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.

If the Federal and Provincial Governments Refuse to Use Internet Voting, Why Is Pickering Charging Ahead?

If the Federal and Provincial Governments Refuse to Use Internet Voting, Why Is Pickering Charging Ahead? By Councillor Lisa Robinson If the Federal and Provincial Governments Refuse to Use Internet Voting, Why Is Pickering Charging Ahead? On May’s Monday night Council Meeting, I stood alone - once again - as the only Councillor voting to protect the integrity of our elections. Despite handing out six pages of hard evidence to the Mayor and fellow Councillor’s of real-world failures, court-ordered recounts, and documented examples from across Ontario, Canada, and the world - Council still voted 6 to 1 in favour of using a hybrid electronic-paper voting system for the 2026 municipal election. Let me be clear: electronic and internet voting systems have failed before, and they will fail again. In fact, they already failed right here in Pickering. In 2018, the system went down. Voters were locked out. People lost their democratic right to vote. Candidates demanded recounts and were told: “There’s nothing to recount, I just have to push a button, and I will get the same result” Why? Because there were no paper ballots. No backup. No proof. Just numbers on a screen - and a shrug from the system. So what did City staff put in the report for this agenda item? Not a single mention of the 2018 bandwidth failure. Not a word about people being denied their democratic right. No accountability. No transparency. Instead, staff downplayed the entire issue by saying some residents “found phone voting cumbersome.” That’s not just misleading - that’s an insult to every voter who got locked out in 2018. And then came the sales pitch: “In 2022, over 70% of voters used electronic voting - so clearly, it’s the preferred method.” Let’s talk about that. Yes, in 2022, voters had both options: paper and electronic. But this was still during a time of fear, uncertainty, and residual pandemic panic. Many residents were still nervous about public spaces, and many believed online voting was the safer, easier choice. That’s not informed consent. That’s fear-based compliance. People were still recovering from lockdowns, vaccine mandates, job losses, and just trying to get through. Of course they chose the “convenient” option. But how many of them were told the truth about what happened in 2018? How many knew that if the system failed, their vote would vanish with no recourse? How many were told that federal and provincial governments refuse to use internet voting - because it’s not secure, hackable, not transparent, and not verifiable? Pickering staff and council are now using pandemic-era data to justify moving forward with a method that even Elections Canada won’t touch. That’s not leadership. That’s a cover-up. If the truth about these voting systems were made public - And maybe if people understood how many elections have been overturned, how many systems have failed, and how many court challenges were needed to fix what software broke - maybe nobody would use them again. So here we are, possibly marching straight into another digital disaster - eyes wide shut. And the scary part is, we will never know, unless someone challenges the system. Let me ask this again: If Queen’s Park and Parliament Hill don’t use internet voting, why is Pickering acting like it knows better? Why are we gambling with democracy, after already losing public trust? The 2018 system crashed. The 2022 numbers are misleading. The 2026 plan is a risk. This isn’t innovation. It’s arrogance. And it’s already cost us more than we know. The people of Pickering deserve a voting system they can trust, verify, and believe in - not a digital black box they’re told to just accept. I will continue fighting for full paper ballots and real polling stations in 2026. Because if your vote can’t be verified, it doesn’t count. And if council isn’t willing to defend that truth, then what are we doing here? Councillor Lisa Robinson The People’s Councillor. Still Fighting. Always Will. Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On and Rise Above It.

Integrity Commissioner With Bought Integrity

Integrity Commissioner With Bought Integrity B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States An integrity commissioner is a municipal accountability officer responsible for upholding ethical standards and addressing misconduct within local government. They are tasked with applying the rules governing the conduct of municipal council members and local boards, including codes of conduct, and providing advice and education on those rules. This would normally sound great. WRONG - As in many cases municipal so called ‘INTEGRITY’ Commissioners are paid by the municipality they are to investigate. Therefore, guess the outcome of most of their “INTEGRITY” commissioner decisions. Like the old saying, “DON’T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU”, well it could not be ever more true in this scenario. They don’t. Here's a more detailed look at their role: - Investigating complaints: - Integrity commissioners investigate alleged breaches of codes of conduct and other relevant policies. Providing advice and education: They offer guidance and training to council members, local board members, and the public on ethical conduct and related legislation. Resolving disputes: They work to resolve conflicts and complaints related to potential ethical violations, either through informal resolution or formal investigation. Wow, that sound like the ultimate in accountability and transparency tool for anyone requiring and expecting some sort of governing body over your municipal government. WELL WRONG - In many if not most cased. These “Integrity Commissioners” favor the municipality that pays their bill and keeps them coming. Therefore the intent and purpose is lost in the wash. There is no integrity or point of law. But their decision can possibly affect someone pay, career and or mental health. Their decision is biding through sophisticated policy and by-law. In other words. You complain. You get reprimanded. You don’t pull your political weight. You may be persecuted. In other words. The so call tool to keep municipalities in check has been weaponized against anyone stepping out of political line and complains about the status quo. What is the role of the integrity Commission? To combat corruption through the development, implementation and enforcement of Anti-Corruption legislation, policy and initiatives, through our highly competent staff and efficient systems, processes and procedures. Is this not a kicker.... He who is entrusted to maintain fair play is the one that is most legally corrupt. Think about this. These commissioners do not need any special training. No real background. Just the basic understanding of municipal policy. Who can act as a commissioner in Ontario? A notary public has all the powers of a commissioner for taking affidavits and, can verify that signatures, marks and copies of documents are true or genuine. Notaries are governed under the Notaries Act . Every lawyer and paralegal in Ontario is also automatically a commissioner for taking affidavits. In another word. Anyone with a legal shingle. Anyone that is willing to play along with the munciipalities agenda. Why is it that anything government comes up to make them accountable to the people. Through policy and bylaw they turn it into a tool against the people. Don’t believe file a complaint against members of any council and see the outcome. Look at the fiasco taking place in Pickering against one of their own. The integrity commission in my opinion should be jailed for failure of duty and public theft or corruption.

