What Does a City Councillor Do in Pickering, Ontario?

By Frank McGillan Columnist                                               A City Councillor in Pickering is an elected representative whose job is to serve the residents of the city. Councillors are elected to listen to the concerns of the people in their ward, make decisions on behalf of the community, and help guide the future growth and development of Pickering. A councillor's job is much more than attending meetings. They are responsible for representing the interests of residents while working with the Mayor, other councillors, City staff, and the community. 1. Representing Residents One of the most important responsibilities of a councillor is representing the people who elected them. Residents may contact their councillor about issues such as roads, traffic, development, parks, garbage collection, property concerns, zoning, public safety, or other municipal services. A councillor should listen to these concerns, communicate with City staff when appropriate, and bring important community issues forward to Council. 2. Making Decisions for the City Pickering City Council makes decisions that affect the entire community. Councillors debate proposals, ask questions, review reports from City staff, and vote on matters before Council. These decisions can involve: City budgets and spending - Property taxes -Roads and transportation - Parks and recreation - Planning and development - Zoning and land use - Community facilities - Environmental issues - Economic development - Municipal services - Long-term plans for the City Councillors have a responsibility to make informed decisions based on the information available to them and the interests of the community. 3. Approving the Municipal Budget Council is responsible for approving Pickering's municipal budget. This determines how City money is spent and helps establish the level of municipal taxes and services. Councillors must consider whether spending proposals are necessary, affordable, and in the best interests of Pickering taxpayers. 4. Planning and Development Pickering is a growing community, and Council plays an important role in deciding how the city develops. Councillors deal with matters involving residential development, commercial development, industrial properties, roads, parks, community facilities, and land-use planning. However, councillors do not personally design or approve every development. Much of the technical work is done by professional City staff, planners, engineers, and other experts. Council makes decisions within the authority given to municipalities under Ontario law. 5. Attending Council and Committee Meetings Councillors are expected to attend City Council meetings and committee meetings, review reports, participate in discussions, ask questions, and vote on matters before Council. They also may serve on committees, boards, or other municipal organizations. Being prepared for meetings is an important part of the job because councillors are making decisions that can have long-term consequences for residents and taxpayers. 6. Working With City Staff A councillor does not personally run City departments or direct individual employees. Pickering has professional City staff who administer municipal programs and services. The City Manager and department heads are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the municipality. Council's role is primarily to establish policies, approve budgets, provide direction at the Council level, and hold the administration accountable. 7. Looking at the Bigger Picture A councillor has to balance individual concerns with the needs of the entire community. For example, one resident may want a particular development stopped, while another resident may support it. A councillor must consider the facts, planning rules, City policies, legislation, financial implications, and the broader public interest before voting. A councillor cannot simply vote on every issue according to whichever resident contacts them first. 8. Being Accountable to Taxpayers Councillors are elected officials and should be accountable to the residents of Pickering. That means residents should expect their councillors to be accessible, transparent, prepared, respectful, and willing to explain the reasons behind their decisions. Councillors should also understand that they are spending public money and making decisions that affect the community for years to come. What a Councillor Is NOT It is also important to understand what a councillor's job is not. A councillor is not the mayor, the City Manager, a City employee, a police officer, a building inspector, or a City department manager. A councillor generally cannot personally order City employees to perform work, change a planning decision on their own, waive municipal rules, or spend City money without the proper Council process. Their authority comes from their position as a member of Council and from the powers and responsibilities given to municipalities under Ontario law. In Simple Terms The job of a Pickering City Councillor is to represent residents, make responsible decisions, help set municipal policy, approve spending and budgets, participate in planning for the City's future, and hold the municipal administration accountable. The councillor's ultimate responsibility is to the people of Pickering. A good councillor should listen to residents, understand the issues, do their homework, ask difficult questions when necessary, and make decisions based on what is best for the community—not simply what is easiest or most popular at the moment. Being elected to City Council is a public responsibility. It means being entrusted with taxpayers' money, the future development of the community, and decisions that can affect residents and businesses throughout Pickering.

