appeals, are the policies being written properly?" Those are difficult questions. Blaming the Tribunal is much easier. What makes the Clarington motion particularly puzzling is that Ontario has already spent years reforming the planning appeal system. The Ontario Municipal Board became LPAT. LPAT became the Ontario Land Tribunal. Governments of different political stripes have reviewed the system repeatedly. The Province has spoken. The Legislature has spoken. Yet some municipalities continue acting as though every planning dispute would disappear if the Tribunal simply gave councils whatever they wanted. That would not be planning. That would be politics. And that is precisely why independent review exists. Perhaps the most revealing part of the entire debate is this: Many politicians cite statistics showing how often municipal decisions are overturned. But those same statistics can be interpreted another way. If a hockey team keeps getting penalties called against them, eventually you stop blaming the referee. You start questioning how the team is playing the game. The same principle applies here. The Ontario Land Tribunal is not perfect. No institution is. But the Tribunal is not the reason municipalities lose appeals. Municipalities lose appeals because somebody presents evidence and somebody else fails to overcome it. That is how independent adjudication works. The Tribunal is not a barrier to democracy. It is a safeguard against bad planning. And before Clarington starts demanding reforms to the referee, it might be worth asking whether municipal politicians should spend more time looking at the quality of the decisions being made on the field. — Mr. X

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK

NO PARK MEANS NO PARK By Joe Ingino Am I the only one who sees it? Our city is in a dangerous position. We have a downtown that is nothing short of a makeshift war zone. From the many homeless individuals, prostitutes, drug dealers, and criminal elements to the open public drug use, the situation continues to deteriorate. Businesses are closing at an alarming rate. A few token businesses that do open soon discover they are in over their heads. No parking and no walk-in traffic lead to one reality: NO BUSINESS. I have been a critical watchdog for the past 35 years, slowly watching one administration after another fail to recognize what was happening. It started during the Nancy Diamond era. Her political alliance was with the Oshawa Centre. The goal was to keep the mall as the primary place to shop while slowly draining the downtown core. Since then, one administration after another has continued to erode the quality of life downtown. From incompetent councillors to councils with no vision or understanding of the future of our downtown, the decline has been steady. Mayors have come and gone, many with no clear vision for the core beyond copycat pipe dreams that led nowhere. The combination of senior housing and student-focused developments simply failed. I ran for office to improve the downtown core. I am still operating the only successful downtown "shop local" initiative since 2018. Unfortunately, it is not enough. My plan was to tear down the Four Corners and erect a minimum 60-storey complex with ample parking for residents and visitors. I envisioned creating an indoor downtown bridge connecting all four corners to compensate for winter weather. The concept would enclose the Four Corners while still allowing traffic flow, creating a showcase destination similar to what exists on the Las Vegas Strip. We have to provide value to visitors. We have to give people a purpose and a reason to come downtown. We also need to increase pedestrian traffic. Those are all things we currently lack. The two downtown councillors do not have the life experience necessary to achieve even a fraction of what is needed. One spends more time and taxpayer dollars maliciously persecuting and prosecuting local downtown businesses, while the other lives in an arts-and-culture make-believe utopian world that simply does not exist. How can anyone justify spending $10 million on a downtown park?This same council has no understanding of marketing or promotion. They want to charge visitors for parking at Lakeview Park. Wonder why we lost Ribfest? Wonder why we lost Oshawa's annual car show at Lakeview? The "No Park, No Parking" mentality will soon become a pathetic reality. People will simply stop going to the park because they may be in violation of a bylaw and face a fine. As it stands, you cannot really picnic, bring a large family gathering, or enjoy an extended visit without worrying about restrictions. The list of things you "can't do" is long.Is this how we welcome visitors? No. This is how we turn a park into a homeless encampment. People will flock from all over to camp out, knowing the police will not arrest them and bylaw officers will never collect the fines.Now, don't get me wrong. I am pro-Oshawa. I have approached the city many times with ideas and investors, only to receive the same result.In 2026, we have the opportunity to replace two insiders: Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Jim Lee. These are two councillors who, in my opinion, have done little to improve Oshawa during their terms and are now expected to be rewarded with higher-paying positions to do more of the same. Come on. There has to be someone out there who can lead our city. Our future depends on it. We cannot afford to waste our votes on career politicians.

