When Seniors Are Told to Borrow to Survive, Leadership Has Failed

The Mayor of Pickering—who is already raising property taxes by nearly 3.5 percent—has now supported a motion at Durham Region to raise property taxes by another 4.8 percent on the regional portion. Here’s the brief history: Durham staff originally proposed a 6.04 percent property tax increase. A motion was brought forward to cap that increase at 3 percent, with the remaining portion covered by reserve funds—specifically to help taxpayers during a cost-of-living crisis. That motion failed. Instead, Pickering’s Mayor supported a 4.8 percent increase, which will be voted on later this month. And if that fails, taxes could jump right back to 6.04 percent or even higher. So residents—especially seniors—are being hit twice. This is happening at a time when people are choosing between healthy food and gas in their car; when families are cancelling vacations they once counted on; and when food bank lineups keep getting longer, not shorter. And when concerns were raised at the meeting about seniors struggling to afford their homes, the solution offered by Pickering’s Mayor was a reverse mortgage. After a lifetime of work. After decades of paying property taxes. After trying to leave something to their children or grandchildren. The answer offered was: borrow against your home to survive the taxes being imposed on you. That is not sound financial advice. That is the system telling seniors to liquidate their dignity so government doesn’t have to change course. This pattern is not isolated to Pickering. It is happening across Durham Region. What makes this impossible to ignore is how easily money is found for other priorities: a million-dollar door; layers of consultants; special-interest spending; foreign aid sent without taxpayer consent; and non-urgent projects while basic infrastructure crumbles. In Pickering, Council voted—mid-afternoon—to spend upwards of $300 million on a recreation complex in Seaton, an area not even fully built out yet. That decision puts Pickering into at least $331 million in new debt within a single year. When I asked to delay the vote so residents could be consulted—by simply sending a questionnaire to every household—asking whether they supported this level of spending, the Mayor said doing so would be fiscally irresponsible. So when residents are told there is no flexibility, no room for relief, and no alternative but higher taxes and personal debt, that is not because the money does not exist. It is because of how and where it is being spent. There is money in Pickering. There is money in Durham. In my view, it is being directed toward the wrong priorities. This disconnect becomes even clearer when hardship fails to change leadership behaviour. If seniors lose their homes, if families cannot put food on the table, if residents are forced to rely on food banks—nothing slows down the machine. I know this because of what has been done to me. Under this Mayor’s leadership, 100 percent of the financial sanctions imposed in 2024 and 2025 came from inside City Hall—from the CAO, fellow councillors, and the Mayor himself. Staff were directed to comb through my social media, op-eds, and YouTube videos to find anything that could be used to file Code of Conduct complaints against me. The stated reason, repeatedly, was that I had “not learned my lesson yet.” Those sanctions have left me unpaid for 21 months—not because I did anything unlawful, but because I refused to fall in line, refused to stay silent, and refused to stop speaking the truth. That is not accidental. It sends a clear message to other municipal councillors: speak out, and you will be punished. If elected officials can be financially sanctioned into poverty for dissent, residents should ask themselves how much concern exists for people who do not have a microphone, a platform, or a vote at the table. And while residents are told to “find a way,” this advice comes from leadership that has no issue travelling for conferences and business—often on the taxpayer’s dime. In many cases, this includes staff as well. You do not raise taxes until people are in survival mode and then tell them debt is the solution. You do not protect consultant spending, prestige projects, and special-interest funding while asking seniors to remortgage their homes. You do not push people to the edge of poverty and call it fiscal responsibility. That is not leadership. That is cold, bureaucratic indifference—delivered by people insulated from the consequences of their own decisions. Seniors do not need lectures. They do not need financial gymnastics. Durham residents need relief. Pickering does not need leaders who squeeze residents, ignore hardship, and protect wasteful spending—then suggest borrowing as a way out. Politicians shape the fate of the people they govern. If I were Mayor, and if I held strong-mayor powers, I would use them to change the trajectory for families and seniors—so people could flourish, not merely survive. So no one has to choose between food and gas. So seniors can stay in the homes they worked their entire lives to pay for. So families can afford stability—not extravagance, but dignity. That is what responsible leadership looks like. It does not push people to the edge. It pulls them back from it.