The Paperwork Doesn't Die

By Gary Payne, MBA Founder of FuneralCostOntario.ca The Fine Print A week or two after a funeral, somebody usually ends up at the kitchen table with a folder that was never supposed to become a project. There is the will, a death certificate, a bank statement, maybe something from an insurance company and a growing collection of notes about things that still need to be done. The folder gets opened, closed, moved out of the way for dinner and opened again the next morning. Eventually it stops looking temporary. We talk a lot about grief after someone dies, and rightly so, but not nearly as much about the administrative job that arrives with it. Someone who is still trying to absorb what happened may suddenly be calling banks, cancelling accounts and trying to understand government forms they had no reason to know existed a month earlier. You become the person handling it because your name is on the will, because you live closest or because everyone else has quietly decided you’re the one who can figure these things out. The mail keeps coming, which is one of the stranger parts. Renewal notices arrive. Bills show up. A company writes to the person who died because, as far as its computer is concerned, nothing has happened. You call, explain the situation and write down the name of whoever you spoke to because there’s a fair chance you’ll need it later. Before long there are dates in the margins, confirmation numbers on scraps of paper and reminders to call somebody back Tuesday. That kind of mess is actually where I can see AI being useful. Not because it knows how to settle an estate, but because it’s quite good at helping organize information when six browser tabs are open and you’re trying to remember what somebody at the bank said yesterday. It can turn a page of notes into a list, help sort what’s finished from what isn’t and explain a piece of bureaucratic writing that doesn’t make much sense on the third reading either. The important part is deciding where the facts come from. In Ontario, the Ministry of Finance says an Estate Information Return generally has to be filed within 180 days after the estate certificate is issued. Service Canada says the executor should apply for the CPP death benefit within 60 days of the death. The federal government’s Canada.ca site can also build a checklist based on someone’s circumstances. Those are useful facts, but I’d rather have AI read those pages than ask it to remember the rules on its own. That’s the same distinction I’ve come back to before: point, don’t answer. Open the Ontario page and ask, “What does this say I have to file, and when?” Give it the Canada.ca checklist and ask which steps might still need attention. If a bank sends a letter written in the peculiar dialect of financial institutions, let the machine translate the wording into ordinary English. The source stays in front of you. There’s a privacy wrinkle here too. An estate folder may contain account numbers, tax information and other details that don’t belong in an AI prompt simply because you want help understanding one paragraph. Remove what isn’t needed. In most cases, the useful question is about the wording or the process, not the dead person’s account number. That leaves AI in a less exciting role than some of the ones we hear about, but probably a more useful one. It isn’t the executor, it isn’t the government and it isn’t the accountant. It’s something you can use while doing a job you never expected to have, mostly to make the pile a little easier to understand. If its answer disagrees with the document in front of you, the document wins. There’s something odd about how little the administrative world notices a death. A person can be gone and yet the statements still arrive, the forms still have dates on them and somebody still has to close the account. Eventually the folder comes back onto the kitchen table and gets opened again. The paperwork doesn’t disappear when the person does. It changes hands. *Gary Payne is the founder of CVORReady.ca, a compliance platform for Ontario trucking companies.

More Information, Less Judgment

Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It has been more than a year since I began writing this column on my own. When I first put my name alone at the top of the page, I was conscious of the responsibility. I was following my father, Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, whose name had appeared above this column for more than five decades. That responsibility has not diminished. With time, it is also evolving. At first, I was thinking about how to honour my father's work. Now, I find myself thinking more about what it means to observe the world through my own eyes. That may seem obvious, but it has taken me a year of writing to appreciate what it means. I inherited a commitment to evidence, scepticism of medical fashion and the belief that patients should ask questions. I inherited a conviction that doctors and medical authorities can, at times, be dead wrong. Readers familiar with my father’s column will recall that not everyone aligned with his views on controversial topics. Yet, most would agree he opened debate, and in doing so he informed his readers on many of the pressing issues of the day – ranging from reproductive rights to pain management to the travesty of a drugged-out society. I took on the column because I feel deeply connected to the tradition of the newspaper columnist. I enjoy investigating a subject, reading the research, making up my own mind, and telling readers what I think. I have no interest in what influencers do with their instant opinions and online lures. I prefer the discipline of being accountable for what I put on the page. In the year since I assumed sole responsibility for this column, I have explored subjects spanning nutrition and preventive health, artificial intelligence and medicine, cardiovascular disease, dementia, longevity, and the evolving relationship between scientific evidence and everyday decision-making. My starting point is the thousands of columns my father wrote over more than five decades (archived at www.docgiff.com). It’s the fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle that he underscored again and again. Eat well, exercise, don’t smoke, and maintain a healthy weight. Like my father, I will share cautionary tales of humans making grave errors. Sometimes it is negligence. Other times, blind trust in people and systems. But don't surrender responsibility for your health to someone else. This is especially important as the health landscape is dramatically changing. Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape medicine. New drugs promise remarkable results for obesity and chronic disease. Genetic information is increasingly available to ordinary consumers. At the same time, social media has turned health advice into an endless stream of claims, counterclaims, anecdotes and advertisements. More information has not produced better judgement. In fact, it’s a Gifford-Jones mantra that common sense remains a rare commodity. Paying attention and using good judgment will yield results. Across Canada and around the world, researchers are increasingly talking not about lifespan, but "healthspan" – the number of years we remain healthy, active, independent, and engaged. Living longer isn’t worth your time if you are not living well. The goal to live better for longer resonates with me because it reflects the example my father set. He remained intellectually curious, professionally active, and passionately engaged with readers into his second century of life. In future columns, I will continue exploring nutrition, exercise, prevention, medical research, aging, and public health. I will bring my own perspective on what ordinary Canadians should heed amid the information flooding us. Thank you for including me in your weekly reading. I look forward to the conversations ahead.