Canada’s Universities in Need of Reform

Canada’s Universities in Need of Reform by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has recently gone through a crucial parliamentary election. After more than a 6 month pause, the House of Commons has resumed its short spring session, expected to end by June 20th. Canadians have high expectations of the Government of Prime Minister Carney, though, admittedly, he has a difficult task in reestablishing Canada as a beacon of science and industry. To achieve results expected by Canadians, our post-secondary educational establishment, especially in technical areas, need to become world class once again; our Canadian universities should be world leaders in science and technology, and respected as such. Currently, our universities are facing a sharp decline in their reputations with the public. The public is rapidly losing faith in them, in large part, because the universities have become political monocultures. This is very different from the situation 50 years ago, when universities’ political makeup approximately matched that of society at large. The political tilt towards one-sided political views and intolerance for alternate points of view, resulting in critical academic and job related consequences, is leading students and scholars to self-censor in a purported environment of ‘academic freedom’. An environment that has become poisonous. The implication is that, despite universities’ claims of prioritizing diversity, they have become entrenched in ideology and increasingly hostile to alternate points of view, ones that may challenge the official viewpoint, one that is not necessarily rooted in common sense. In Canada, the federal government bears some of the blame for the political drift at our universities through the funding policies of its major granting agencies. With a combined budget of about $5 billion, they have moved away from prioritizing research excellence to heavily promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) themes. Applying EDI priorities mindlessly and artificially is counterproductive to the intended purpose of these initiatives. In addition, there is an increasing tendency within academia to engage in hiring practices that implicitly or explicitly impose political litmus tests. Canada is a multicultural country, providing a home to people from all around the world, where society should not categorize the population by race, color, gender or faith in relation to any of their activities. We are all Canadians. We do not need segregation, particularly not in the technical field. We need to excel as a united nation, not be categorized by artificial groupings. We are all under one flag; the Canadian Flag. Colleges and universities still hold considerable reputational capital in society. However, it cannot last indefinitely, especially at the rate they are spending it down. If not corrected in time, irreversible damage will occur. The public reputation of universities has dropped significantly over the past decades with good reason, if my personal experience is anything to go by. In 1985, 14 years after I got my undergraduate degree at the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, I enrolled in the Master of Engineering program in Engineering Physics at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto. It was a difficult task to pass 12 courses with no grade below a B–, but I had a great experience, completing the degree in 3 years while working a full time job. In early 2000, by which time I was Vice President elect of the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), I casually asked the Dean of Engineering, U of T, why the Master of Engineering degree only required 9 courses these 15 years later. His astonishing answer was that this lowering of standards was necessary due to current students’ lack of preparation in basic math and science. Despite all their rhetoric about diversity, universities have systematically destroyed what is most central to their mission: intellectual diversity and scientific excellence. They have become institutionally one-sided, highly partisan, and out of step with the public they serve. In addition, the segment of the public on the receiving end of academia’s open disdain is now responding in kind by signalling a loss of confidence and respect for universities. A bias this deep did not happen by accident. Rather, it reflects a long-standing, deliberate process of preferential treatment within academia for proponents of liberal and extreme ideological perspectives, and the codification of those preferences into programs and curricula. Far from correcting this bias, university administrators have encouraged it and have allowed their institutions to become systemically hostile environments for academia and students with traditional or opposing views. The rapidly declining public regard for universities makes it increasingly clear that this ideological and political monoculture tilt will ultimately be self-defeating. The public and taxpayers will be the judges if the situation does not change. Colleges and universities must reform themselves; the government cannot order them to do so. However, before the government can credibly demand that universities embrace political neutrality and intellectual diversity, it will have to address its own role in promoting the ideological monoculture through research funding activities. In conclusion, the collapse of viewpoint diversity and the rise of a political monoculture currently afflicting universities has been a problem in the making for several decades. It will likewise take several decades to fix. The first step is for universities themselves to address the systemic discrimination that has caused them to become political monocultures. Doing so requires people who are comfortable with the monoculture to start considering how to dismantle it. Colleges and universities in Canada occupy a privileged position in society, being granted large quantities of both public funding and autonomy to pursue their goals. Unfortunately, they have become far removed from mainstream priorities and viewpoints, and their public reputation is in decline. Though the political orientation of Canada’s research granting agencies has tended to reinforce and amplify the problem, it is the Universities themselves that need to recognize the problem and develop strategies to rectify it. In many respects, what they need to do is return to the level of political neutrality and viewpoint balance they exhibited 50 years ago. Doing so will ultimately enhance their capacity to benefit society by creating an environment that stimulates genuinely open debate, rigorous inquiry, and social equality. We need genuinely open debate and rigorous inquiry to regain leadership status in science and technology. Genuine social equality is needed to restore the social sciences to a healthy state so we can serve our beloved country and Canadian society as they deserve to be served. Keep in mind that the world is changing at ultrasonic speed and other countries, not necessarily friendly ones, are taking the lead in technology because of serious, laser focused, science oriented education. Canada cannot afford to be left behind! What do you think?

World Fatigue: Blame the People

World Fatigue: Blame the People By Dale Jodoin There’s a quiet illness spreading across the Americas. It’s not the kind you can cure with a pill or vaccine. It’s called world fatigue, and it’s affecting millions of people—especially the regular, everyday folks who work, pay taxes, and try their best to live honest lives. World fatigue isn’t about being tired from work or chores. It’s a deep emotional tiredness. A kind of sadness mixed with frustration. It builds up every time you turn on the news or look at your bills. It’s the feeling of being blamed, day after day, for problems you didn’t create. And it’s wearing people down. Ask anyone around you, and they’ll tell you the same thing: “I’m just done. I don’t care anymore.” But they do care—they’re just overwhelmed. That’s world fatigue. And it’s growing. So where is this coming from? Part of it starts with the government and the media. They say they’re trying to inform us, but more and more, it feels like they’re trying to guilt us. We’re told that everything wrong in the world is somehow our fault. There are too many homeless people? It’s our fault. Is the planet changing? It's our fault. Minorities aren’t treated fairly? Again, our fault. The list goes on. The message is always the same: if you don’t feel bad, if you don’t do more, then you’re part of the problem. And while it’s important to care about others, what about us? Who’s looking out for regular Canadians—people who are barely making it through the month? Who’s caring for the seniors, the young families, the people who never ask for much? Instead, we’re called selfish. We’re told we’re the problem. But the real problem is this: people are burning out. Not because they don’t care, but because they’ve been pushed too far. Even schools are becoming places of confusion. Kids don’t learn basic life skills anymore. Many can’t read a map, balance a budget, or understand how taxes work. Teachers say their hands are tied. They spend more time explaining political ideas and social movements than they do teaching reading, writing, and math. Our kids are growing up with strong opinions—but no tools to live in the real world. And again, who gets blamed when test scores drop? Parents. Taxpayers. Regular people. One of the biggest signs of world fatigue is how cold people are becoming. Neighbours don’t talk. Families drift apart. People don’t wave hello anymore. It’s not that people have lost all compassion—it’s that they’re tired of always being told what to feel, who to support, what to say, and what to believe. And if you don’t follow along exactly, you’re labeled as hateful, old-fashioned, or worse. Even the gay community, which once stood for love and understanding, has now become a political symbol in many ways. Regular people aren’t anti-gay—they’re just tired of being told they’re bad people if they don’t cheer loud enough. We used to give more to our neighbours, to strangers, to people in need. But now, everything costs so much that people are forced to pull back. Groceries have doubled. Rent has tripled. Hydro bills climb while wages stay the same. People aren’t being greedy. They’re in survival mode. Meanwhile, the government sends billions to other countries. Billions more go to foreign aid, international programs, and global projects that have nothing to do with the average Canadian. By the time they finish giving it all away, there’s nothing left for us. Our roads crumble. Our hospitals are full. Our veterans sleep on the streets. And when we ask why, we’re told to be more generous. More kind. But what’s kind about ignoring your own people? World fatigue shows up in our minds and bodies. People are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated than ever before. Psychologists are starting to talk about it, even if the media doesn’t. They say the human brain can only take so much pressure, so much bad news, and so much guilt before it shuts down. That’s what’s happening now. People aren’t angry because they hate—they’re angry because they feel powerless. They’re tired of being told they’re the cause of all suffering in the world. They’re tired of politicians pointing fingers. They’re tired of media stories that divide instead of unite. At the root of it all is one big truth: most people just want their lives back. They want to go to work, raise their kids, enjoy their weekends, and not feel like they’re under attack all the time. They don’t want to fight with neighbours. They don’t want to argue about politics. They don’t want to be called names just for speaking their mind. They want peace. They want fairness. And they want someone to finally say, “We hear you. We see you. And we’re sorry.” But that hasn’t happened yet. Instead, the government pushes more rules. More taxes. More lectures. And every time a new problem comes up, they say, “If only the people had done more.” But we have done more. We’ve carried the weight for too long. We’ve stayed quiet. We’ve played along. Now we’re tired. Not because we’re cruel—but because we’re human This is the truth about world fatigue. It’s not a lack of love—it’s too much heartbreak. It’s not that we stopped caring—it’s that no one cared for us. And it’s time we said it out loud. We are not the enemy. We are not the problem. We are the people. And we want our lives back.

The Hoarders House

The Hoarders House By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist Every house has the ability to present its own unique challenges when it comes to getting it sold. A hoarders house however is a horse of a different colour. I remember many years ago shortly after moving to Oshawa, I rented the lower unit of a house in the Rossland and Ritson Road area. When I moved in the landlord told me that there was a gentleman who lived on the second floor who had been there for several years. I crossed paths with the fellow from time to time in the driveway. He seemed nice enough. For some reason, and I surely cannot remember now, but I needed to speak to him, so I went and knocked on his door. I knocked and waited, finally he came to the door but only opened it enough to stick his face between the frame and the door. About eight or nine inches. I said what I was there for, and he told me to come in. I stood there while he tried to maneuver the door open enough for me to be able to step inside. When I was actually able to enter, by turning sideways, I was horrified. He stood there looking at me and I stood there with a look of shock and disbelief on my face for sure. We were in the small entry area where one side of the wall housed the staircase to go upstairs and there was a small closet directly in front of the front door. So, we were in a landing basically of about 4 feet by 6 feet. From floor to ceiling were stacks of decades old Toronto Star newspapers. I could not believe what I was seeing. A person could not move. I was shocked to say the least, but my thoughts turned to things like, what if the fire department needed to get in here? They simply couldn’t. I spoke with the landlord regarding the situation, and he advised me that he was aware and had asked the tenant several times to get rid of the newspapers. He also told me that what I had seen was the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind this was long before TLC made programs depicting this type of living and what it involved. When I started looking for a place to purchase years ago, I went to see a house on Ritson Rd, near Athol Street. The house was completely full of tools and huge pieces of equipment inside of every room in the house. You could barely get around, in fact I was warned about a particular area of the house. The owner was present and insisted that everything would be gone when the house was sold but it was hard to imagine. I asked the realtor how long it had been on the market, and to no surprise it had been listed for several months with no offers. Hoarding is not a healthy way to live and is often indicative of someone needing serious help beyond the organization of their home. There are many resources available to people now, and I strongly advise anyone who may need some guidance to reach out and seek professional help.

Job Seekers Stop Talking About Your Past. Employers Do Not Care!

Job Seekers Stop Talking About Your Past. Employers Do Not Care! By Nick Kossovan We all know the adage, "What's done is done," which savvy hiring managers cite to themselves as a reminder that a candidate's past achievements do not guarantee future achievements. From experience, I'm now cognizant that while a candidate's past behaviour and results offer insight into their likely future actions, they aren't a foolproof predictor of performance, hence why I don't ask behavioural questions. Such questions complicate the hiring process, favour candidates who can easily conjure up stories—true or not—and don't reveal what I really want to know: how the candidate thinks and their career aspirations. Most job seekers mistakenly position themselves by referring to their past achievements instead of painting an "I want to deliver the results you need" picture for their interviewer. An underused interview strategy is to not dwell on where you've been (water under the bridge); instead, talk about where you're going career-wise and how you'd like the employer to be part of your journey. I call this future-oriented anchoring a powerful narrative strategy that puts you in control of your career story. Frame your trajectory in terms of where you're headed, not where you've been. When you only discuss your past, you anchor yourself to what you've already been paid for and the roles you've already had. However, when you talk with enthusiasm (key) about where you see yourself in the future, you create a positive 'future you" impression, influencing how your interviewer perceives your potential and value. Trying to gauge a candidate's potential is why interviewers often ask, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" Instead of dismissing the 'five-year question' as a cliché, acknowledge its significance. Your response to this question, when answered with precision and backed by your current actions, can speak volumes about your ambition, work ethic, and if you have any sense of entitlement. A meticulous approach to answering the 'five-year question' will set you apart from other candidates. "Five years from now, I see myself overseeing the social media team at a major film entertainment studio such as DaVille Studio. I'm currently pursuing a Digital Strategy and Communication Management certificate from the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. Additionally, I read as much as I can about social media management. I just finished The Art of Social Media: Power Tips for Power Users by Guy Kawasaki, a book advocating purposeful engagement, which I wholeheartedly agree with." Since you know you'll likely be asked, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" there's no excuse not to have a prepared answer in advance, something along the lines of the aforementioned, that’ll make your interviewer sit back and think to themselves, "[You] is serious about their career." One of the most common complaints I hear from job seekers is, "Employers aren't seeing my potential!" Here's the thing: you can't expect employers to see (read: envision) your potential if you don't provide a narrative that conveys your potential. It's your responsibility to help employers recognize your potential and value instead of expecting them to perceive it magically. Future-oriented positioning communicates to an employer that your most significant contributions lie ahead. Consider these two statements 1. "I successfully led our company-wide cloud migration, reducing costs substantially." 2. "I'm focused on enterprise-wide digital transformation that proactively, as opposed to reactively, prepares companies for the next decade of technological change. I want to be part of keeping Burns Industries ahead of the digital curve and deliver no less than an annual 30% cost savings due to adopting an early adoption approach." The first statement merely reiterates what the interviewer already knows from your resume and LinkedIn profile; the second statement is much more compelling. The first statement limits your value to your past, while the second offers the interviewer insight into your potential future contributions to the company. A candidate's potential future value is a significant factor that employers consider when making hiring decisions, which highlights a harsh reality: a candidate's "future" (read: remaining working life) is one reason employers sometimes take a candidate's age into account when hiring. Talking about your career aspirations and how you plan to get there is how you sell employers your potential and value. While employers need to know what you've accomplished, what is more important for an employer to know is how your experiences are influencing your future actions. I don't know a hiring manager who doesn't want to know—better yet, feel— whether a candidate is ambitious, proactive, and ready to take on challenges. If you've executed a successful marketing campaign, don't just stop there. Expand on how that experience influences your vision for future campaigns. You might say, "The marketing campaign I led last year for Jojo's Ice Cream's newest flavour, Banana Karenina, taught me the importance of data-driven decisions. My goal is to leverage this insight to develop even more engaging strategies that boost brand loyalty." When interviewing, don't just discuss your past or career aspirations; an interview isn't solely about you. Interviews are your opportunity, one that few job seekers capitalize on, to showcase your potential value-add, which, as I mentioned, is your responsibility to ensure your interviewer sees and feels. ___________________________________________________________________

DURHAM REGION TO ENTER INTO A GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION WITH SCUGOG FIRST NATIONS

DURHAM REGION TO ENTER INTO A GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION WITH SCUGOG FIRST NATIONS This week’s column will delve, briefly, into the complex realm of First Nations involvement in Canadian civic affairs, but first, I thought it best to provide some background as to the relationship between governments and Indigenous communities in Canada and within the province of Ontario before arriving at home base, being Durham Region. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has tripled its annual Indigenous spending, from $11 billion to over $32 billion, since The Trudeau Liberals took office in 2015. During that time, Canadian taxpayers have been made to support several significant settlements between the federal government and First Nations, totaling well over $57 billion. The Province of Ontario has also settled claims with First Nations, paying out a total of $14.9 billion in compensation, and has reached 65 land claims and other agreements, settling for close to $11.1 billion up to March 2024. Significant funding has been committed to reforming First Nations Child and Family Services, including $8.5 billion in a landmark agreement to reform the program here in Ontario. With regard to ongoing treaty negotiations, a proposed $10 billion settlement was reached to compensate for unpaid past annuities, with the Ontario government contributing $5 billion. Additionally, the Province has committed over $3 billion for loans, grants, and scholarships to encourage Indigenous participation and ownership in the mining sector, and also funds various programs and initiatives through Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. That’s a lot to take in, and the dollars involved are nothing less than staggering. But it doesn’t end there. CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS have been filed, including a $1.1 billion suit by a northern Manitoba tribe, the Shamattawa First Nation, over access to clean drinking water which the federal government claims is the responsibility of the Indigenous communities. Another class action lawsuit against Canada has been filed by the St. Theresa Point First Nation in Manitoba and Sandy Lake First Nation in northwestern Ontario for failing to provide adequate housing on First Nations land. That class action is seeking $5 billion in damages. In 2023, an alliance of First Nations in northern Ontario argued they were owed upwards of $100 billion over certain aspects of a 173-year-old treaty. Future such actions on the part of Canada’s indigenous population seem highly likely. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT AT COUNCILS AND ELSEWHERE have become the norm. The Region of Durham started incorporating land acknowledgments, which recognize the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples, in 2020, based on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. Specifically, Pickering adopted a land acknowledgment statement in November 2020, and the Region of Durham began reading land acknowledgments at its meetings in January 2021. The City of Oshawa also began incorporating a land acknowledgment statement, which is now delivered at the start of every city council meeting, every standing and advisory committee meeting, and has been mandated for delivery at every City event with opening ceremonies, such as the Tribute Communities Centre when fans gather together for the purpose of watching a hockey game. The investments made by Canadians, both financial and ceremonial are beyond dispute, and are quite considerable. MEMBERS OF DURHAM REGIONAL COUNCIL will be meeting on May 28th to consider a report by the Region’s ‘Chief’ Administrative Officer in which a bilateral agreement has been proposed in an effort to establish a “Government-to-Government Collaboration” between the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and the Region of Durham. Among the goals set out in the report is a plan for the Parties to meet quarterly, as well as the establishment of an ‘Indigenous advisory committee’ to ensure Indigenous input on a range of Regional initiatives. Further, there is a proposal to co-ordinate service delivery for what the report identifies as “investments in poverty prevention, housing solutions, and homelessness supports.” Finally, there are provisions to ensure an “accountable and transparent” decision-making process in order to serve community needs, while responsibly managing available resources. As justification for these measures, reference is made to the 1923 Williams Treaty, which the report says resulted in the denial of rights and a “lack of proper compensation and additional lands.” The area encompassed by the Treaty includes lands that stretch from Lake Ontario's northern shore all the way to Lake Simcoe. A 2018 Settlement Agreement with the Crown facilitates the addition of up to 11,000 acres to each of the seven First Nations in the area covered by the Williams Treaty. KAWARTHA FIRST NATION which identifies itself as Member 62 of the ‘Alliance of Indigenous Nations’ recently issued a press release in which they state their intention of “actively reclaiming 15,000 square kilometres of unceded land and waters – an area roughly the size of Georgian Bay.” They assert the territory and its resources include The City of Kawartha Lakes, Minden and all of Durham Region. GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS in this country appear ready to continue enacting policies with regard to ever-increasing claims for land, money, and oversight on the part of Canada’s indigenous population. I wrote in a previous column about Olivia Chow, the Mayor of Toronto, having formed the opinion that the affairs of her community may be better served by adding an unelected indigenous member to serve on city council. A motion was brought forward by the Mayor that would see Toronto’s City Manager look into opportunities to ‘deepen meaningful representation of the Indigenous community in City decision-making… including through advisory bodies and other mechanisms.’ Those ‘other mechanisms’ are seen by many Toronto councillors as an attempt to add one or more members of council who would be appointed based on their ancestry, without having been given a mandate by the electors. There is unquestionably plenty of evidence to show mistreatment of this country’s First Nations communities dating back to the arrival of the first Europeans, and there is certainly justification in expecting financial and other supports to continue up to and including the present day. To say otherwise is to deny history. At the same time, the sheer magnitude of the resources expected to be transferred in this ongoing effort is staggering, and in this columnist’s view, unsustainable. Readers must judge for themselves what may be deemed as necessary or otherwise unreasonable in terms of where this is all going, and what it means for our nation, our culture, and our economy. Is there a point at which one can say, enough is enough?

If Nothing Is Something. Then He Is An Accomplished Leader…

If Nothing Is Something. Then He Is An Accomplished Leader... B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States A recent quote from Mayor Carter of Oshawa regarding crime, drugs, and the homeless read, We’ve done everything we can: Oshawa mayor calls for aid from senior levels of government in the wake of a gun tragedy. Well, if EVERYTHING is to be taken to mean NOTHING, then he is truly an accomplished NOTHING. This is exactly what he has done. All of the programs he has attempted to implement have ended up making matters worse. He cries that we don’t have the money to invest in our own people, that it is the Provinces' and the Feds' responsibility. WRONG, Mr. Mayor. It is your responsibility to ensure that every citizen has a humane level of quality of life. People sleeping on our streets is not doing everything he can. People shooting up drugs in our parks and on our streets is not doing everything he can. Crime is at an all-time high, with people getting shot in our downtown park. That is doing everything he can? In his two terms, he has destroyed Oshawa. He has let GM walk out without any benefits for Oshawa, leaving our City in an environmental mess. Carter cries he has no money to help those living on the streets. Yet, he has 2 million dollars for personal and city staff security contracts. Yes, you are paying for his personal bodyguard. Why would he need a bodyguard if he is doing such a great job and the people appreciate him? He and his staff needed one due to the fact that Oshawa’s quality of life is at an all-time low. People are pissed off... But let’s continue on the premise that there is no money for programs that will assist the poor. Yet, there is 50 million to give to a local hockey team. Or how about wasting 30 million on a park next to a park that no one visits (Lakeview Park next to Broadbent Park)? There is no money for the poor, but there is money for a 20 million dollar (Rotary Park) pool. An outdoor pool in Canada. Really! And we don’t have 20 million to fix the homeless problem? What is more bothersome is the fact that the Mayor was a former homeless drug addict himself. One would have thought that he would understand the needs of those living on the streets. No, I guess the drugs he used to be on fried his brain, as the quality of life for those living on our streets is getting worse. Downtown businesses are closing at an alarming rate due to the fact that people do not want to park their cars downtown for fear of being attacked. My question to Mr. Resilience: How do you sleep at night, knowing that fellow citizens are sleeping on the street? I guess, knowing his character, he just shrugs his shoulders and makes some politically correct comment. It is shameful what is going on. The problem can be solved with very little or no money. What you need is real leadership that can negotiate partnerships with industry, trade, and commerce to create real programs that will open the door to housing to accommodate their no-income needs. To work with the local hospital to have special units for anyone caught overdosing or using drugs... a treatment center paid by OHIP. But what am I saying? We have an achieve NOTHING running a corporation, something that he is not qualified to do. We get what we get: despair, suffering, and a lot of resilience make-believe. Sad. We keep voting for the status quo. We keep slipping in standards. It is evident on the quality of our lives. We need real change...Wake up, people.

Canada Post in trouble

Canada Post in trouble by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Once a revered Canadian institution, Canada Post is now on the brink of bankruptcy. Years of bad management and unrealistic union demands have resulted in soon relegating this institution to the pages of history books. The combined effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, the decline of the letter as a primary means of correspondence, and the rise in popularity of the parcel have not been kind to the postal service. Despite the bleak outlook for its business future, Canada Post employees will be in a strike position next week, threatening to suspend mail and parcel delivery across the country. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents 55,000 of the service's employees, threatens to have its members walk off the job if there is no progress on a new collective agreement. If that happens, no new mail will be accepted and any items already in the system will be held until the strike is over. So why are we facing another strike when we just had one last November-December that lasted 32 days and deeply disrupted everything from Christmas gifts to passport delivery. The reason is that that the labour dispute was never resolved. The fact is that the financial situation of Canada Post has been in very bad shape for years. Here are the facts on why it is so bad. The last time Canada Post made a profit was 2017. Since then it has lost $3 billion. The annual loss in 2023 was $748 million, even worse than 2022 when it lost $548 million. Until recently, Canada Post funded its operations without any taxpayer money. That changed in January this year, when the federal government loaned it $1 billion to stay afloat. This summer, Canada Post will have to refinance other loans worth $500 million and, it says, by 2026 it will need $1 billion a year from the government just to meet its financial obligations. Canada Post hit peak letter delivery nearly 20 years ago. In 2006, it delivered 5.5 billion letters. In 2023 it only delivered 2.2 billion letters, and that included a lot of bills and other official correspondence. Times have changed and electronic mail has become the norm. Many people in this country have grown up never knowing the practice of writing a letter to someone and putting it in the mail. With the advent of AI, another new technology, which is on the horizon it is difficult to see how Canada Post will be able to adapt in due time to these new challenges. It is clear that the physical distribution of letters to households has become a problem through natural attrition. Since 2006, Canada has added three million new addresses as the population has grown. Canada Post has to serve them all. However, it is delivering in excess of three billion fewer letters. The mismatch of revenue and expenses is now so bad, that it amounts to an existential crisis. When it comes to parcel delivery, there is no monopoly, there is no set price, and the competition is fierce. It is easy to recognize the big name competitors: FedEx, UPS, DHL, as well as other players who are contracted by the likes of Amazon. Canada Post admits it is being beaten badly. In 2019, it delivered 62 per cent of the packages in this country. In 2023, their delivery rate was down to 29 per cent. What makes that figure even more devastating is that Canada Post continues to lose its share of a rapidly expanding market. Millions more parcels are being delivered every year in this country, but Canada Post is getting less and less of the action. Canada Post says part of the reason it cannot compete is that it does not deliver on weekends, while many private companies do so. It wants to hire more part-time staff to work those days, but the union says that amounts to gig work, and won't accept it. Canada Post claims most of its employees cannot be laid off under any circumstances, which it characterizes as "jobs for life." Indeed the collective agreement says "there shall be no temporary or permanent lay-off of any employee (excluding term employees)" who have been employed for more than five continuous years, in the case of older employees. Hires that are more recent need 10 years of experience to avoid layoffs. Clearly, the situation cannot continue like this. If it is not dealt with, and promptly, Canada Post will become bankrupt and taxpayers’ money should be not committed further to a crown corporation that can no longer manage itself sustainably. With negotiations between management and union continuing and the union ready to go on strike, it will soon become evident how things are evolving. In the meantime it is clear that this situation cannot continue as before and drastic measures need to be taken in order to serve Canadians better and save taxpayers’ money. It seems that this is now a government problem so let us see how they deal with it. What do you think?

The Sad Truth About Canada's Military: From Proud Force to Forgotten Joke

The Sad Truth About Canada's Military: From Proud Force to Forgotten Joke By Dale Jodoin There was a time when Canada’s military stood tall. Our soldiers were respected across the world. They were trained, ready, and proud to serve. But today, something has changed. Our military is no longer what it used to be. It’s been left to fall apart by the very governments that were supposed to protect it. Today, many Canadians are starting to ask: Why did our leaders let this happen? From One of the Best to a Shell of the Past Canada once had a strong, trusted military. We played a big role in World War II, in peacekeeping missions, and in NATO. But now, we’re barely hanging on. Much of our military equipment is older than the people using it. Some of our tanks and vehicles date back to the Vietnam War era. Our planes are so old they need parts that are no longer made. Instead of giving our troops the tools they need, governments—both Liberal and Conservative—have cut budgets, delayed upgrades, and let morale fall. It’s become a clown show, where the military is rolled out only for show on Canada Day or emergencies, but rarely respected or taken seriously the rest of the year. Troops Are Leaving in Record Numbers Our men and women in uniform are quitting. Not because they don’t love this country—but because they feel abandoned. The equipment is old. The pay is low. The training spaces are crumbling. New recruits, especially women, often leave within a year. Why? Because the military isn’t what it used to be. It doesn’t support them the way it should. Many feel disrespected. They see that the government cares more about politics than protecting its people. That hurts. It tells our troops: “You don’t matter.” And so, they leave. Liberals Won’t Fight for This Country Let’s be honest. A Liberal government has never shown the heart to fight fully for this country. They act like defence is someone else’s job. They’d rather put money into social programs and global issues, not national defence. They expect other countries—like the U.S.—to carry the weight for them. When Canada went to Afghanistan, we didn’t even have the right gear. We had to borrow equipment from the United States. Later, we gave away some of our own outdated stuff to Ukraine—not because it was helpful, but because it was all we had. That’s embarrassing. A country as big and rich as ours should be able to supply its own military. The NATO Joke Canada is a member of NATO. That means we’re supposed to help defend not just ourselves, but our allies too. But let’s be real—every other NATO country sees us as the weak link. We don’t spend enough. We don’t send enough. We don’t prepare enough. We’re a joke. And every year we fall further behind. Countries half our size—like Poland or Finland—are building strong, modern forces. Meanwhile, Canada shrinks and shrinks. The Will to Serve Is Still Here But here’s the hopeful part: Canadians still want to serve. We have brave men and women from coast to coast who would give everything to defend this land. That includes new Canadians—immigrants—who would gladly join the military if it helped them earn citizenship. Imagine a program where someone could earn full Canadian citizenship after 5 years of military service. The response would be massive. Thousands would sign up. We have the people. We just need leadership. But that’s what we don’t have. Our Fallen Soldiers Deserve Better Every year, we honour the memory of the soldiers who gave their lives for Canada. But with each year, fewer and fewer people show up. Fewer parades. Fewer moments of silence. Fewer stories told. It’s like the government would rather forget. But we won’t forget. We remember their sacrifice. And we know they would be ashamed of what the military has become. The Rich Don’t Have to Care In this new Canada, the people in charge don’t worry about defence. They have private security. Their kids don’t go to war. They live in safe homes, far away from any danger. So they don’t think about rebuilding the army. To them, the military is just another budget line. But for the rest of us—for the families with someone in uniform—it’s personal. We know the truth. Other Countries Are Passing Us By Here’s something scary: smaller countries now have more powerful militaries than Canada. Poland, Israel, South Korea—even Norway and Estonia—have more modern gear and better-trained troops. Why? Because they take defence seriously. Canada does not. And until that changes, we’ll keep falling further behind. Rebuilding Is Possible—But Will Anyone Try? We can rebuild. It’s not too late. But we need a government with courage. One that understands that national defence matters. One that doesn’t treat the military like a circus act to be dragged out during disasters and then locked away again. We need real investment in equipment. Real care for our troops. Real training and recruitment. And most of all, real respect. Because the people who defend this country deserve more than old trucks and broken promises. They deserve a country that believes in them. Canada has some of the finest people in the world. Strong. Brave. Loyal. Willing to stand up and serve. But they need a reason to stay. They need leadership that doesn’t see them as leftovers or extras. They need support that lasts beyond one photo-op. If we don’t act soon, we may not have a military left to fix. And when the next emergency comes—whether it’s war, natural disaster, or terrorist threat—Canada may not be ready. And that, sadly, will be on us.

The Employer is the Customer

By Nick Kossovan A job seeker's mindset determines their job search success. A crucial mindset shift job seekers should adopt to improve their chances of job search success is recognizing that, in the context of their job search, employers are customers—potential customers looking to purchase skills and time. Consider the similarity between an employer paying employees, freelancers, and contractors to accomplish tasks and achieve results, and you engaging a cleaning service, painter, dentist, or mechanic. Essentially, the employer-employee relationship is fundamentally a customer relationship, where the employer purchases the services of its employees for as long as required, similar to hiring a contractor to finish your basement. This means: · The adage "the customer is always right" applies. Employers determine the scope of work, expectations, and how much they're willing to pay. · Regardless of an employee's position, all employees essentially work in the service industry, delivering a service to their employer. Job searching is essentially a "finding a customer" activity. Given the prevalence of layoffs, it should be obvious that employees are free agents and will likely need to find a new employer (customer) several times during their working life. Understanding the Customer Relationship When you view an employer as a customer, you approach your job search differently. Think about how you like to be treated when you're a customer. Do you lower your expectations? Of course not! Yet, fueled by a sense of entitlement, many job seekers publicly criticize employers for not lowering their hiring requirements so they can "have a chance." Employers have the same rights to have hiring expectations—set the bar—as you do when you hire a plumber or hairdresser. Like any other customer, employers have specific needs they seek to fulfill, which must be met to remain in business. Therefore, understandably, employers look for candidates they can trust to deliver results, solve problems, and contribute to their success (read: profits). Few job seekers thoroughly research the company's goals, culture, and challenges and then use that knowledge to present their skills and experiences in a way that will make the employer say, "Yes!" When interviewing, you have one goal: to demonstrate to your interviewer that you understand their business needs and that they can rely on you to deliver results that address those needs. Employers Are Customer Dependent for Their Survival "It's not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It's the customer who pays the wages." - Henry Ford Employers are unlikely to overlook a candidate they feel would be dedicated to looking after their most valuable asset: their customers. Employers are aware that without customers, their business ceases to exist. It baffles me how many employees don't extend themselves to look after their employer's customers, who pay their salary, as Henry Ford pointed out. When approaching employers, demonstrate how you'd maintain their existing customer base to prevent them from going to the competition—a valuable skill in today's price-sensitive market. An even better attention-grabber, demonstrate your ability to acquire new customers. Setting the Scope and Expectations Applying for a job is equivalent to bidding for the job, much like a contractor bids (quotes) for jobs. In the same way that you'd define what you expect a painter to do based on the scope of the work and what you're paying them, employers define job responsibilities, outcome expectations and performance metrics to gauge productivity. When networking and interviewing, provide examples and numbers—employers love numbers—demonstrating how you added value to your previous employers. This approach positions you as a solution provider, communicating you understand the scope of work and can meet expectations. Flexibility and Adaptability More than ever, employers need flexible employees. Going back to the adage "the customer is always right." Employers, if they want to stay in business, need to adapt to ever-changing customer demands, which means their employees must also be willing to do the same. An effective way to stand out from other candidates is to convey your understanding that your employer's success is also your success. Assure your interviewer that you're eager to adapt to changing needs, such as adjusting your hours, working onsite, learning new procedures, or obtaining certifications. Forget about being hired if your interviewer senses inflexibility or you're a clock-watcher. Building Trust and Long-term Relationships Trust is the foundation of any healthy relationship. It's the core reason for hiring a candidate. Do you purchase from companies you don't trust? The same principle applies to job searching. Hiring decisions are based on trusting that the candidate will deliver the results the business needs; therefore, focus more on building trust than selling your qualifications. Building trust starts with following application instructions, something many job seekers fail to do. Closing the Deal Securing a job offer is akin to closing a sale. Only attempt to close the deal once you've established your value—proven you've delivered measurable results for previous employers—and communicated your understanding of the employer's needs. Much like hiring a weekly maid service to enhance your life (e.g., freeing up time to pursue a side hustle), an employer isn't hiring an employee; they're securing a service they believe will improve their business's efficiency and profitability.Most interviewers appreciate candidates who come prepared with thoughtful questions. However, while your questions are important, the strategic timing of when you ask them is more crucial.at you're focused on what the employer can do for you, not on what you can do for the employer ___________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

The Senior’s Move

The Senior’s Move By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist We have all experienced the dreaded move by time we reach adulthood. Even when we are excitedly looking forward to a new and fresh start, be it College, our first apartment, or the new home that has been dreamed of for years. As much as we often look forward to living from a new home, the physical move itself can be overwhelming. All too often we are stressed out, riddled with anxiety over the smallest of things and our nerves are just on edge until we get where we’re going and the move has come to completion. I recall my own moves, and there have been far more than I care to think about. At first, there was no problem. I was a very organized person when it came to packing and labelling. Getting the kids organized so that they would not feel so impacted by the move. I found though, that as the years passed and the moving didn’t really slow down any, it got much harder. Oh, there were various reasons for so many moves, but mostly due to economics. I am grateful to have been in the same place now for several years. As one gets older the moving gets much harder in all ways. When I got my real estate licence, I decided also to get a special designation as a Senior’s Real Estate Specialist. Seniors are just my thing. I love them, and anything I can do to help them is a pleasure. Working with seniors and preparing them for their last move can be very emotional. Often, they are on their own after the passing of a spouse, and leaving the mar- ital home where they have made so many memories is just plain difficult. Sometimes they are headed for a seniors building, or one of the many retirement homes that have wonderful activities and restaurant style dining rooms. Sometimes they are headed for an adult child’s home. No matter the destination. The packing up of the memories and downsizing to start a new, often perceived as the final chapter takes time, patience, and care. There are so many stories within all the things. There are some wonderful downsizing companies that spe- cialize in exactly this type of thing. These companies are well worth a look because of the expertise they bring to the situation. So much patience is needed when packing up the life of senior. If you ever find yourself being asked to help a senior downsize and or move, try to put yourself in their shoes. Be kind and patient with them. If we are lucky, we will be needing that same assistance one day

Keep Flags and Classrooms Neutral; Protecting Childhood, Not Promoting Agendas

Keep Flags and Classrooms Neutral; Protecting Childhood, Not Promoting Agendas By Councillor Lisa Robinson Every June, institutions across Canada are pressured to fly the Pride flag in recognition of Pride Month. What began as a civil rights movement has evolved into something far more political and ideological-one that many school boards and parents are now rightfully questioning. Increasingly, school boards are refusing to raise the Pride flag, not out of hatred or fear, but out of a sincere desire to protect childhood and maintain the neutrality of our public institutions. Let’s be honest: the Pride flag today isn’t just about acceptance or inclusion. It has become a symbol of an agenda that centers on adult themes-sexuality and gender identity-across an ever-expanding spectrum. When government buildings and schools fly that flag, they’re not just promoting kindness, they’re promoting an ideology. And when it comes to children, that crosses a line. Children are impressionable. Schools should be places of learning, not arenas for social experimentation. Parents have every right to demand that education remain focused on reading, math, science, and history, not personal pronouns and sexual identities. This isn’t about homophobia or transphobia. It’s about age-appropriateness, parental rights, and keeping politics out of the classroom. Let me be clear: I have never opposed just the Pride flag-I’ve opposed any political or identity-based flag flying on government buildings. That’s not hate. That’s a call for neutrality. Our government institutions, especially our schools, should fly only the national flag, the provincial flag, and the flag honoring veterans who died defending our freedoms. That’s what unity looks like. That’s what respect for all Canadians looks like-not elevating one group above another by displaying their symbols on public property. I know firsthand what it costs to stand up for neutrality. I lost pay and faced public shaming in 2023 when I said I didn’t believe in flying any flag for any group. My colleague’s lied and twisted my words, accusing me of being racist or hateful, because I stood for equal treatment. That’s the irony of today’s climate: demand neutrality, and you’re labeled intolerant. There’s a growing grassroots response to this pressure. Every year, thousands participate in the Pride Walkout Day, organized in part by Campaign Life Coalition. It’s a peaceful act of resistance-a stand for childhood, for parental rights, and for the belief that tolerance doesn’t require blind allegiance to every symbol or slogan. Refusing to fly ideological flags is not an act of hate-it’s an act of principle. It protects the integrity of our institutions and preserves the innocence of our children. We can teach respect and kindness without hanging a new flag every month. Government buildings are not billboards. Schools are not soapboxes. And our children are not pawns. Let’s return to common sense. Let’s keep government neutral, classrooms safe, and childhood sacred.

THE SOARING COSTS TO MAINTAIN O.H.L. TEAMS ** HOW MUCH CAN TAXPAYERS KEEP CONTRIBUTING? **

THE SOARING COSTS TO MAINTAIN O.H.L. TEAMS ** HOW MUCH CAN TAXPAYERS KEEP CONTRIBUTING? ** IT HAS BEEN REMARKED that the quality of civic life within any community will, out of necessity, require ongoing financial support for various sporting venues, in addition to arts & cultural institutions. Municipal governments transmit those costs onto local taxpayers, compelling them as individuals to take on the responsibility of paying for facilities and programs they may never use. Residents of Oshawa are by now fully aware of the significant commitment made by Mayor Carter and councillors to offer further financial support for the Oshawa Generals Hockey Club – to the tune of $50 million. This newspaper was the first to inform local citizens of the deal negotiated between the City and other stakeholders that will see major renovations to the Tribute Communities Centre completed by late 2027. In a press release posted on the City’s website, the renovations are offered up as a necessary ‘modernization’ of the existing facility, including a main entrance expansion, interior alterations with seating for up to 7000 fans, and an updated concession area. Research into this topic shows a marked trend among a growing number of municipalities choosing to invest significant taxpayer resources into attracting or maintaining Ontario Hockey League franchises, with some communities having done so for decades. To its credit, the OHL has an impressive track record as a leading supplier of talent for the National Hockey League. There are 20 teams in total, with 17 of them based here in Ontario, and the league is well regarded for providing hockey scholarships. At that same time, there is a strong desire within today’s OHL landscape to run individual franchises like Supercentres, in large state-of-the-art venues. Beleaguered taxpayers are right to question whether the practice of supporting OHL teams and their owners’ ever-increasing demands has, over time, grown to be far too expensive. Prior to the $50 million announcement at the Tribute Communities Centre, an endorsement for an even larger investment was offered up by city councillors in Brantford, to the tune of $140 million for a new sport-entertainment centre. This, in a community that only a few years ago saw fit to sell a municipally owned golf course to better enable funding for local affordable housing. One Brantford councillor raised a concern that the funding was not being allocated towards a new hospital in partnership with the provincial government, telling his colleagues, “A hospital would serve 100 percent of the constituents, versus the five percent that could attend a hockey game.” In Kitchener, home of the successful Rangers hockey team, the municipality is moving ahead with $2 million in renovations to the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium that will see a new restaurant built opposite an existing sports bar. Unlike the Oshawa Generals, the Kitchener Rangers team is publicly owned by season ticket subscribers. The team itself will be footing the bill for what they see as ambitious changes necessary for their club to “remain competitive” in the rapidly changing world of OHL hockey. Being a historic club isn’t good enough anymore, especially after the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) south of the border made a landmark decision to allow players with junior hockey experience into its ranks beginning next season. The move gives players more leverage when choosing their destination, and the OHL is beginning to feel the pinch as some players leave the league earlier than expected to head to schools in the U.S. None of this bodes well for keeping the costs associated with OHL franchises anywhere near affordable for Ontario municipalities. The renovation details to Kitchener’s ‘Aud’ as it is known by fans, sound somewhat familiar to those the Oshawa Generals are now anticipating. The entire Rangers business office will be dedicated to the players, with dressing room improvements, a gym and workout area, players’ lounge and even a pool therapy section, among other things. Oshawa’s own arena, completed in 2006, has already seen an expanded gym, a new video review room for team members, and an area that offers players better nutrition options by way of a fitted kitchen. It is known that OHL teams have the ability to boost local economies through revenue generated by games, merchandise sales, and other businesses. With regard to the business of hockey, the value of the top five teams is as follows: The Ottawa 67s at $55.53 million, The Mississauga Steelheads at $44.85 million, the Hamilton Bulldogs at $32.69 million, The London Knights at $23.02 million, and the Kitchener Rangers at $13.78 million. The Oshawa Generals came in 8th place at $9.41 million. Which brings us to comments made by Generals owner Rocco Tullio during a recent podcast with Mayor Dan Carter, in which he said, “The last thing I wanted to do was take the Generals down the road to the city of Pickering… but, we have to make sure we have the tools and the resources… If you have success, people believe in you. Our next priority is to put a blueprint in place that allows us to host the Memorial Cup here. I want to showcase our fans, we do it every game, but I want to put it on the world stage. I want to show everyone in the world stage that, hey… this is what we get on a nightly basis, and now you get to see it on a major scale.” Does that sound like someone who simply loves the game of hockey, or could taxpayers be forgiven for thinking their $50 million contribution is a boost, not only to Mr. Tullio’s self-esteem, but to the future value of his franchise? In answer to a question posed by Mayor Carter as to whether his colleagues in the world of junior hockey were jealous of the $50 million deal that was negotiated, Mr. Tullio had this to say, “Kingston called me already, and they are up for renewal and they want to do the exact same thing…so they’ve called to pick my brain.” All of which describes a situation where one significant financial contribution inevitably leads to a series of similar negotiations, all of which follow in perfect sequence. Oh, the possibilities are limitless.

The Homeless Are Not The Problem… It’s The Politicians

The Homeless Are Not The Problem... It’s The Politicians B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I do not know about you, but it sickens me to drive downtown Oshawa and see so many people shooting up drugs right in the public’s view. People walking around like zombies while the drug dealers shake down the poor beggars soliciting passing cars for dollars to feed their habit. They blame it on the homeless. They blame it on mental health. What ‘They’, the politicians fail to acknowledge is the real problem. The lack of opportunity. The lack of good paying jobs. The lack of affordable housing.... All, roots of the problem we deem ‘drug addiction’. Yes, it is obvious that social, economic pressure would drive anyone crazy. How do these lost souls cope? They turn to drugs. Drugs lead to crime and the vicious cycle never ends. Elected officials have no understanding of this cycle. And if they do. They are professionals at turning the other cheek. I love to hear the Mayor of Oshawa openly lie to people. ‘WE DON’T HAVE MONEY TO ASSIST ALL THOSE ON OUR STREETS’, or my all time favorite. ‘OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IT WORST’, and employ the attitude that if they pay it no mind that the problem will some how disappear. Well, it has not. It will not. If anything it is getting worst. Just this past week two people got shot at Memorial Park. Stabbings are as common as the un-reported over dosing. The politicians cry... we have no money... Meanwhile our Mayor invested 50 million in a facility that cost the city on the average 500,000 a year to operate. My understanding is that the GM center has not turned a profit since it opened... It cost tax payers indirectly 40 million. Now we are going to throw away another 50 million? Oh yes, don’t forget the money we don’t have for the people living on our streets. Let’s not forget 30 million we wasted on the infamous white elephant of a park next to Lakeview Park. As it is best politicized known the ‘Ed Broadbent Park’. Or how can we forget the new park that the city approved to the tune of almost 10 million next to the Holiday Inn. Great idea council. A park so that the homeless have a shaded area for the hot days of June and July. But wait, one very concerned councillor made the ridiculous suggestion that this new park will host public bathrooms.... Yike, have they not learned their lesson from what happened at the band shell bathrooms at Memorial Park, or subsequently what happened in the mobile potty along the OPUC? A total disaster. But wait. Let’s not forget not to have money for the homeless but yet fund an outdoor pool in Canada to the tune of 30 million. The problem is not the poor. The problem is the elected officials. We elect incompetents and we do not hold them accountable. Instead we give them power. I say we should denounce all council members and demand they resign. They like to blame the problem on lack of funding from the Province. Yet, out of the aforementioned projects you almost have 100 million. Parks that no one goes to visit. Parks next to other parks. An out door pool in Canada where it may only be used 3 months of the year. We burn money to keep a hockey team that on any given day has problems filling the arena. I feel for all those living in the street. This is Canada. They should not be on the streets. It is not that we don’t have the money. We don’t have the people that have the sense to prioritize.

Canada’s New Liberal Government

Canada’s New Liberal Government by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Finally, we have completed a crucial election and a new Mark Caney Liberal government has been sworn in. It seems to be an interesting one, judging by the qualifications of the people appointed to ministerial and state secretaries’ roles. At first glance, it looks ready for business in a world full of unforeseen challenges especially from our neighbour from the South We see a mixture of former Trudeau ministers and new ones, people with political experience and less so, and a wide variety of work experience. It seems that this government has more of a business-oriented composition with a CEO in Prime Minister Mark Carney. Now we only need to see what results they achieve. Prime Minister Mark Carney did not name Trudeau as the missing piece of this new federal cabinet, but his message, that this is not-the-Trudeau cabinet, was crystal clear. “Canadians elected us with a mandate for change. So there is a great deal of change in this cabinet, by necessity,” Carney said, boasting that he’d created a “perfect” mix by building a team that’s made up of half rookies, half experienced hands. The other message it sends is that this is a prime minister not afraid to cut people loose, even those Mark Carney installed around himself when he did his first shuffle after winning the leadership. Toronto’s Nate Erskine-Smith, Bill Blair and Jonathan Wilkinson from British Columbia have all been replaced. While the cuts were no doubt brutal to those who did not get the call for cabinet this time, this is not the worst reputation for Mark Carney to acquire early, as a prime minister who won’t cling to ministers when it is time for them to move on. One other big difference Carney seemed keen to establish is that his PMO would not be holding the hands of any ministers, new or old.Therefore, the PMO staff will be as they should be, with no extra powers over ministers. “This cabinet is smaller and more focused than those of previous governments,” Carney said. “It will operate with a commitment to true cabinet government, with everyone expected and empowered to show leadership, bring new ideas, to have a clear focus and to take decisive actions to accomplish their work in a return to more traditional cabinet.” Whether PM Carney can pull that off is another question and will soon be evident. At the moment, Mark Carney is also displaying strict discipline over who speaks for his government. He repeated several times on inauguration that the buck stops with him on all matters dealing with Canada-U.S. relations and Donald Trump. As was the case a week ago when Carney met with Trump, Carney did all the talking on inauguration day; not any of his ministers, new or old. This too could be at odds with his vow to cultivate “true ministerial government,” with cabinet members speaking for themselves without waiting for the go-ahead from the PMO. The new Carney cabinet has not totally exorcised the ghost of Trudeau, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was eager to point out on Tuesday, listing all the old ministers who had survived the Carney cuts. Poilievre is predicting that Trudeau policies on everything from housing to the environment are just being repackaged. “Mr. Carney talked a good game about reversing liberal policies in these areas, but now we have to find out if he was serious, and so far, it’s not a promising start,” he said. These comments from Pierre Poilievre savor of sour grapes, when he should be reflecting on the excellent opportunities lost by the Conservative Party for forming the government. Carney has stuck to the policy of gender parity in cabinet and has restored a ministry in charge of women’s issues, which was cut in his first try at cabinet-making, a move that was the subject of much criticism. This is a sign, a welcome one, that Carney is still learning on the job and that he and his team have been hearing the criticism about the “bro culture” that seemed to be swirling around the early team coalescing around the new Liberal leader. So now let us see the reaction of the official opposition when the House of Commons resume. Let us hope they will react in a constructive matter. The Conservative Party has a lot of thinking to do and changes to undergo to put themselves on track if they intend to form the next government. The old approach of dictatorial staff in Pierre Poilievre’s office should end and a true and honest candidate selection process must be up and running at least a couple of years before the next election. We seem to be experiencing new beginnings in Canadian Politics, with an adult in the house after three terms of childish chaos. May he be successful in his quest to make Canada strong again. What do you think?

Why Are All Unions, From Public to Private, Out of Touch With the World?

Why Are All Unions, From Public to Private, Out of Touch With the World? By Dale Jodoin Across Canada, both private and public unions seem to be forgetting the very people they claim to represent. From large organizations like Unifor to provincial and federal government unions, there’s a growing feeling among regular Canadians that unions are no longer fighting for fairness — they’re fighting for themselves. Let’s be clear: unions used to serve a very important role. They helped working people get better wages, safer working conditions, and job security. Without unions, many families would have had no protection at all. In the past, they were a powerful force for good. But now, something feels different. During recent elections, unions across the board pushed hard against the Conservatives. Many of them pressured their members to vote Liberal, claiming the party would protect workers’ rights. In return, unions expected the government to give them everything they asked for — higher wages, more benefits, more control. But what did everyday Canadians get in return? While the cost of groceries, housing, and gas keeps climbing, many union leaders seem completely out of touch. These union heads earn huge salaries, attend expensive conferences, and speak on behalf of workers they no longer understand. And worse, they act like they’re victims — when often, they are the ones holding others hostage. Let’s look at public sector unions. These are the unions that cover government jobs, from teachers to city workers to federal employees. Many of these workers already have good wages, solid pensions, and health plans that most Canadians can only dream of. And yet, every year we see them threaten to strike or actually walk out, demanding even more. Now, let’s be fair — this isn’t about the average worker. Most teachers, nurses, and city workers care about their jobs and try to help others. But the heads of these unions? They’re not scraping by. They’re not choosing between rent and groceries. They’re collecting six-figure salaries while organizing rallies that disrupt cities and divide people. It’s hard to feel sympathy when someone earning over $100,000 a year complains they’re being treated unfairly — especially while millions of Canadians struggle to afford groceries or heat their homes in winter. Private unions like Unifor are different, of course. They deal with private businesses and manufacturers. If they strike, it hurts the companies they work for — not the taxpayers. That’s their right. But when public unions strike, it’s the people who suffer. Kids miss school, hospitals delay services, and city services grind to a halt. And it’s not just about money. These union heads often push political agendas that have nothing to do with their members’ jobs. They attend rallies, issue political statements, and spend member dues on campaigns that regular workers don’t even vote on. When did unions stop being about work and start becoming about power? We’ve seen this kind of behavior before. During the Russian Revolution, constant strikes and walkouts caused chaos, not change. The leaders claimed to speak for the people, but in the end, they only made life harder for everyone. It’s time for unions — especially government ones — to wake up. Canadians are watching, and they’re fed up. We’re not saying to get rid of unions. Far from it. Unions are important. They give a voice to workers who might otherwise be ignored. They protect against greedy corporations and unsafe workplaces. But when unions start acting like greedy corporations themselves, people notice. Maybe it’s time for more transparency. Maybe union heads should be elected more often. Maybe members should vote on how their dues are spent. Maybe strikes should require public approval before they happen. Maybe it’s time for government unions to be regulated more strictly — not to silence them, but to make sure they serve the people, not just themselves. If unions truly want to be respected again, they need to get back to basics: fighting for fair pay, safe workplaces, and respect for all workers — not just those at the top. Until then, many Canadians will keep seeing union leaders not as champions of the people, but as part of the problem.