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy

Canada Needs a Growth Agenda, Not a Management Strategy by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is facing a difficult economic reality. While the country has avoided the severe recessions that many feared in recent years, Canadians are increasingly feeling poorer, not richer. Housing affordability remains out of reach for many young families. Productivity growth has stagnated. Business investment has weakened. Government debt has increased. And our traditional economic advantages—abundant natural resources, access to global markets, a skilled workforce, and political stability—are not translating into the prosperity they once did. The challenge facing Canada is not merely cyclical; it is increasingly structural. The country needs more than careful economic management. It needs a national growth agenda. For decades, Canadians have been accustomed to steady improvements in living standards. Each generation expected to enjoy greater prosperity than the one before. Today, that assumption is no longer guaranteed. Real GDP per capita, one of the most important measures of economic well-being, has struggled to keep pace with population growth. Many Canadians are working harder while finding it more difficult to purchase a home, save for retirement, or support their families. At the heart of the problem lies Canada's productivity challenge. Productivity may sound like an abstract economic term, but it is ultimately the foundation of higher wages and improved living standards. A worker equipped with better tools, technology, infrastructure, and training can produce more value. When productivity rises, wages can rise without creating inflation. Unfortunately, Canada has fallen behind many of its peers in productivity growth. Business investment per worker has lagged behind that of the United States. Companies are investing less in machinery, technology, research, and innovation. Too much capital is flowing into existing real estate rather than into productive enterprises that generate long-term economic growth. This trend should concern policymakers across the political spectrum. The solution is not simply to spend more public money. Governments cannot subsidize their way to prosperity indefinitely. Instead, Canada must create conditions that encourage investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. One obvious area for improvement is infrastructure. Major projects in Canada often take years, sometimes decades, to move from concept to construction. Whether it is a mine, port expansion, electricity transmission corridor, nuclear facility, transportation project, or housing development, approval processes have become increasingly complex and time-consuming. Environmental protection remains essential, but regulatory systems must also recognize the economic costs of delay. A project that takes fifteen years to approve may effectively be denied. Canada must find a better balance between environmental stewardship and economic development. Housing presents another major challenge. The affordability crisis is not simply a social issue; it is an economic issue. When workers cannot afford to live near employment centres, labour mobility suffers. Businesses struggle to attract talent. Young families delay important life decisions. Economic growth becomes constrained. The answer is straightforward, even if implementation is difficult: build more housing. Municipal approval processes must be streamlined. Infrastructure investments must support new development. Governments at all levels must work together to increase housing supply rather than merely managing demand. Canada must also confront once and for all its fragmented internal market. It is often easier for Canadian companies to export goods to foreign countries than to sell them across provincial borders. This reality would be almost unbelievable to outsiders. Interprovincial trade barriers increase costs, reduce competition, and limit economic opportunity. Removing these barriers should be a national priority. A country of nearly forty million people should function as a single economic market. Energy policy represents another area where Canada possesses enormous untapped potential. Canada is one of the world's leading producers of energy and critical minerals. These resources are essential not only for today's economy but also for the energy transition technologies of tomorrow. Yet Canada frequently struggles to bring projects into production. Investors face uncertainty. Regulatory processes are lengthy. Political debates often discourage long-term investment. Canada does not need to choose between environmental responsibility and economic growth. Modern technology, strong regulatory oversight, and rigorous environmental standards can support both objectives. What Canada needs is the confidence to develop its resources responsibly while ensuring that the resulting prosperity benefits all Canadians. The same principle applies to critical minerals. As countries compete to secure supplies of lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, uranium, and rare earth elements, Canada possesses significant strategic advantages. These resources should form part of a comprehensive national economic strategy that strengthens both prosperity and national security. Education and skills development must also remain central to Canada's future. The global economy increasingly rewards innovation, scientific expertise, engineering talent, and technological capability. Canada has world-class universities and research institutions, but more must be done to connect research with commercialization and industrial development. As a professional engineer, I have long believed that nations prosper when they value science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Technical expertise should play a greater role in politics, public policy, economic planning, and national decision-making. Canada should also recognize that economic growth and national security are increasingly interconnected. A country that cannot build infrastructure efficiently, produce critical resources, or maintain industrial capacity will find it more difficult to defend its interests in an increasingly competitive world. Economic strength remains the foundation of national strength.

FOR LOVE OR MONEY

FOR LOVE OR MONEY By Wayne and Tamara I’ve been married twice and think I was a good husband. Shortly after my son was born, my first wife started staying out until the wee hours. I cared for our two young children while she prowled for men. She became hostile anytime I objected, and screamed at me in front of our children. At the urging of her family, I divorced her and now have my children most of the time. My second marriage ended when I found my wife having relations with the frozen food deliveryman. The truth is neither of my wives loved me. They liked my earning potential, but they did not love me. In any case, reading websites promoting affair-repairing services, I wondered why infidelity was such a deal-breaker for me. Was I simply a less evolved, less forgiving type? I know in my day-to-day existence I am not a grudge holder. I couldn’t put my finger on why, after finding my wives were cheaters, I had no desire to reconcile. You articulate the reasons very well: the desire to be loved to the exclusion of all others, and an aversion to having to remain ever vigilant in the future. Your view makes so much sense to me. Gil Gil, emotion used to be considered the poor cousin of reason, but contemporary neuroscientists now see our emotions as part of how we reason. Our emotions evolved over eons for a purpose. Just as revulsion at the sight of maggots tells us not to eat the meat, so the soul sickness we feel at discovering infidelity is intended to protect us. Your follow-up letter, below, may reveal the source of your problems. Wayne & Tamara Rest Of The Story After my second divorce and a period where I wanted to be alone and take care of my kids, I went on a date. I really like this woman, and we became close. I was honest about my kids being a big priority, and she seemed fine with that. After four months and hearing she loved me and was so happy, she came to me one night and broke up, citing her trepidation about being in a relationship with a guy with young children. I was saddened but thanked her for her honesty. Two days later I called to return the books she loaned me. She was not home so I left a message I would leave them on the porch, wrapped up. When I got to her house, she was home and invited me in for coffee. She then asked for a hug and tried to kiss me. I excused myself and said goodbye. Two weeks later she began emailing, saying how hard this was and how her heart was breaking. The last email included her photo in a revealing, see-through dress. After one email from her describing how compatible we were, I asked if she wanted to still be a couple, as I had strong feelings for her. She said no, due to my obligations to my kids. Why on earth does she keep emailing me? Gil Gil, this woman is offering you a choice. “You can have what I’m offering in the photo, or you can have your children. But you can’t have both.” Women who exude sexuality may offer excitement, but excitement is not fidelity or love. When a woman uses her sexuality to get what she wants from you, believe she will use it on other men as well. Ask yourself if that is not the story of your two marriages. Sex may be your Achilles’ heel. If you confuse unvarnished sexuality with the sexuality which flows from love, or if you unconsciously use money to generate female interest, that may explain your problem with women. You want to know why this happened to you before, and it appears you are in the midst of doing it again. Wayne & Tamara

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

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

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to

Some Job Seekers Are Beginning to Acknowledge the Advantages of AI-Led By Nick Kossovan Increasingly, I'm hearing from readers who prefer AI-led hiring over the traditional human-led process. In all fairness, most of my readers tend to be early adopters of technology rather than fighting the inevitable. They cite several distinct advantages: · Elimination of unconscious human bias: AI evaluates your data, not your pedigree. · 24/7 scheduling flexibility: You interview on your schedule, not the hiring manager's. · Standardized questioning for all candidates: All applicants are measured by the same yardstick. · Elimination of "mood-based" interviewer variability: You won't be disadvantaged because a hiring manager is having a bad day. · Reduced social performance anxiety: No awkward small talk or trying to read a stranger's poker face. · Ability to interview in a comfortable, private environment: Full control over your surroundings. · Focus on objective data rather than "cultural fit" stereotypes: Pivot away from "clique" hiring. · No interruptions or leading questions: You get a fair shot at making a "Why I should be hired" case. · Privacy from immediate judgment regarding physical appearance: Your words and metrics carry the weight, not your outfit or non-verbal cues. This isn't just an anecdotal whim; it's a measurable reality. A large-scale field experiment led by researchers Brian Jabarian of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Luca Henkel of Erasmus University Rotterdam, involving roughly 70,000 applicants, found that 78 percent of candidates preferred AI job interviews to human interviews. The pearl-clutching needs to stop. Humans have always gravitated toward the consistency of machinery over the unpredictability of their fellow humans. We swapped the village blacksmith for the precision of the assembly line because we wanted a product that worked every time, not just when the craftsman was in a good mood. We traded the bank teller for the ATM because it's available 24/7 and processes your transaction without judgment. Job interviews are no different; they're business transactions in which the human element is invariably the weakest link. When your candidacy is evaluated by an AI, you receive a standardized experience. Every candidate is asked the same questions, in the same tone, and assessed against the same metrics. Let's be honest: a human interviewer gets tired, hungry, or bored by the fifth candidate of the day. They rely on "gut feelings" to make hiring decisions. AI doesn't have a gut. It doesn't get hungover, it doesn't watch the clock, and it doesn't care where you went to school. AI-driven hiring processes make your skills the only currency that matters. Critics—most often frustrated job seekers—argue that AI lacks "empathy." My response: Good! Whether a candidate can debug legacy code, calculate inventory turnover ratios, or optimize supply chains doesn't require empathy; it requires objective assessment. Lindsey Zuloaga, VP of Data Science at Pattern, noted in HireVue's official industry breakdown, Decoding AI in Hiring: Unveiling Facts and Myths, published in September 2023: "AI in the hiring process allows for a more consistent and objective evaluation of candidates, focusing on job-relevant skills rather than the unconscious biases that often cloud human judgment." Furthermore, AI-led interviews offer a level of convenience that human schedules can't match. You can record your interview at 10:30 AM on a Sunday without using a "sick day" or playing calendar tag with a recruiter. AI has streamlined the hiring process to respect job seekers' time, something most human resources departments have long forgotten how to do. Let's be honest: the outcry against AI hiring is largely rooted in bruised egos. Job seekers want to feel "seen" and "heard," but corporate hiring isn't group therapy. If your objective is a paycheque and a role where you can deliver measurable value, it shouldn't matter whether the initial gatekeeper is a line of code or a human. Readers of The Art of Finding Work know my position: you're a one-person business offering a solution-based service. Professional service providers don't complain about the procurement software clients use; they navigate it to land the contract. Complaining about AI-led hiring isn't a strategy; it's an unproductive temper tantrum. It's like a horse-and-buggy driver shouting at a passing Model T. You can yell all you want; the use of AI isn't slowing down. AI-led hiring isn't a passing fad. Talent acquisition is increasingly using it because it's cheaper, faster, and, most importantly, provides data-backed results. Employers define what's "fair," not the job seeker. If employers believe AI helps them identify candidates who'll meet their KPIs and stick around for a while—there's no empirical data proving otherwise—they'll use it. For the anti-AI crowd: Whether a company uses AI in its hiring process isn't your decision. Understand that AI isn't swayed by superficial details; therefore, job seekers must emphasize measurable accomplishments, which few do. Treat your applications and AI-driven interviews as a technical audit. Employers don't owe job seekers a "human touch." They owe it to themselves to find the best candidate for their business (keywords). If employers believe AI can help them find that candidate, who's a job seeker to take issue with that? Of course, once you pass through the AI gauntlet, you'll still have to deal with a human; all the advantage AI gave you up to that point goes out the window. That's the hiring process today.

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore?

Who Decides What Art Really Is Anymore? By Dale Jodoin Walk through almost any downtown today and you will run into something called “art.” Sometimes it is beautiful. Sometimes it makes people stop and think. Other times people stand there wondering how it ended up funded, displayed, and protected from criticism. That is not an insult. It is a real question many ordinary people are asking. What exactly is art anymore, and who gets to decide? Years ago the word artist brought certain images to mind. A painter over a canvas. A sculptor shaping stone. Somebody is making pottery by hand. A musician spending years learning an instrument. A poet writing from heartbreak or experience. Even if people did not personally like the work, they could usually see the skill and effort behind it. Today the definition feels much wider. One person types words into AI software and creates a stunning image in seconds. Others place random objects into a gallery and call it an installation worth thousands of dollars. Somebody splashes paint across plywood while critics praise it as a deep expression. Meanwhile a man making handmade leather goods in his garage may never once be called an artisan. A mechanic rebuilding a classic car engine with creativity and precision is rarely invited to arts festivals. A woman writing poetry online that touches thousands of people may never receive a grant or public recognition. So where is the line now? That question makes some people uncomfortable because art has become strangely protected in modern society. The moment somebody questions whether something is truly art, the reaction can become defensive very quickly. People are told they simply do not understand creativity or culture. But ordinary people are allowed to ask questions, especially when taxpayer money is involved. Cities across Canada, including Oshawa, spend public money every year on grants, installations, festivals, and arts programs. Some programs are valuable. Community pottery classes, painting workshops, music programs, and theatre groups can bring people together in meaningful ways. The problem is many residents never even hear about them. Most people do not know where the funding goes, who receives it, or how certain projects get selected. Sometimes it feels like the same small circles approving each other while the public stands outside the conversation. That creates frustration. People begin wondering whether art has become less about community and more about politics, connections, and social groups. Modern art is also tied heavily to identity and ideology now. Conservatives celebrate one kind of expression. Progressives celebrate another. Activist art gets praised in some places while traditional work gets ignored. In other circles modern abstract work is mocked while realism is treated as the only “true” art form. Everybody seems to have their own definition. Maybe that has always been true. Art has always been subjective. One person sees emotion in a painting while another sees nothing at all. One person hears poetry that changes them while another shrugs and walks away. But what feels different today is how stretched the word has become. The label “artist” now covers almost everything. If everything is art, does the word still carry meaning? That is not an attack on AI either. AI art raises fair questions. If somebody uses imagination and detailed descriptions to create an image through technology, is that really less creative than abstract painting? Some people say yes because software produces the image. Others argue the human idea behind it matters most. There is truth on both sides. Photography faced similar criticism when cameras first became common. Traditional artists once argued photography was not real art because the machine captured the image. Today photography is accepted almost everywhere as an art form. AI may eventually follow the same path. Still regular people see contradictions. A carpenter building a handcrafted table is called a tradesman. Somebody arranging objects inside a gallery is called an artist. A welder creating functional work is labour. A welder shaping metal into abstract forms is culture. Who decides which one receives praise, grants, and public attention? Critics? Committees? Universities? Social trends? Money? Sales complicate things even more. Some people argue art proves itself through value. If buyers are willing to spend thousands then clearly it matters. But popularity alone has never been proof of quality. Fast food sells more than gourmet meals. That does not make it better cooking. The same applies to culture. Sometimes art becomes important simply because influential people say it is important. Galleries promote it. Critics praise it. Institutions fund it. Eventually many people become afraid to question it because they do not want to sound ignorant. Meanwhile talented local creators often remain invisible. There are painters quietly working in apartments. Craftsmen building furniture by hand. Musicians performing for tiny crowds. Seniors teaching carving, pottery, sewing, and woodworking after decades of experience. Most will never receive headlines or grants. Yet many ordinary people would probably connect more deeply with their work than with another abstract steel structure sitting in the middle of a public square. Maybe that is the real issue. Not whether modern art is fake. Not whether AI counts. Not whether abstract work matters. The real problem may be that communities no longer feel included in the conversation. Art became something discussed inside committees, institutions, and cultural circles while ordinary people drifted further away from it. People want art they can connect to. They want open events, public discussions, and community festivals where culture feels shared instead of managed from above. Maybe art is not dying at all. Maybe the definition has simply become so broad, so political, and so protected from criticism that regular people no longer feel welcome inside it. And when that happens the word itself begins losing weight. Not because creativity disappeared. But because too many people stopped asking the simplest question of all. What actually makes something art?