A Plan

By Wayne and Tamara I've been in a job that is wrecking my happiness, but I am afraid to trust my perspective in case I am missing something. I fear leaving, lest it turn out to be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Also, pay here is a little higher than similar jobs I've seen lately. My boss, the head of the whole organization, used to be self-employed. Until a year ago she never worked for a company before, let alone held a position at the top. Suddenly, through some people she knows from volunteering on the same board of directors, she was recruited for this head-honcho job and installed at the top. I consider myself a monk-like person and spend my free time in spiritual pursuits and trying to be psychologically healthy. I felt my job was to support this boss as she dealt with huge new responsibilities. I felt my calmness and support was a great thing to offer her. I also have valuable skills and am a good worker. Over the past year my optimism and confidence have eroded drastically. This boss seemed wonderful and constructive for the first six months, with a respectful attitude toward her staff and a healthy ability to look for advice and admit when she was wrong. I felt my reality and hers were on the same page. But somewhere after those first six months, she became abusive. She lashes out, blames others, and makes up lies instead of taking responsibility for her own mistakes. This resulted in staff members quitting or being let go once she built a case against them for "too many mistakes." It gives me knots in my stomach, although I try to rebalance myself through prayer and affirmations on the way home. One day she will call me sweetheart and thank me profusely for all I do. The next day she will speak through clenched teeth and insist she told me to do something one way when I know she told me to do it another. Sometimes it seems she is trying to push her employees until someone fights back, although we don't. She holds the thread that connects us to our paychecks, and she also holds the scissors that could snip this thread. Barb Barb, centuries ago Blaise Pascal asked why people like your boss are obeyed. Is it because they have more merit, he wondered? No. It is simply because they have more power. As Pascal observed, power without justice is tyranny. We would like to believe if we do our job well and have good intentions, it matters. But with some people it doesn’t matter. Why should it matter to your boss when she obtained her position not through merit but through connections? The directors of your company are on her side and will do nothing to protect the employees. They consider her their social equal, and the employees social inferiors, though they will never say that. In addition, they won’t admit they hired someone unqualified. How wearing is it for your boss to go to work every day knowing she lacks the skills for the job? She is an imposter on her emotional edge. At least unconsciously, she wants all the people who knew she couldn’t do the job, and all the people who taught her what she knows, gone. The fallacy of all communication techniques is the other person has to be willing to play. Usually, that is exactly the problem. They won’t play. Weigh the tradeoff between having a bad boss and having less money. Then proceed from the basis of the power you possess. You have the power to be a good employee. You have the power to document what occurs in the workplace. You have the power to increase your skills. Most of all, you have the power to devise a plan to land on your feet, if the worst occurs. Wayne & Tamara

Canada Has Bigger Problems Than What Donald Trump Calls Lake Ontario

Canada is having a meltdown over a lake. President Donald Trump put “Lake America” on a map, and judging by the reaction in this country, you would think he had driven a truck across the border and hauled the water away. Politicians were outraged. Commentators were outraged. Social media was outraged. But here is the part nobody seems willing to say: The water did not move. It is still Lake Ontario. Canadians still call it Lake Ontario. We can teach our children it is Lake Ontario. We can print it on our maps tomorrow. Problem solved. What should concern Canadians is not what an American president calls our lake. What should concern us is how quickly this country can manufacture outrage over two words on a map while remaining remarkably quiet about problems that actually threaten our sovereignty, our safety and our future. And there is another hypocrisy here that is impossible to ignore. For years, Canadians have been told that names can change. We renamed universities. We renamed streets. We renamed public squares. We took down statues. We were told language evolves, identity evolves and that anyone who questioned it simply needed to catch up. And we are now living in a country where we are told that a man can become a woman, that biological reality can be rewritten through language, and that anyone who objects is the problem. But suddenly Donald Trump changes two words on a map and Ottawa acts as though Canadian sovereignty has collapsed. Why? Because it was never really about the name. It was about who said it. That is not leadership. That is political theatre. While Canadians were being encouraged to rage about a lake, what were we not talking about? Foreign interference in our elections. Our own public inquiry confirmed that the People’s Republic of China carried out interference operations aimed at Canadian democratic institutions. That deserves outrage. A government that cannot accurately tell Canadians how many people remain in this country after visas and permits expire should concern every citizen. That deserves outrage. Human trafficking should outrage us. Women and children are moved across this country for sexual exploitation and forced labour while governments issue reports, create committees and then return to business as usual. Fentanyl should outrage us. Parents are burying sons and daughters while politicians offer carefully polished statements and move on to the next headline. Families unable to afford their mortgage, rent, gas or groceries should outrage us. Canadians living in tents in the middle of one of the wealthiest countries on Earth should outrage us. Violent repeat offenders being returned to our streets should outrage us. Yet somehow we can summon more national fury over a foreign president’s map than over the failures happening inside our own borders. That tells us something. We have confused politics with priorities. Politics is what people scream about on Tuesday because it is trending. Priorities are what still matter when the cameras go home. Foreign interference is a priority. Border security is a priority. Human trafficking is a priority. Fentanyl deaths are a priority. Housing is a priority. Affordability is a priority. Crime is a priority. A word on somebody else’s map is not. The same confusion exists in our approach to crime. Our governments too often go after the easiest people to regulate rather than the hardest criminals to catch. Law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters are treated like the problem while criminal gun smugglers and gang members continue operating. Criminals do not register their firearms. They never have. So when government makes it harder for a lawful Canadian to own a firearm while failing to stop illegal guns crossing the border, Canadians are entitled to ask who the policy is actually disarming. And then there is Medical Assistance in Dying. I know the preferred language. I know we are supposed to call it “medical assistance in dying.” I call it what it is when government helps a person end their own life: assisted suicide. When we are expanding who qualifies, when people who are poor, disabled, mentally ill or simply exhausted are being presented with death as an option, we should stop hiding behind euphemisms and start asking what kind of country we are becoming. When a society finds it easier to help someone die than to help them live, that is not compassion. That is a moral question, and Canadians deserve an honest debate about it. And while all of this happens, Ottawa has plenty of time for outrage aimed south of the border. That is convenient. Getting angry at Donald Trump costs Ottawa nothing. It lets politicians point somewhere else. It lets them say, “Look over there.” Look at Washington. Look at Trump. Look at the map. Anything except the failures happening here. But our government is the one Canadians elect. Our government is the one responsible for our border. Our government is the one responsible for enforcing our laws. Our government is the one responsible for protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. Our government is the one that must answer for whether Canadians can afford to live in their own country. And our government is the one that should answer for the decisions it makes. Not Washington. Not Beijing. Ottawa. Real leadership does not need a foreign president to give it something to be angry about. Real leadership identifies its own problems and fixes them whether the cameras are there or not. Real leadership looks at foreign interference and acts. Real leadership looks at a broken immigration system and says we are going to know who is here, why they are here and whether they have the legal right to remain. Real leadership looks at human trafficking and refuses to treat it as a side issue. Real leadership looks at fentanyl deaths and goes after the supply, the traffickers and the money. Real leadership looks at homelessness and asks why citizens of a G7 country are sleeping in tents and doorways. And real leadership looks at the most vulnerable Canadians — the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and those struggling mentally — and asks whether we have built a system that helps them live, or one that has quietly made it easier to help them die. Those are the debates worthy of a serious country. So yes, call it Lake Ontario. I will. I always will. But Canada’s identity does not disappear because Donald Trump prints something different on a map. The greater danger is what happens when a country becomes so distracted by symbolic outrage that it stops demanding accountability from the people actually governing it. Have a meltdown over foreign interference. Have a meltdown over human trafficking. Have a meltdown over fentanyl taking our children. Have a meltdown over families who cannot pay their mortgage, rent or grocery bill. Have a meltdown over homelessness. Have a meltdown over violent crime. Have a meltdown over a government offering death where Canadians should be demanding life, treatment, support and hope. Those are arguments worth having. But stop letting the President of the United States decide what dominates the Canadian conversation. Every hour we spend raging about a map is an hour Ottawa does not have to answer for the border, the cost of living, crime, drugs, trafficking, foreign interference and the erosion of our own national confidence. The problem is not what Donald Trump calls our lake. The problem is what our own government has stopped answering for. And Canadians should be far more angry about that.

Bill S-206 Isn't UBI Progress; It's Ottawa's Next Taxpayer-Funded Boondoggle

By Nick Kossovan A close friend and frequent sounding board for my writing recently texted me a CBC News story reporting on the 25th annual Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Congress, held in Toronto from August 19 to 22. Academics, professional activists, and career bureaucrats descended on Toronto Metropolitan University to swoon over Bill S-206. Sponsored by Senator Kim Pate, the bill would establish a national universal basic income framework guaranteeing a livable income for everyone over 17, with no requirement to work. Proponents frame the bill as a shield against AI and wealth inequality. Opponents, such as Senator Michael MacDonald, rightly argue that state handouts diminish personal ambition at a time when young people should be building their futures. Mark Carney was conspicuously absent, refusing to lend his elite central-planning cachet to what's essentially high-profile virtue signalling. After reading the coverage, I have to ask: how does one become a "basic income expert"? Is there an accredited degree involved, or is it simply the refined art of sitting in air-conditioned conference rooms, debating how to redistribute money earned by folks who get up at 6:00 AM to go to work? Stripping away the academic jargon, Bill S-206 positions basic income as a deeply divisive wedge among taxpayers. Canadian UBI evangelists conveniently ignore our southern neighbour, where a culture of risk, innovation, and hard work attracts global enterprise and investment. If Ottawa embraces cradle-to-grave nannyism, it still has to figure out how to hand out money without crushing the incentive to earn it. Spoiler alert: it can't. Human nature isn't driven by noble intentions. Ambition isn't a factory setting; it's a muscle built through struggle. The fear of poverty and the shame of failure aren't flaws in human design—they are pressure mechanisms that have driven civilizations to create, invent, and prosper. Yet even with these ferocious motivators snapping at our heels, millions still choose the comfort of dependency over the work required to achieve financial independence. Imagine the spiral when you remove the stakes that require people to fend for themselves and replace rock bottom with a taxpayer-subsidized buffer that erodes personal accountability. For many adults—and by adults, I mean anyone over 21—being taken care of by parents, employers, or the government has become their primary goal. When you tell a 19-year-old that Ottawa will pad their bank account whether they master a trade or scroll on their phone until noon, you aren't empowering them. You're neutering their drive. You're trapping them in a comfortable prison—a gilded cage—of lifelong government dependency. At the heart of my argument is deep concern for an expanding population of disenfranchised youth. When purpose evaporates, and hope diminishes, "no future" becomes a convenient cover for apathy (read: Why bother trying?) While an income safety net may eventually be necessary to keep young Canadians from falling through the cracks, it must never become a permanent, state-funded lifestyle. Any viable income support must be strictly capped at the bare necessities—a temporary floor for survival, not a comfortable salary. Above all, access must be tied to non-negotiable conditions requiring UBI recipients to pursue trade training (where the jobs are), higher education, or active employment, so their drive remains intact. Before Ottawa rushes into a bureaucratic boondoggle of unearned handouts, it needs to exhaust obvious, low-hanging income solutions first. The consequences of this growing aimlessness are already visible across the West, where young people increasingly embrace political extremism on platforms like TikTok and X. Interpol, Europol, and the FBI have documented teenagers migrating toward extremist digital networks that trade in nihilism, accelerationism, and anti-establishment ideology. These channels rarely rely on sophisticated theory; they simply offer hopeless youth a ready-made tribe and a surrogate sense of purpose. Lacking real-world ambition, a disenfranchised generation will naturally seek out radical doctrines to fill the void. After 25 annual gatherings, what have the BIEN gatherings accomplished beyond endless academic navel-gazing and zero practical results? If Ottawa is serious about helping struggling families, it shouldn't be expanding the welfare state; it should be overhauling the tax code. Take an arbitrary, generous benchmark: exempting the first $45,000 of individual income from federal taxation. Economists can debate the precise math, but raising the federal tax-free threshold provides instant relief, directly rewards work, and could be implemented almost overnight without creating another government bureaucracy. Instead of offering hard math, UBI evangelists rely on sentimentality: "Some people simply can't earn a living wage." The reality? Canadians are being bled dry. According to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Tax Revenue Statistics, personal income taxes account for 36.7% of Canada’s total tax revenue, far surpassing the OECD average of 23.7%. Unlike economic peers such as Germany, France, Japan, the UK, or Australia, Ottawa squeezes everyday working families—not to invest in domestic priorities, but to underwrite foreign virtue-signalling, overstaffed bureaucracies, five-star official travel, and botched multi-million-dollar tech projects such as ArriveCAN. Then comes the thorny, unavoidable question of eligibility. Should someone who’s worked, paid taxes, and contributed to Canada for 30 or 40 years receive the same monthly cheque as a recent arrival, a newly minted citizen, or someone who’s never worked a day in their life? Should non-citizens and brand-new residents draw from the same well built by decades of Canadian labour? The moment you turn the federal treasury into an open tap, the line for taxpayer-funded handouts stretches far beyond Canada's borders, and the potential for exploitation becomes uncontainable. When a government confiscates nearly 40% of your earnings under threat of audit and then promises to return a fraction as a "guaranteed allowance," that isn't compassion—it's a protection racket. It's an old political sleight of hand: create hardship, hand out state-issued crutches, and demand your vote in gratitude. Once citizens rely on government cheques to pay rent and buy groceries, they are no longer sovereign citizens; they become clients of the state. This illustrates the warning in Marilyn French's 1980 novel The Bleeding Heart: "There is no power greater than the power of passive dependency." Bill S-206 isn't UBI or social progress; it's a taxpayer-funded golden leash that kills individual initiative, a fiscally reckless boondoggle, and a ticking time bomb for a taxpayer revolt. By guaranteeing a livable wage without conditions, contributions, or accountability, Ottawa reduces Canadians from self-reliant citizens to government dependents: keep the herd quiet, keep them fed, and keep them compliant. The political axiom warns that the hand that feeds you always holds the collar, which may very well be Bill S-206's underlying intention.

Kars on King Came and Went. But Where Was the Rest of Oshawa?

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               The old cars were there. The crowds were there. The politicians were there too. It is an election year, after all. I enjoyed it. I always do. But while walking downtown, something started bothering me. Where was the rest of Oshawa? Not the Oshawa we remember. The Oshawa we have today is different from the Oshawa we say we want to become. This is not a complaint about Kars on King. It is an observation. Where was Ontario Tech University? We have a university in this city doing serious automotive research. Ontario Tech's ACE facility works with manufacturers, researchers and technology companies testing electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, trucks and other transportation technology. Its climatic wind tunnel can reproduce extreme weather and winds reaching 280 kilometres an hour. That is happening right here in Oshawa. We have a downtown car show celebrating automotive history while people only a short distance away are helping figure out what the automobile may become next. Why aren't those two things standing beside each other? Bring an experimental vehicle downtown. Bring students. Bring engineers. Let people see what is being developed in their own city. And bring Hunter, Ontario Tech's Ridgeback mascot. Then there is Durham College. Durham College trains people for automotive trades and electric vehicle technology. Bring those students downtown too. Let a teenager admiring an old Mustang suddenly find himself talking to someone learning how to repair an electric vehicle. That conversation might last five minutes. It might also change a life. And bring the Durham College mascot. Then another question hit me. Where were Oshawa's two big sports teams? The Oshawa Generals are part of the bones of this city. Their history goes back generations, and even their name connects directly to General Motors and Oshawa's automotive story. Give the Generals a table. Bring representatives. Bring Deke. Then invite the Oshawa FireWolves. Professional lacrosse is now part of Oshawa too. Give them a table. Let families meet the team. And bring Alphie. Now picture King Street again. Classic cars downtown. Ontario Tech showing automotive technology from the future. Durham College students showing the skills needed to keep those vehicles moving. The Generals representing Oshawa's sporting and automotive history. The FireWolves represent something newer growing in the city. And through it all, the mascots. Hunter. The Durham College mascot. Deke. Alphie. Think about the kids. A six year old may not understand battery systems or aerodynamics. But that child will remember meeting four giant mascots downtown. Mom takes a picture. Dad stops at the Ontario Tech display. An older brother talks with a Durham College student. The family discovers the FireWolves. Someone decides to go to a Generals game. Suddenly one city event is helping another. That is what bothers me. We already have everything. The university is here. The college is here. The teams are here. The families are here. So what are we waiting for? When politicians are standing beside us at public events, we should ask more than, "How are you?" Ask why Ontario Tech is not there. Ask why Durham College is not there. Ask why our two major teams are not part of it. Ask what will be different next year. We should be proud of the cars Oshawa helped build. But we should be just as interested in what young people here might build next. Maybe the next great automotive idea is already sitting inside an Oshawa classroom. Maybe the person who designs it is fifteen years old today, walking through Kars on King with Mom and Dad. The old cars show us where Oshawa has been. Our university, college and teams show us who Oshawa is today. Put them together and we might finally show people where Oshawa is going. If we cannot bring those pieces together for one day downtown, maybe the bigger question is not what was missing from the car show. Maybe it is what we are missing about Oshawa itself.

MR. X: WHEN DID MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BECOME A TEAM SPORT

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE There is something very strange happening in Clarington's municipal election, and I think residents should be paying attention to it. When I was Mayor, there was an unwritten rule of municipal politics that I always thought made a great deal of sense: you stayed out of everybody else's election. You might privately hope that certain councillors were re-elected. You might have developed good working relationships with them. You might even consider some of them friends. But their election belonged to them and, more importantly, it belonged to the voters in their ward. You didn't need to be standing beside them at the doors. You didn't need to campaign as a team. You didn't need to tell residents that electing you meant they should elect your preferred councillors too. Why? Because after election day, you might have to work with whoever the public chose. That is democracy. Yet in Clarington today, we appear to be watching something quite different. Mayor Adrian Foster and a number of incumbent members of Council - with Councillor Corinna Traill notably outside that group - are openly supporting and campaigning alongside one another in a way that increasingly resembles a slate. And I think that raises an important question: When did municipal government become a team sport? YOUR COUNCILLOR SHOULD REPRESENT YOU - NOT THE MAYOR Municipal councillors aren't elected to represent the Mayor. They aren't elected to represent a political party. And they shouldn't be elected because they are part of somebody else's team. A ward councillor has one fundamental political responsibility: represent the people who elected them. Sometimes that means agreeing with the Mayor. Sometimes it means disagreeing with the Mayor. Sometimes it means being the only person at the Council table willing to say, "No." That independence is not a weakness in municipal government. It is one of its greatest strengths. So when incumbents begin campaigning together, endorsing one another, appearing together and effectively asking residents to return the team, voters are entitled to ask what exactly they are being asked to elect. Seven independent representatives? Or a voting bloc? WE DON'T NEED POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT THE PARTY NAMES I have written before about why I strongly oppose bringing partisan politics into municipal government. Municipal government works differently from Queen's Park and Parliament. There is no government side of the chamber and opposition side. There shouldn't be a party whip telling councillors how to vote. Each member is individually accountable to the people who elected them. That is precisely why the development of informal slates should concern us. You don't need to print a party name on the ballot to begin creating party-style politics. If candidates campaign together, endorse one another, promote one another and ask voters to elect the group, we are already moving toward the mentality of "our team versus their team." And that is exactly the wrong direction for municipal democracy. LET EVERY CANDIDATE EARN THEIR OWN VOTE If an incumbent councillor has done an outstanding job, they shouldn't need the Mayor standing beside them to get re-elected. Let them knock on the doors. 0Let them defend their record. Let them explain their votes. Let them tell residents what they accomplished during the last term and what they intend to accomplish during the next one. And then let the residents of that ward decide. The same applies to the Mayor.\ Run on your own record. Tell residents what you accomplished. Explain what you didn't accomplish. