Know Your Numbers

Know Your Numbers By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist I want to tell you about a story that was relayed to me through a friend. I came to know this by way of dinner conversation with this friend when I inquired about a mutual acquaintance. I was shocked but not surprised. We both knew this couple that were looking for a house to purchase. They had an agent and were actively looking. After seeing many houses this couple found a house they really loved so they put an offer on it. What happens when someone puts an offer on a house is, the listing agent sends out a message to anyone who has viewed the house either through an open house or a personal tour. The message is to let those people know that there has been an offer registered on that property in case they may have been mulling it over. It essentially brings everyone to the table. If you had walked through and were thinking about it, now was the time to make an offer and everyone gets a chance. It’s also how agents whip up bidding wars. That is exactly what happened in the case of this couple. They ended up losing the house to someone who bid higher than they could afford to go. This actually happened not once, but a couple of times. The couple grew somewhat despondent, thinking that they may never be able to purchase a house if this was the process with every offer. The couple were drawn to this beautiful house that had absolutely everything they wanted in their new home. They put a offer on the house knowing there would probably be at least one more coming in. They had a plan. When the agent came back to them and asked if they’d like to improve their offer, they said yes. They had launching into the bidding war. The problem being that they could only afford a certain number. They were just so desperate to get the house, they kept raising their offer. Eventually the agent informed them that they had won, and that the sellers were going to work with their offer. They were thrilled. Now came the real problem. While they had been approved for a certain dollar value in terms of the mortgage, the bank ordered an appraisal of the house. That is common in most cases. The appraisal came back far below the offer price on the house. That left the couple in a real bind. They could either come up with the difference between what the bank said the house was worth and what they had offered to pay for the house or, the sellers could sue them. This is a situation that played out during Covid-19 far too often as people got caught up in desperately trying to purchase something for fear they would not have an opportunity down the road. In this case the couple was able to come up with the difference, but in most cases the situation winds up in court. The whole process of house hunting can be an emotional roller coaster but my advise to everyone is to never panic, and always know your numbers.

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring

The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring By Nick Kossovan A straightforward belief: A person's results speak for themselves. Making excuses for being a "victim of," "not having the same advantages as," or blaming your parents, the government, and the stars not being aligned doesn't change this. A person's results are influenced by how they respond to their circumstances, their actions—playing the hand they're dealt—and the amount of effort—strategic effort—they put forth. When it comes to job search results, such as landing interviews, your results are a testament to the effectiveness of your job search strategy. I'm sure you've noticed that many job seekers on LinkedIn harshly and venomously critique the job search strategies of other seekers. It's no one else's business how a job seeker conducts their job search, who ultimately must live with the results their job search strategy achieves. This supposed "concern" for what other job seekers are doing is why LinkedIn has become a digital hub for juvenile debates, the most prevalent being whether to use LinkedIn's #OpenToWork banner feature, adding a green circle frame to your LinkedIn profile picture to inform LinkedIn members you're seeking a new job. My initial take: "Care about what other people think, and you will always be their prisoner." - Lao Tzu. Why do so many people give a f*ck about what others do on social media? An incessant need "to be right" (You're right, everyone else is wrong.) hinders personal growth. What prevents us from following the harmony principle: you do you, and I will do me? Basically, mind your own business! My second take: Before LinkedIn became the dumpster fire it is today, where job seekers congregate to bash employers, essentially biting the hands they want to feed them, and self-proclaiming "experts" offering pseudo job search advice, followed by a pitch for their overpriced, never-guaranteed service, LinkedIn was the go-to platform for announcing you were looking for a new job. Why LinkedIn? LinkedIn was where your current and former colleagues, friends, hiring managers, and recruiters hung out. These days, many managers, directors, executives and even recruiters avoid LinkedIn. They no longer see LinkedIn's value or want to spend their time wading through the victim mentality drama that dominates the platform. Once upon a time, you could concentrate all your job search efforts on LinkedIn. Today, LinkedIn should make up only a small part of your job search activities. The #OpenToWork banner is merely one tool in your job search toolkit. It's unlikely that the banner alone will significantly influence your job search, either positively or negatively; however, every little bit helps. The #OpenToWork banner debate generally centres on whether the green banner makes a person seem "desperate." The banner is simply a sign that you're open (available) to opportunities, serving the same purpose as a red neon 'vacancy' sign in the window of a roadside motel, indicating to travellers that rooms are available. Is the owner of the roadside motel making it known they have rooms available "desperate"? · If I owned a retail store, I'd display a sign that tells people what I sell. · If I were selling my house, I would put a sign on my front lawn. · If I were opening a new dental clinic, I would advertise on billboards. · If I were looking for a job, I'd... What LinkedIn's #OpenToWork doesn't do is help you establish your value proposition. It's your responsibility to demonstrate how you can contribute measurable value to an employer's bottom line. Hiring managers filter LinkedIn profiles by skills, experience, and other factors related to their search criteria. Filtering by "Open-To-Work" won't bring up LinkedIn profiles of those who possess the skills and expertise they're seeking. However, if your profile appears in an employer's or recruiter's search and you've toggled on the "Open to Work" setting, which is unrelated to the #OpenToWork photo frame and, while visible to everyone, isn't something recruiters and employers can search for, it makes sense, at least I think so, to contact you first since you're advertising that you're available and therefore are more likely to be open to discussing an opportunity than someone who's currently employed and will need to be persuaded to leave their current position. Advertising your availability doesn't make you appear desperate; it removes ambiguity, making it easier for recruiters and employers to recognize candidates who are actively job searching. You're not pleading for a job; you're helping employers find you, which reflects a proactive mindset. I don't know any recruiter or employer who holds a candidate's proactive job search against them. However, it's crucial to recognize that being easy to find on LinkedIn and the impression a recruiter or hiring manager gets from your profile are two entirely separate influences on your job search. Unless your profile clearly states, using quantifying numbers, the value you've added to your previous employers, your #OpenToWork banner's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. One last note: if you're participating in the #OpenToWork banner debate, stop it! It's not your concern how others conduct their job search. Keep your focus on what you need to do to achieve your desired job search results, which speak for themselves. _____________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters

Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters By Councillor Lisa Robinson Let’s cut through the false narrative shall we: If you’ve listened to Pickering’s Mayor lately, you’d think we’re on track to become the next Toronto. He’s been proudly declaring that Pickering is the fastest-growing municipality in Ontario, as if that’s something to celebrate without question. But here’s the truth: it’s not accurate - and more importantly, it’s not honest. According to the Region of Durham’s own Monitoring of Growth Trends report (May 2025), from 2020 to 2024, Pickering’s population increased by about 16,500 people. That might sound impressive on its own - until you look beyond the headlines. In the same period: · Oshawa grew by over 17,700 people - that’s more than us. · Whitby is close behind, adding 16,100 new residents. · Clarington also saw solid growth with over 8,500 people. So why is the Mayor still standing at podiums pounding his chest, claiming we’re leading the charge? The reality is simple: we’re not. We’re somewhere in the middle, maybe, and even that depends on how you count. And that’s where the real issue lies. A closer look at how these numbers are calculated shows a major flaw in the narrative. Much of what’s being called “growth” is actually just construction - not people. The Region includes housing completions in its estimates, regardless of whether the units are finished, occupied, or even livable. Some of these buildings are still under construction. Others are completely empty, used for short-term rentals, or have been bought up by speculators. Yet all of them are baked into the data as if they represent real families, neighbours, and taxpayers. That’s not real growth, it’s fiction dressed up as fact. It’s like counting every chair at a dinner table and calling it a party - even if nobody showed up. Let’s apply a little common sense. Just because a home has five bedrooms doesn’t mean there are five people living in it. It could be a vacant property, a staged model home, or a one-person household. The Region’s model doesn’t count people - it counts buildings. It doesn’t count toothbrushes in bathrooms, it counts blueprints. And let’s talk about what residents actually want, because no one seems to be asking them. The people of Pickering are tired of the condo craze. They don’t want 30-storey towers looming over our streets. They don’t want a mini-Mississauga popping up in their backyard. They moved here for space, for family living, for community, not for endless concrete and glass. Yet council continues to greenlight development after development without a serious plan to deal with the consequences. We don’t have the infrastructure to support this rush to urbanize. Our roads are clogged, our schools are full, our hospitals are strained, and our emergency services are under-resourced. We don’t have enough police, firefighters, or even paramedics to keep pace with the population we already have - never mind the tens of thousands more being promised in planning documents. What good is "growth" if it leaves people stuck in traffic, waiting hours in emergency rooms, or wondering whether first responders will arrive in time? It’s time we stopped confusing cranes and condos with community. Growth should be about people - real people - not inflated projections and real estate marketing. But that’s exactly what the Region relies on: projections, not population counts. They use birth rates, immigration figures, and building permits to guess how many people might be here. And when those assumptions are off, and they often are, the ripple effects go far beyond just the numbers. Because when you build policy, infrastructure, and taxes on top of flawed estimates, residents end up paying the price - quite literally. It means overbuilt subdivisions with empty units. It means roads and schools planned for families that never arrived. It means taxpayers funding services based on phantom growth. This isn’t just about correcting a political talking point — it’s about demanding honest leadership. The people of Pickering deserve more than spin. We deserve facts. We deserve transparency. And we deserve leaders who will speak plainly about what’s really happening, not just regurgitate developer-friendly soundbites. So the next time someone tells you that Pickering is the fastest-growing city in Ontario, ask them to prove it. Not with projections. Not with housing completions. With real numbers. With lived reality. Let’s build a city where families thrive, not just where developers profit. A city rooted in truth, transparency, and community. Because real growth isn’t just measured in buildings - it’s measured in people, purpose, and progress. And it’s time Pickering started telling that story. Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It - Councillor Lisa Robinson 2023

THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES ** A LOOK AT A FEW OF THEIR CURRENT PRIORITIES **

THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES ** A LOOK AT A FEW OF THEIR CURRENT PRIORITIES ** THE CITY OF OSHAWA is a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and is specifically participating in FCM's Partners for Climate Protection program which helps municipalities reduce energy costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Oshawa has also completed a Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of FCM programs. So, what exactly is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and what are their priorities? FCM has been the national voice of municipal government in Canada since 1901. Their members include more than 2,100 municipalities of all sizes, from Canada's cities and rural communities, to northern communities and 20 provincial and territorial municipal associations. Together, they represent more than 92 percent of all Canadians. Municipal leaders from across Canada assemble each year to set FCM policy on key issues. Historically, Canadian municipalities came together in 1901 as the Union of Canadian Municipalities. The Dominion Conference of Mayors was established in 1935 and by 1937 the two national bodies joined as the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities – renamed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 1976. Now you know. As part of this educational column, I offer my readers a look at a few of the priorities upon which the FCM is currently focused: CANADA-US RELATIONS: Trying to ensure the future prosperity of Canadian municipalities is absolutely critical amid current tensions between Canada and the United States. Cities like Oshawa are considered the engine of our country’s economic strength – driving growth, productivity and jobs. Amid the current economic climate over President Trump’s tariffs, the need to support and promote individual municipalities is paramount. Measures need to be taken that will ensure a stronger and better Canada emerges from this crisis. That means prioritizing economic diversification, breaking down interprovincial trade barriers, prioritizing trade-enabling infrastructure, and recognizing that real economic growth is built by investing in communities, both urban and rural. The FCM is calling on all levels of government to accelerate and increase investment in growth sustaining infrastructure, such as water systems, roads, and public transit. This may be seen as a straightforward way to create local jobs and enable the economic growth and diversification Canadians across the country deserve. HOMELESSNESS: Canada’s homelessness crisis is reaching a breaking point, and municipalities are on the front lines. Tangible, permanent solutions are required so that local governments, including the Region of Durham, can tackle this unprecedented issue with a full list of appropriate measures. More and more Canadians are being pushed onto the streets and into encampments. Winter conditions in particular can take a harsh toll on the most vulnerable, while producing a complex human and financial burden which falls to local governments. As shelters continue to fill up and community resources are stretched to the limit, the cracks in an underperforming federal homelessness strategy are on full display. Local leaders throughout Canada and right here in Durham Region are working with limited resources. To ensure that municipalities are better equipped to truly address the situation, a new municipal growth framework is required, one that will provide communities with a fairer slice of existing resources. HOUSING: Housing is the bedrock of livable and prosperous communities. Right now, the FCM is advocating for action on social and affordable housing so all Canadians have a decent place to call home. Recent polling indicates that 44% of Canadians feel housing affordability is their biggest worry. This country is in the grip of a housing and affordability crisis. Housing is more than just a roof over one’s head, but a place to foster a sense of safety, belonging, and economic opportunity. Yet across Canada, safe and affordable housing options are dwindling. Additionally, to ensure accessibility to the right type of housing, a coordinated effort is needed to increase the supply of non-profit housing, including co-op and non-profit rental housing for middle-income households and deeply affordable social housing for low-income Canadians. A more equitable funding model for municipalities is required to support the growth these communities have experienced over the last number of years. Fortunately, there have been some major gains to help address gaps in housing and related infrastructure needs. A $6-billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund was announced in 2024 for housing-related infrastructure needs. The Housing Accelerator Fund, which was launched in 2023, helps municipalities access support needed to increase the right kind of housing supply for their communities. The National Housing Strategy, launched in 2017, supports municipalities in replacing, maintaining and building new social and affordable housing. Leadership from all levels of government is required to tackle the housing affordability crisis, which shows no signs of abating. MUNICIPAL GROWTH: Investing in infrastructure is the best way to turn Canada’s population growth into thriving communities and prevent a serious infrastructure gap. Ontario has experienced record population growth, and the question now is, how do we ensure our communities remain great places to live? With 1.2 million new residents in the last year, municipalities are encountering a dual challenge: building enough housing to restore affordability while ensuring local infrastructure is sufficient to support a good quality of life. PUBLIC TRANSIT: Public transit is the backbone of livable, competitive and sustainable cities. It’s no coincidence that the world’s most dynamic jurisdictions feature some of the best transit systems available. Modern and efficient public transit increases productivity, cuts commute times and reduces pollution—all while attracting top employers and skilled workers. Transit services are also disproportionately relied upon by women, students, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Quality transit creates equitable, vibrant cities. Transit solutions are needed across the country in rural and regional communities as well as in our largest cities. The Rural Transit Solutions Fund provides $250 million over five years starting in 2021, for planning and design grants, capital procurement, and construction for a wide range of transit modes. In the 19th century, railway systems were built at great cost to link regions right across this nation, and in the 20th century Canada reached out to the world through our highways and coastal ports. Tomorrow, our public transit will shape the next generation of livable, sustainable and world-class Canadian cities and regions. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has pledged to continue advocating for municipalities to be sure their citizens' needs are reflected in federal policies and programs. Year after year, their work benefits every municipal government and taxpayer in Canada, and their programming delivers tools that help municipalities tackle local challenges. There is strength in numbers.

THE MENTAL HEALTH EXCUSE...

B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Excuses is what is killing modern day society. The lack of morality and responsibility is something that is most evident in the decay of the relationship between the church and government. No matter your faith. The judicial system is rooted in Christian principles and teachings. The Ten commandments, the basic building block of justice. This past week, a 14 year old boy killed a woman on her front lawn. No, particular reason. He did not know this woman... Quick after this crime was reported. Some politicians wrongfuly so took the opportunity in making statements to the fact that the assailant suffered some sort of mental health. Dah... really!!! A 14 year old kills someone and you even have to make the assumption that he suffered from mental health. The question is... what went wrong in this junior criminal to go out and take the life of another. The 14 year old by law is still a child. Then, I bring to judge the parents. Yes, I believe that to many people leave children in front of computers and assume that all is well. Well, without knowing anything about this particular case. I bet my bottom dollar that this particular child spent many hours in front of a computer. Watching an array of violence in make believe worlds. This is wrong. Parents, should be held responsible for the action of their children. Mental health is not an excuse. If this child suffered from a mental health deficiency. It is the parents responsibility to assure the child mental stability. NONE of this,,, it’s OK honey to mess up. None of this anything and everything is acceptable... and as parents let’s cut the shit of parents being friends. No parents are parents. Rules are rules and standards are standards. Basic family pillars founded in fundamental Christian principles that champion civility both in the home and in society. No, more of you have the right to question. Instead, it should be that you have the right to contribute to society through rational thinking and civil action. To many punks in our society. By product of a compromised family life. Responsibility is a sacrifice that set’s the pace for development. No more boogie men under the bed. No, more fearing the unknown. A family life and structure is the key to raising civilized, productive and contributing youth. To many people out there are raising children when in fact they have yet to grow up. Compound this with foreign cultural, religious, traditions, languages... and the believe that everyone has the right to practice open social dis-obedience and or forced acceptance. We have punks running around with little or no regard for social order. As they believe that they have the right to do as they please under the guise of a false belief that is their human right. Gun, knifes are widely used in all kind of petty crime. As if the value of human life had no value. But wait, let’s blame it on ‘MENTAL HEALTH’. No. Let’s stop using this excuse as the reason to a very serious problem The reason if no discipline in the home. No, guidance. No real family structure. No, real fear in a God. No, sense of duty to family, community, society and or Nation. Let’s stop using the excuse of “MENTAL HEALTH”. Let’s take responsibility for the lives of our children. Let’ champion civility before the police knocks on your door and tell you that your child killed someone. It is our responsibility to assure that never happens. As if it does. It is on you not the child and you should bare the full extend of the law.

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure

Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As world affairs return focus to the geopolitical scene, and we have a strong minority Liberal Government for the fourth time in Canada, one may wonder why the Conservative Party was not able to form the current government. Since 2015 when PM Stephen Harper lost to the liberals, the Conservative Party has been unable to rise and form government. We need to find the root causes of this situation and that is not so easy. However, we can analyze some factors that may go some way toward explaining this failure and suggest ways to potentially correct the situation and steer the Party towards future success. In this last round, the Party lost a remarkable 27-point lead in opinion polls and failed to win an election for the fourth time in a row. While it gained seats and earned almost 42% of the popular vote - its highest share since the party was founded in 2003 - its leader, Pierre Poilievre, was voted out of the seat he has held for the past 20 years. One of the main problems was the candidate selection process. Not only was it tainted by undue influences, but the Party was late in nominating candidates, thus reducing the time candidates had to get themselves known to their electorate. They had more than two years to prepare for the election before it was called. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not seem to have been interested in choosing professionally qualified candidates. Instead, they selected candidates based on personal relationships with people close to the leader’s circle and staffers. Much of the time, they overruled their own established rules, which was allowed by one toothless and apparently useless Conservative Party National Council. There were many cases of potential good and experienced candidates, who were denied the opportunity to be nominated. There were even situations where preferred candidates were nominated in new ridings even before a riding association was constituted. Then came the resignation of Justin Trudeau on January 6 2025. After a short leadership contest organized by the Liberal Party Mark Carney was chosen as Leader and Prime Minister. An experienced professional with glowing qualifications, albeit non-political ones, he immediately called an election. In the mean time, our neighbour to the South made some unfriendly gestures towards Canada, and the Conservative party leadership was slow to react. Most Canadians perceived this hesitancy in reacting to the American threats menacing our national existence as lack of courage and confidence. The combination of all of these mistakes contributed to the sudden evaporation of the Party’s impressive lead in the polls built up over the Trudeau years, and the ultimate loss of the election. The Conservatives have once again become the official opposition, and are stuck with a dilemma. What, if anything, should they do differently in the coming years, than they did before the election? Do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who did not quite win? And, how do you answer that question when you don’t know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn’t respond effectively when the playing field changed? As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them in second place once again. Yes, Poilievre has done better than the previous leaders and Poilievre was not necessarily disliked by people; he was simply less liked than his opponent Mark Carney. In short order, Carney became the most positively viewed political leader in the country, generating positive impressions we have not seen since 2015. In a campaign where trust and risk were key themes that made all the difference, Carney consistently outperformed Poilievre in leadership attributes such as trustworthiness, competence, and experience. Their arrogance and inertia didn’t allow Pollievre’s, campaign staff, headed by Jenni Byrne, to see the shift of the electorate towards liberals in time to react effectively. If they ever want to form the government, the Conservative Party needs to look at the lessons learned in the last campaign and needs to make some radical changes. The beginning of these necessary changes starts with the Conservative Party's National Council, which is scheduled to meet on June 14 for its quarterly meeting. They will decide, among other issues, the timing and venue of the next policy convention. So let us see if any changes are forthcoming in the Conservative party and its leader Pierre Poilievre. He appears to remain committed to key strategist and enforcer Jenni Byrne; a woman whose ability to make enemies is legendary and whose treatment of the Conservative caucus evokes thoughts of the Commissars in the soviet regime. Indeed, whether or not Byrne keeps her job will be a telling sign of whether Poilievre’s support for change includes change on his own behalf. In conclusion, having failed to react successfully to changed circumstances in the latest election, Conservatives need time to better prepare for the next one. Let us hope that their leaders see the light sooner rather than later. It seems to me that a little hubris would not be out of place. What do you think?

IN THIS MODERN AGE…

IN THIS MODERN AGE... By Dale Jodoin In this day and age, it’s become popular to point fingers at Boomers. You hear it everywhere—“They had it easy,” “They ruined the economy,” “They’re the problem.” But no one ever stops to ask what happens when seniors lose everything. When a lifetime of work, bills paid, children raised, and pride kept turns into nothing more than a shopping cart and a park bench. You don’t see many headlines about seniors becoming homeless. But it’s happening. Right now. Every day. Quietly. People in their 50s, 60s, even well into their 70s, are sleeping on sidewalks and shelter mats, not because they made bad choices—but because life, plain and simple, gave them the short end. Here’s the part we don’t want to admit: the longer you work, the harder your body breaks. The wear and tear shows up in every joint. The knees swell. The hips grind. The spine stiffens. The hands curl with arthritis. And when the body gives out, the job usually goes right with it. Maybe they’re let go. Maybe they can’t physically keep up. Maybe their boss just wants someone younger. And once that paycheck stops, things fall apart fast. Rent is missed. Groceries are skipped. The car gets sold. The next thing you know, a man who spent forty years working is standing in a soup kitchen line wondering how he got here. But even then, even standing there with his life crumbling, he won’t ask for help. Because pride is the one thing he still has left. That pride, the kind that built homes and raised families, becomes a curse when you’ve got nothing. It keeps seniors from reaching out. It keeps them quiet, curled up under a worn-out blanket in minus thirty weather, just trying to survive another night. Now picture this: your hips are gone, bone-on-bone. Your hands barely open. You haven’t slept right in weeks. You’re in a crowded shelter, surrounded by strangers. Some of them are angry, some violent. If you speak up, you might get beaten for it. If you say nothing, you might lose your only blanket. So you make yourself small. You find a corner. You try to disappear. But not everyone in those shelters is cruel. Some of the young people in there—those who’ve also lost homes, jobs, families—see the older folks and step in. They give them a spot in line. They pass over a sandwich. They keep an eye out while the senior rests. These young ones don’t do it for thanks. They do it because they still understand what respect looks like, even in places where respect is usually long gone. And that matters. A lot. Still, most seniors don’t make it to shelters. Many can’t. The beds are limited. The places are dangerous. Some have wheelchairs with dead batteries and no place to charge them. Others can’t walk the blocks to get there because their joints scream in pain. Health nurses are posted miles away, and they won’t come to the person—they expect the person to come to them. But how do you get there when you can’t even stand? And what about money? The pensions supposed to come every month, right? But where do they send it? You don’t have an address when you’re living in a tent behind the strip mall. You don’t get phone calls when your battery’s dead and your charger got stolen. You fall through the cracks. Then you fall even further. Until you’re invisible. And most people just walk by, assuming the worst. And even the little jobs they used to count on—like working part-time at Tim Hortons or McDonald’s—those are gone too. There was a time when an older person could stand behind a counter, move a little slower, greet customers with a smile, and still feel like they mattered. It wasn’t glamorous, but it gave them purpose and dignity. Now? Those spots are filled with foreign workers brought in on contracts, paid less, expected to move faster, and told not to question it. Seniors don’t even get looked at anymore. They’re too slow, too stiff, too “in the way.” So they get nothing. Not even a chance. But you know what? Even then, the heart still beats. I’ve seen an old man with a limp and a split lip put himself between a junkie and his girlfriend because he couldn’t stand to see her hit again. He didn’t have a home, didn’t have clean socks, but he had enough strength to take a beating for a stranger. That’s who these men and women are. They’re not a problem. They’re the people who once built this country with their hands. And now they sit in doorways holding a paper cup they can barely grip. They don’t beg. They just ask. And even then, some can’t reach out to take the coin because arthritis has locked their hands shut. Meanwhile, we’ve got months for everything now. Black History Month. Pride Month. Heritage days. Every culture gets recognition—and rightfully so. But where’s the month for seniors? Where’s the public funding to make sure they have warm food and a safe place to sleep? Where’s the respect? Because when they were younger, they had it. We gave it. But now? Most people look away, mutter something about pensions, or worse, joke about how they should just “get with the times.” It’s sickening, really. These are the same people who fought wars, built roads, stocked shelves, cleaned schools, raised kids, ran farms, and did every job that younger folks now scoff at. “Let someone else do it,” the new attitude says. Well, these seniors were someone else. And they did it without complaint. So now that their hands can’t lift anymore and their legs barely carry them—what, they’re supposed to just disappear? This isn’t just a sad story. It’s a warning. Because we’re all heading there. If we’re lucky, we grow old. And if we’re really lucky, we grow old with dignity. But that dignity is vanishing. Fast. And once it’s gone, good luck getting it back. You laugh at the elderly now—until you're them. You brush them off—until it’s you on the bus with no one offering a seat. The difference is, when they were young, they had respect for their elders. Now, they are the elders, and all they get is silence. So what can we do? Start here. Don’t look away. If you see a senior on the street, don’t assume they’re an addict or a lost cause. Look again. That could be a retired carpenter, a grandmother, a war vet. Someone who paid rent for 45 years before one bad turn knocked them over. If they hold out a hand, don’t overthink it. Just help. Not because they asked—but because they shouldn’t have to. The seniors of today were the workers, soldiers, parents, and builders of yesterday. Their pride was earned, not given. And while it may keep them quiet, it’s still there, holding them together, even when everything else has fallen apart. They are not a burden. They are not the past. They are us—just a few years ahead. And the way we treat them now is the exact way we’ll be treated later. So maybe it’s time we stop blaming them and start honouring them—before it’s too late.

Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price

Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M. Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP Ontario employers are being put on high alert: outdated, vague, or improperly drafted employment agreements are increasingly being rejected by courts, often at great cost to the employer. A wave of recent decisions, including two in June 2025, has reaffirmed that poorly worded termination and layoff clauses can leave employers on the hook for significant severance obligations. In one case, the Ontario Superior Court awarded 16 months' notice to an employee who had been placed on a temporary layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer assumed it had the right to lay off the employee due to the pandemic's exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that because the employment agreement did not contain a valid and enforceable layoff clause, the layoff constituted a constructive dismissal. In another high-profile decision, the Township of Ignace was ordered to pay damages in a wrongful dismissal suit after failing to comply with contractual and statutory obligations. The employee was dismissed without sufficient cause or notice, and the municipality's failure to adhere to the Employment Standards Act (ESA) requirements proved costly. These rulings underscore a broader legal trend in Ontario: the courts are scrutinizing employment contracts more rigorously than ever, and any clause that fails to comply with the ESA may be deemed unenforceable in its entirety. Why Contracts Are Being Struck Down Under the ESA, employees are entitled to minimum protections regarding termination, notice, severance, and conditions of layoff. If an employment agreement includes language that even potentially denies or undercuts those entitlements, it risks being void. One common example is a "just cause" termination clause that defines cause more broadly than the ESA. Because the ESA has a higher threshold for when notice can be withheld, these overreaching definitions can lead to the entire termination provision being invalidated. Similarly, layoff clauses must explicitly authorize the employer to place an employee on a temporary layoff in accordance with the ESA. If the agreement is silent or ambiguous on this right, any layoff may be interpreted as a constructive dismissal, triggering full common law notice obligations. Key Clauses That Must Be Updated Legal experts now urge employers to review the following clauses in all employment agreements: Layoff Clauses: Must expressly permit layoffs under ESA terms. Without it, employers risk exposure to constructive dismissal claims. Termination Clauses: Must clearly state that employees will receive at least ESA minimums, and must not attempt to contract out of those minimums either directly or indirectly. Just Cause Provisions: Avoid overly broad language. Limit definitions to what the ESA recognizes. Severability Clauses: Although helpful, they will not save a termination provision that violates ESA minimums. Real-World Impact When a contract is struck down, courts do not revert to some "middle ground." Instead, they fall back on the common law, which typically awards one month of notice per year of service, and sometimes significantly more depending on the employee's age, position, and job market conditions. For example, in the COVID-related case, the terminated employee had a relatively short tenure but was still awarded 16 months of pay because the court found the layoff unjustified and the termination clause unenforceable. This is a stark reminder that employees don’t need decades of service to be awarded lengthy notice periods. Broader Context: Uncertain Economy, Increased Scrutiny These decisions come at a time of economic uncertainty, where layoffs, restructurings, and cost-cutting are common. Employers that rely on outdated contract templates are particularly vulnerable. The pandemic shifted the legal landscape. It exposed just how many employers failed to include valid layoff language in their contracts. Now courts are closing the door on those arguments. Moreover, the courts are showing less willingness to "blue pencil" or fix flawed clauses. Instead, they are invalidating entire sections, resulting in greater liability than many employers anticipate. Practical Tips for Employers If you're an employer in Ontario, here are steps to reduce risk: Audit Your Existing Agreements: Especially for long-standing employees. Even minor language issues can render termination clauses void. Use ESA-Compliant Language: Clauses must reflect the exact language and requirements of the ESA. Courts look at technical accuracy. Clarify Just Cause and Termination Rights: Ensure your contracts don’t appear to waive ESA rights or exaggerate your grounds to terminate without notice. Include Layoff Provisions: If you foresee needing flexibility during economic downturns, ensure temporary layoffs are explicitly permitted. Consult Employment Counsel: Generic templates downloaded from the internet may not be valid in Ontario. Legal review can save six-figure payouts. The Bottom Line In both the COVID layoff and Ignace cases, employers relied on outdated or unenforceable agreements. The result? A common law windfall for the employees and avoidable legal costs for the employers. As more employment cases arise post-pandemic, courts are sending a clear message: contracts must be clear, compliant, and current. A few pages of well-drafted language can mean the difference between a manageable notice payout and a six-figure judgment. For Ontario businesses, the time to act is now. Review your employment agreements, revise your contracts, and protect your business before it becomes the next cautionary tale in a courtroom. Because in 2025, ignorance of contract law is not just costly—it’s entirely avoidable.

Judging an Employer by Their Hiring Process is a Mistake

Judging an Employer by Their Hiring Process is a Mistake By Nick Kossovan "People are so quick to judge and make decisions for themselves about situations they know absolutely nothing about." - LeAnn Rimes, American singer and songwriter. LinkedIn would be eerily quieter—I'd estimate 30% fewer rants and significantly less nonsensical drama—if job seekers stopped perpetuating the false narrative that their experiences with a company's Director of Talent Acquisition or Human Resources Manager reflect the company's culture. It's perplexing that many job seekers judge a company based on just a few interactions. This shortsightedness does not do their job search any favours. Many job seekers like to proclaim, "A company's hiring process is a reflection of its culture." This is a limiting belief. Just because Mary in HR is having a bad day doesn't mean all her colleagues are equally miserable. Terrance, your interviewer and potential boss, ghosting you after a second interview says everything about him and nothing about the company itself. One, two, or even five employees' behaviours—especially within a large company—don't represent the entire company. Assuming that being ghosted—as off-putting or even hurtful as the behaviour is—is indicative of the company's culture demonstrates a failure on the job seeker's part to grasp the wisdom behind the adage "Never judge a book by its cover." If I have a poor customer experience in a department store's sporting goods section, does that mean I'll face the same issues in their shoe or toy departments? Of course not! My negative experience with a specific employee isn't a reflection of the entire store. A company is essentially a group of individuals under one umbrella. Every person approaches their job differently, influenced by their own agendas and priorities. One nuance that few job seekers understand, which they should at least try to, is that an employee's human dynamics dictate their priorities and, consequently, their behaviour. An employee aiming to become the VP of Customer Experience will engage with their role considerably differently than someone who's coasting along, which arguably is a large percentage of employees. It's unrealistic to expect that every interaction within a large company—between employees and customers or within the company itself—will accurately reflect the company's culture. Just as you wouldn't judge a restaurant by one dish—though we all know people who do—you shouldn't judge an employer solely based on your experience with an HR employee or the hiring manager. Instead, take a more comprehensive view of the company. Anyone who's spent time in the corporate world knows that every workplace has its share of "less than ideal," bad apples, so to speak, including some in recruitment roles. A negative interaction with an HR employee at a multinational pharmaceutical company doesn't necessarily reflect the company's overall professionalism or work ethic. Referring back to the adage, "Never judge a book by its cover," when job searching means looking beyond the gatekeepers of the hiring process. Conduct in-depth research into the company's culture and values. This could involve speaking with current and former employees, reading the company's most recent annual report, which outlines its financial performance, operational activities, and future prospects, and even visiting the company's premises. Learn as much as you can to gain a clear understanding of what to expect as an employee. It's worth noting that I've learned from experience that an employer can have a stellar hiring process, all nice and shiny, yet their workplace resembles a dumpster fire—again proving the wisdom behind not judging a book by its cover. Never assume! Dismissing a potential employer based on one or two negative interactions could mean missing out on a position that may lead to significant career growth and satisfaction. The key to a rewarding career is to maintain an open mind and assess opportunities from a broad perspective. Some of the best companies to work for have frustrating hiring processes. Throughout my career, I've landed several jobs I've enjoyed, even though I faced an aggravating hiring experience with the HR manager, who seemed determined to "test" my patience and tolerance level. Career-minded individuals take the time to understand the companies to which they are applying. They don't allow one negative interaction to shape their entire perception of a company. Being easily influenced is lazy. Those serious about their career know that human resources personnel are known for frequently moving around, making it myopic to judge a company solely based on its hiring or interviewing practices or a person's attitude. You don't need me to tell you that job opportunities are scarce, particularly desirable ones. As artificial intelligence and automation continue to infiltrate workplaces, providing employers with increased efficiencies and significant payroll savings, well-paying white-collar jobs are becoming scarcer. Judging an entire company based on the behaviour of a few employees or a department is shortsighted. Don't let a single bad experience close the door on your future. Always keep in mind that recruiters and HR personnel are merely the front of the company—of course, this isn't the case when you're being interviewed by the person you'd be reporting to—hence the truism in the second century AD, the Roman author Juvenal words, "Fronti nulla fides" which translates to: "Never have faith in the front."

Due Diligence

Due Diligence By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist Most people know that when you are looking to purchase something, especially something of real value, you want to do get as much information about that product or service as you possibly can before laying out large sums of money. There are many ways that people gather their information. Some people live by online reviews. I am constantly being asked by Google and Amazon to review products and services that I have used. It begs the question then, when it comes to purchasing a home, why don’t people do a little research before they purchase a home in an area they know nothing about? There is a house on Celina street in Oshawa that was sold in 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic. It sold then for a ridiculously high price but that was just a glimpse into the craziness that would ensue regarding house prices. A year later the same style of house on Celina street would be selling for $150,000 more. Unbelievable was a common word to hear from long-time residents of the street. So, this house, on Celina street was purchased by people from out of town. The purchasers used an agent from out of town, who did not know Oshawa. The new owners set about to improve the property as many new homeowners do. After spending many thousands of dollars putting in a second full bathroom on the main floor and covering both the upstairs bathroom and the new one downstairs in beautiful Italian marble, with all the extravagant finishings the home looked completely different. There were also some very nice improvements to the kitchen which would have cost a pretty penny. A massive wooden garden shed in the picturesque backyard looked like something out of a storybook. Where the homeowners went wrong here, is that not too far from their potential new home was a large corner lot that had visible signs of active construction on it. Without asking any real questions of the owner who was selling the property, they went ahead and made an offer that was accepted and the deal closed without incident in 2020. Fast forward three years, what was under construction was the Durham Outlook for the Needy. While the resource is much needed for the community who relies on it, it plummets the value of the homes in the immediate neighbourhood. So, here we have a home that was purchased at an inflated value due to the pandemic, that has now had many thousands of dollars in upgrades done to it, that is sitting in the shadows of the Outreach for the Needy. The home has been listed for sale numerous times to no avail. The homeowner would like to recoup his investment of course, but that seems impossible given the location and the money spent on improvements. Although extremely unfortunate, there is a very valuable lesson here. The purchaser’s agent should have looked into what was being built on that lot. If the purchasers asked their agent and the agent could not give them an answer, the easiest thing to do would be to place a quick call to City Hall. Anyone in Building/Planning could have told them what was going up on that site and they would have then had the opportunity to make an informed decision. Before you make an offer to purchase any type of property, always do your homework. Ask the questions, knock on the doors, get your answers.

Unelected, Unchecked, and Unaccountable: The Rise of the CAO in Pickering

Unelected, Unchecked, and Unaccountable: The Rise of the CAO in Pickering By Councillor Lisa Robinson In any democratic system, elected officials are chosen by the people to represent their voice, advocate for their interests, and provide oversight of public administration. In contrast, a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is an unelected civil servant - the head of municipal administration - hired to carry out policy, manage operations, and support the implementation of council decisions. They are not supposed to be the face of political leadership. They are not supposed to hold power over elected Councillors. Yet in Pickering, that’s exactly what’s happening. The City of Pickering’s CAO, an employee - not an elected representative - has emerged as one of the most visible, vocal, and politically influential figures at City Hall. She routinely attends events and photo-ops as if she were a member of council, appearing in media announcements and staging herself as a public figure, despite holding no mandate from the people. Now, with renovations underway in council chambers, we’ve learned the CAO will sit in the centre of the new dais with the Mayor and City Clerk - a place traditionally reserved for elected officials - while actual councillors are pushed to the sidelines. This is not symbolism. This is a loud and clear message: power is no longer held by the people’s representatives; it is centralized under one unelected bureaucrat. The CAO’s control extends far beyond optics. Councillors are now being told they must ask permission to bring forward motions. Communications with City staff - whether directors or lower-level employees - are restricted. I cannot have a basic conversation with City staff without her being notified. This creates a climate of fear and manipulation, where honest governance is obstructed and transparency is avoided. It is now impossible to conduct a neutral, independent investigation involving the CAO, because she oversees the very staff who would be involved in such an inquiry. She controls internal communications, manages the optics, and maintains influence over all internal administrative processes. In essence, the CAO is both the subject of the complaint and the gatekeeper of the investigation - a textbook conflict of interest. Let’s be honest: the majority of complaints against me have come directly from the Mayor and the CAO. And it’s no coincidence. I’ve made my position very clear - if I were Mayor and had access to strong mayor powers, I would use them to clean house. I would get rid of the CAO, the City Solicitor, and several Directors because I believe corruption starts at the top. I’ve said openly that I would tear it down, build it back up, and give the City back to the people. This isn’t just politics - it’s personal for them. Over $250,000.00 a year personal for the CAO. And that’s why we’re seeing retaliation disguised as integrity enforcement. Their vendetta is thinly veiled behind “code of conduct” complaints, most of which are nothing more than attempts to silence, shame, and discredit a dissenting voice on council. The CAO’s unchecked authority is eroding the democratic structure of municipal governance. Instead of being accountable to elected council, the CAO is manipulating council to be accountable to her. She shapes the agenda. She filters information. She positions herself as the gatekeeper between councillors and the rest of the corporation. This isn’t how local government is supposed to function. This isn’t public service - this is administrative authoritarianism. The bottom line is the people of Pickering didn’t elect the CAO. They elected a council to serve them - to be their voice, to ask hard questions, and to hold staff accountable. But that’s impossible when the person running the show controls the flow of information, suppresses dialogue, and uses her position to silence opposition. It’s time we asked the hard question: Who really runs Pickering? The councillors we elected - or the CAO we didn’t? Because if the answer is the latter, then we no longer have a representative democracy - we have a bureaucracy on a power trip. And the people deserve far better than that. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, “The People’s Council” Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear But In The Courage To Face It Head On and Rise Above It

ONTARIO’S BILL 5 RECEIVES ROYAL ASSENT ** RADICAL OPPOSITION ASSURES US IT’S A GOOD THING **

ONTARIO’S BILL 5 RECEIVES ROYAL ASSENT ** RADICAL OPPOSITION ASSURES US IT’S A GOOD THING ** THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF ONTARIO, the Honourable Edith Dumont, granted royal assent to the Ford government’s new mining legislation on June 5, officially passing it into law at Queen’s Park on Thursday. Bill 5, known as Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, will create special economic zones where certain projects can bypass various provincial laws. The bill is a positive step forward for this province as it will permit major infrastructure and resource extraction projects to happen faster by reducing delays and eliminating duplication in the approvals process. Most observers see this as an urgent response to the economic threats posed by U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. In addition, the bill will reduce the regulatory shackles that hinder many companies from operating effectively within northern Ontario. Premier Doug Ford has said the province must focus on accelerating infrastructure projects, particularly mines, as it finds itself in a "critical time" against U.S. tariffs. "We just want to get projects moving forward as quickly as possible," he said at Queen's Park last week. "There's no longer time to sit around and wait 10 years as we do an environmental assessment and everything else." He assured Ontarians that his government is "going to make sure that we always do environment assessments” but went on to say, "I'm not against it, I'm just against taking five years to get one done.” Ford has cited the need to move more quickly on mining places such as the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in northern Ontario in order to strengthen the province’s economy. Of course, the need to anticipate pushback from radical interest groups and others is paramount, and when asked as to whether he would use the Notwithstanding Clause in the face of any future court decisions that might try to deem Bill 5 as unconstitutional, the Premier said he would “cross that bridge” when he comes to it. As part of the process still to come, the Province has committed to consult with Indigenous leaders over the summer months, and not designate any areas as special economic zones until that process is complete. Three First Nations have signed various agreements already in an effort to help the province build roads to the affected regions, and to develop the areas that connect to the provincial highway system. Of course, as one might expect, a host of other First Nations leaders have said they won’t cooperate whatsoever under any conditions. Dozens flew in from the far north to Queen’s Park for the purpose of watching the Legislature pass Bill 5, and to rain down jeers upon politicians as they passed the bill into law. Many were forced to leave the chamber as a result. Of course, the opposition doesn’t stop there, as radical environmentalists and those claiming to champion what they see as civil liberties attempt to capture as much air time as they can among national and international media outlets. Shouts of sanctimonious outrage could also be heard from various unions who see certain labour laws as somehow under threat due to the desire by the Province to simply speed up necessary approvals. A glance at the Op-Ed pages among major newspapers will show letters-to-the-editor that offer up typical opposition party talking points that try to accuse the Ford government of overriding all the rules – meaning whatever the opposition parties are demanding on any given day. Apocalyptic pronouncements of so-called underfunded schools, crumbling higher education, hallway medicine, and even the proliferation of what has become known as ‘homelessness’ are being used to create an atmosphere of what this columnist identifies as simple comic relief. Ontario’s Minister of Energy & Mines, Stephen Lecce, described the intent of Bill 5 in very clear terms when he told the Legislature, “We have a ‘one project, one process’ framework. It’s designed to deliver coordination…because it takes thousands of days to get to yes. We brought forward this bill to introduce benchmarks on government, and government alone, to set service standards and certainty…There are billions of dollars of investment that left Ontario, businesses that stalled or projects that never got off the ground because the Opposition designed a system to halt it to ‘no’ …We know 15 years is too long. We know 15 years to open a mine is unacceptable. We know it as amongst the slowest in the world.” On the matter of Indigenous participation, the Minister went on say, “Many Indigenous nations and chiefs have said to us, “Look, we want to buy in, but not many entities or people or businesses or First Nation governments have access to hundreds of millions of dollars to buy into these equity projects,” which is a fair concern, and which thus disabled their ability to be equity partners or to own the project. So, in this most recent budget our Premier and Minister of Finance tabled a plan to put $3 billion for equity participation on the table.” In contrast, perhaps the most glaring example of comic relief came from the Green Party’s Aislinn Clancy, who offered these intelligent remarks, “I’d like to say a few words about what this bill means to me, my community, the people who care about the planet, because there is no planet B. We try to go to Mars all the time and see what it’s like up there; we haven’t found life, so we have to really work hard to protect the planet that we have. And as Justin Bieber would like to say to the Premier, it’s not too late to say sorry and rescind this bill.” But she didn’t end there. “I think this is our Amazon rainforest. This is our Avatar movie. Too many movies have been produced right now that show that when we put a price on the minerals without consideration for the future of humanity and the destruction caused in the pursuit of excess profit. So this is not about trying to survive; these are not people who are just trying to make do; this is about excess profit of the super-wealthy who are going to be capitalizing on this.” One could be forgiven for thinking those comments were in fact written by a preschooler rather than an elected member of the Legislature, however I can assure you they came right out of Hansard. In the meantime, expect a lot of saber-rattling from various Indigenous groups within the province, as well as a host of creative fiction coming from environmentalists attempting to forward their de-growth agenda. Let the summer follies begin.

THE TOKEN SQUAD (The Oshawa Community C.D.E.I.C)

THE TOKEN SQUAD (The Oshawa Community C.D.E.I.C) B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Excuse me for my ignorance.... but how are we all to be equal when we practice such discrimination though forced acceptance committees. This week a online post read: Share your voice to create a more inclusive and equitable Oshawa The City of Oshawa is recruiting community representatives to join its Community Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee (C.D.E.I.C.). The C.D.E.I.C. includes individuals from all backgrounds who are dedicated to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for everyone. Whether you have experience in advocacy, community organizing, program or policy development, or simply a passion for social justice, we welcome your unique perspective and talents. Are you kidding me... ‘create a more inclusive and equitable Oshawa’. The same Oshawa that is so discriminatory to the bone. The same Oshawa that favors one company over another. That discriminates against it’s own City Newspaper for not following the City political agenda. The same City that patronizes supporters and all other are openly ignored and discriminated!!! The City is not recruiting community representative to join no committee. What the City is recruiting is people with a chip on their shoulder that like to champion race. Tokens, that will align to the City political correctness agenda. There is no Diversity and Equity or Inclusion. Then why have a committee of racial tokens. They have no real voice at council. They have no real agenda other than that of the City political interest. I feel for it’s members as they are being used due to the color of their skin. We should not have to have a committee to treat each other with respect and dignity. There should be no governing body or committee forcing us to comply with politically correct agenda. That in itself is oppressive and prejudice. If anyone has a problem with that concept. It is simple. You can’t be accepted to anything if you keep claiming you are different and you expect those around you to make special provisions for you difference. You can’t expect to be a diverse community when everyone wants to be accepted with special provisions and acknowledgment. True diversity comes through a united people respecting the difference but conforming to the national social status quo. The city can’t expect ‘EQUITY’ when they openly practice such discrimination toward their own city newspaper for example. Imagine all the others they discriminate against of not such magnitude. Bye definition Inclusion: the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources. Really, Oshawa..... I feel for the members of this so called committee. They are being used as tokens for political gain. And for those ignorant amongst us... blinded by hate. Put the pitch fork down. There is nothing prejudice for bringing forth questioning of the system. So save it. Educate yourself on the reality that is forcing you to believe something that is not true. Stop letting them use you as a token for their gain. I like to see how the (C.D.E.I.C.) will help me get through the City of Oshawa to support a local small Canadian business operated by a minority. Or do I not qualify for the same diversity, equity and inclusion? I will await the CDEIC reply... waiting... waiting... waiting...waiting...waiting...waiting... Thank God I am not going to hold my breath on hearing from this TOKEN committee.

D-Day anniversary 2025

D-Day anniversary 2025 by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In Canada today, we are at war with, uncertain economic times, strained relations with our neighbor to the south and international tension due to the continuing war in Ukraine and the Middle East. We therefore need to remember as never before, and reflect on the sacrifices that our ancestors have made for us. They should not have fought in vain to secure our freedom, to keep democracy alive in our country and the comfortable standard of living that we have enjoyed for generations. It is time to cherish their memory and learn from their patriotism. We need to ensure that their efforts to win over the evils of fascism were not in vain. Particularly during this new dark period that threatens our very existence, we need to keep up our courage and stand up against our adversaries as our ancestors have done. We need to stay strong in the face of today’s unprecedented challenges. We are currently facing a crucial time in our history in fighting the evil of an unknown upcoming new world order and related societal malaises. In combination, the consequences of the past pandemic and social dysfunction are similar to fighting a new kind of world war with worldwide implications and yet unforeseen effects on Canadians. On 6 June we are marking the eighty-one anniversary of D-Day, the beginning of the Battle of Normandy, along a 100 km stretch of French coastline across the English Channel from Great Britain. This was the largest seaborne invasion in history and a crucial day in winning the war against evil; Nazi Germany. The assault on the beaches of Normandy by British, American, and Canadian troops on the 6th of June 1944, who would then fight their way across Western Europe, has gone down in history as a memorable event. The codenames of where the troops landed — Omaha and Utah for the Americans, Gold and Sword for the British, and Juno for the Canadians — remain familiar today. The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, marked the beginning of the end of six long years of conflict between Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the Allied forces. The development of the role for Canada in the D-Day invasion has a history going back a few years. Following the Dunkirk evacuation Canadians began to come over to Great Britain. They were well-prepared and took on the role of defending the British Isles. They built up around the south coast of England and operated in a defensive and anti-invasion role from May 1940 to July 1943. At that time the 1st Canadian Division was detached and sent to Italy, but the bulk of Canadian forces remained in Britain for all those years. Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen played a critical role in the Allied invasion of Normandy, beginning the bloody campaign to liberate Western Europe from Nazi occupation. Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into the invasion area on D-Day, including 14,000 Canadians at Juno Beach. The Royal Canadian Navy contributed 110 ships and 10,000 sailors and the RCAF contributed 15 fighter and fighter-bomber squadrons to the assault. Total Allied casualties on D-Day reached more than 10,000. By the end of the Battle of Normandy, the Allies had suffered 209,000 casualties, including more than 18,700 Canadians. Over 5,000 Canadian soldiers died. From the D-Day landings on the 6th of June 1944 through to the encirclement of the German army at Falaise on the 21st of August this was one of the pivotal events of the Second World War and the scene of some of Canada's greatest feats of arms. Juno Beach was the Allied code name for a 10 km stretch of French coast. It fell to more than 14,000 volunteer soldiers from across Canada, under Major-General Rod Keller, commander of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division, to storm the Juno Beach coast line. They seized the beach and its seaside villages while under intense fire from German defenders — an extraordinary example of military skill, reinforced by countless acts of personal courage. The 3rd Infantry Division took heavy casualties in its first wave of attack but took control of the beach by the end of the day. There were 1,074 Canadian casualties, including 359 killed. All things considered, the Canadian troops did very well on D-Day. The Canadians and the British in the Gold and Juno sector made it farther inland than any of the other invasion forces. They had managed to link up their forward units some distance inland, which was a measure of success. At the end of the day, the Queen’s Own Rifles had actually captured its objective, which was short of the overall divisional objective but goes to show that some of the Canadian units were quite successful in the first hours. Their sacrifices will not be forgotten even though their generation is starting to fade into the fog of history. For the time being D-Day still seems to be in the Canadian public’s consciousness. Their memory must be preserved for the millennials and generations to come in order to eliminate the root causes of further conflagrations. D-Day embodied the courage and determination to prevail in that war. It was fought over issues that are still alive today — such as ideology, globalism and injustice. It was an exceptionally difficult and hazardous military operation. It was an operation in which Canadians took a major central role in the war to preserve freedom and democracy. For these reasons and more, it’s important to keep the memory of D-Day alive. The dead, along with scores of other Canadians killed in the fighting during the weeks that followed, are buried in the serene and beautiful Canadian War Cemetery at Bény-sur-Mer, just behind Juno Beach. This, and numerous other memorials throughout Courseulles, Bernières and St. Aubin-sur-Mer, commemorate Canada’s sacrifice on D-Day. A private museum, the Juno Beach Centre, overlooking the beach at Courseulles, also tells the story of Canada’s role in the invasion of Normandy. Every year on the 6th of June, the people of the villages along Juno Beach pay tribute to the men and women who fought and died there. They parade through streets festooned with maple leaf flags and hold services and vigils along parts of the seawall, in memory of their Canadian liberators. Long live their memory! Long live the courage those men and women demonstrated. May our current generations and governments show just as much courage in our current hour of need. We can’t afford to wait for someone else to fight for our rights and freedom. We must all take a stand against the tyranny of incompetent leadership, political correctness at the expense of merit, and the stripping away of our individual freedoms in the name of political expediency. Wake up Canada

Christians Told to Stay Quiet: Why Free Speech Feels One-Sided

Christians Told to Stay Quiet: Why Free Speech Feels One-Sided By Dale Jodoin Across Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, many Christians feel like they are being told to sit down, be quiet, and not speak their beliefs. People say, "You can go to church. You can pray. Just don’t talk about it in public." That may sound fair to some. But for those who believe deeply in their faith, this is not freedom. It is silent. Christians are allowed to worship privately, but if they speak up on issues like assisted suicide or abortion, they are called far-right, hateful, or even dangerous. This double standard is hard to ignore. In England, a woman was arrested for standing silently and praying near an abortion clinic. She didn’t block the entrance. She didn’t shout. She just stood there. The police said she was breaking a law. But how can silent prayer be a crime? This is not the freedom people fought for. In Canada and the U.S., Christian charities run food banks, addiction centres, and shelters. They help anyone in need, no questions asked. But the Canadian government is now considering removing their charitable status. If that happens, it will cost the country millions. It would also hurt the poor, the hungry, and the homeless who rely on these programs. Is this about fairness, or about punishing Christians for their beliefs? Christians are not the only ones facing problems. Today, Jewish people are being attacked more often in many countries. In the past, Christians were often the ones to speak up for them. But now, many Christians are afraid to speak at all. They worry about being called names or targeted for simply having a different view. When people on the political left protest, they sometimes damage buildings or take over streets. Still, the media often says, "They are passionate. They care about justice." But when Christians hold a sign or speak at a peaceful rally, they are called bigots or extremists. That’s a double standard. The government says we have free speech. But it doesn’t feel that way when one group is told to stay silent while another can say or do almost anything. Free speech means everyone should be able to share their views—even when we disagree. Many people forget that most of the soldiers who fought in World War I and World War II were Christians. They believed in freedom, in God, and in standing for what was right. Today, those voices are fading. Fewer people stand up for their beliefs, especially if they are Christian. Some fear losing their jobs. Others fear attacks online. Some just feel alone. Jesus once said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." This meant that governments have power, but not all power. Our beliefs, our hearts, and our souls do not belong to the government. They belong to God. But today, it feels like the government wants everything—including your faith. Christians do not want to control others. They want the same rights as everyone else. They want to help their neighbours, speak their beliefs, and live with honesty and love. They are not trying to hurt anyone. They are trying to live true to their faith. If Canada takes away Christian charity rights, thousands of people will suffer. The homeless won’t get meals. Addicts won’t get support. Families in crisis will be left without help. These charities have been serving the country for decades. And now, they’re being told they might not be allowed to do so anymore. This is not about one religion being better than another. It’s not about pushing faith on others. It’s about fairness. It’s about letting Christians speak, serve, and believe without fear. We live in a time when people say they want equality. But real equality means protecting everyone’s voice—even the ones you don’t agree with. Christians are not perfect. No group is. But they deserve the right to speak without being punished. The sad truth is many Christians now stay quiet. They go to church. They go home. They keep their faith private. But that’s not how it used to be. Christians used to speak for those who had no voice. Now, they are being told they have no right to speak at all. So what happens next? Will we keep quiet out of fear? Or will we speak with kindness, with care, and with courage? Christians are part of this country. They work hard, pay taxes, raise families, and help neighbours. They are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to be heard. Isn’t that what free speech is really about?

The benefits of home ownership

The benefits of home ownership By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist Some of the benefits of home ownership are obvious. Investment purposes alone is one of the biggest ones. The freedom to do what you want within the bylaws of your area, decorating as you please, pride of home ownership etc… However, there are some things that many people never think about that can be of great advantage to the homeowner. I was having a conversation with a friend last week, and she was talking about her two sons. One of which owned a house and the other whom she felt may never have that opportunity given the prices of today, along with the stringent requirements to qualify. My friend and her husband were thinking of helping her one son out with a downpayment, but she was concerned that given the interest rates he may have difficulty covering the mortgage on a monthly basis. It was then that I decided to point out what I was always told growing up. If you own something, you always have something to sell. You are in a position to leverage assets. While most people are aware that if you own a house, you can always sell it, and in most cases, at least you’d hope you would be in a position to make a profit. While that is not the objective for most, there are several other ways to benefit financially. For one, if you have a spare bedroom, you can always look at renting it out. If you are not keen on having someone live with you on a full-time basis, you could look at renting to a student or perhaps a worker who is just in town for a few days a week or on a contract basis. Generally, those type of renters are pretty self sufficient and really in need of the basics, a bed, a shower, and somewhere to make food. They often prefer to keep to their room as well. Other than having a room in your home to rent out, there are many other opportunities as well. If you have a back yard for instance, many people will pay to have a little section of a yard to garden in. This has been done for years. Many people don’t have the means to have a garden where they live but they have a real desire to plant a garden and be able to pick their fresh vegetables on a daily basis. If you have a shed or a garage, many people are interested to have a workshop. That may be something you could think about. Along that same vein, if you have a driveway, you can rent someone a parking spot. As more and more people come into an area, there are only so many parking spaces available and there are often people advertising that they are looking for a parking spot on a regular basis. These are just a few ideas to generate a little extra cash from your home. Think about it. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

OSHAWA’S SIMCOE / MILL ST NEIGHBOURHOOD NEEDS HELP ** CAN THIS TRADITIONAL WORKING CLASS AREA BE SAVED? **

OSHAWA’S SIMCOE / MILL ST NEIGHBOURHOOD NEEDS HELP ** CAN THIS TRADITIONAL WORKING CLASS AREA BE SAVED? ** FROM MY DAYS AS A PRE-SCHOOLER right up to the time I was hired for my first full time job, the neighbourhood surrounding the intersection of Simcoe and Mill St. was practically a second home to me – my grandparents having lived in the area since building a house there in 1951. Over the course of the next 35 years our family would cultivate many great memories within that community, from the days when my uncle played midget-league baseball at Storie Park right up to the time my parents were married at the now-closed Albert Street United Church. My dad attended Holy Cross School, itself now put to alternative uses, and my parents even bought their first television set at Falcon TV, which was located along Simcoe St. S. The neighbourhood I can recall enjoyed access to a branch of the Toronto Dominion Bank as well as various retail food outlets including Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mermaid’s Fish & Chips, and later on, Halenda’s Meats and even a Swiss Chalet restaurant. Well, those days are gone, and what you will see there now bears much more resemblance to a weekly episode of Hill Street Blues than it does a family-friendly neighbourhood. Ward 5 Regional councillor Brian Nicholson offered these comments on social media with regard to what many see as the almost-complete social collapse of the area: “Despite continued efforts to mitigate the negative activities in the Mill Street-Simcoe Street South-First Street communities, the situation continues to deteriorate as individuals continue to abuse the neighbourhoods with drug use, intimidation, debris and nuisance activities. As a result of this deteriorating situation, Mayor Dan Carter, my fellow ward 5 Councillor John Gray and I are setting up a coordination meeting… to review the status of area concerns and to develop a go forward plan to address this situation.” The initial list of those expected to attend such a meeting read like a ‘Who’s Who’ among municipal and other civic leaders in the community – which lent an air of political grandstanding to the idea being floated by the ward councillors. Since that time however, an incremental approach has been established, starting with a recent gathering together of several commissioners within city hall to begin discussions. Those in attendance are responsible for bylaw enforcement, public works, and the zoning that allows for the existence of social service agencies at locations throughout the city. One such agency is DUO, or Do Unto Others, which started as a grassroots volunteer organization seeking to establish the collection and distribution of food and clothing supplies directly to the homeless. They have since evolved into a Regionally-funded operation based at a small store-front location just north of Mill Street. I met with the volunteers who started DUO during a tour of their operation in 2021, and to this day they continue to provide what can only be described as a vital service to people in need, including a place of refuge where those who live on the streets can share in some much needed fellowship. Unfortunately, as their location continues to draw together those experiencing a variety of drug dependencies and mental health issues, the effects on the surrounding neighbourhood have been nothing less than severe. The statistics don’t lie: Within the last 30 days there have been approximately 250 inquiries submitted to city hall with regard to area residents’ concerns, and this includes no less than 58 complaints over human excrement, and 178 for the general cleanup of garbage and personal belongings left strewn about. During the last two months, the neighbourhood has seen a 200% increase in what municipal staff refer to as calls-for-service. This represents $45,000 in staff time and resources coming directly from city hall. A total of approximately 750 inquiries, or complaints, have been filed with the City over the course of the last year. The annual cost to local taxpayers has reached a staggering $3million to basically clean up the mess left by the homeless and others as they congregate downtown and at various social service agencies. The total number of complaints city-wide reached 12,000 and most of those were in the downtown area. What is seemingly even more difficult to accept is the confrontational attitude by many who frequent the area around DUO, with some residents describing what they see as an all-out war against them, including excrement being left on vehicles, and at one point, a fire having been set at the back of a building. Verbal threats, vandalism to property, and constant urinating in public spaces have all worked to create a hostile environment in a once safe, working-class neighbourhood. Another important statistic continues to show the uphill battle being faced by municipal officials, and that is the fact that approximately 80% of those seeking some sort of social service support within the city of Oshawa are in fact from out of town. Councillors I have spoken with describe a scenario where individuals have literally been bussed into the community, with one councillor suggesting they be given a meal and some clothing – and a bus ticket straight back to wherever they came from. There are limits to all things, and that includes the degree to which a community can continue to offer ongoing compassion to those in need. Whatever spirit of goodwill still exists should be directed towards the 4000 area residents who have been suffering so much at the hands of so few in a community some still refer to as part of “traditional Oshawa.” Locals must surely hope for a day when they can walk to their local restaurant, laundromat, or convenience store without the prospect of being accosted or having to witness an act of public indecency. Meanwhile, a second meeting among civic leaders is to be held in the coming days, with representatives of the Region of Durham in attendance. Following that, a public meeting will be organized so residents can meet with their members of council who are expected to outline a practical plan of action. That plan will likely involve a few carefully thought-out improvements towards local law enforcement and a municipally led initiative to crack down on certain landlords and others who appear to be part of the problem. One thing is certain – and that is, the current situation did not develop overnight, and local leadership at all levels has so-far appeared unable or unwilling to fully address the problems being faced. Perhaps the next few months will show some tangible results that will make life better for all concerned.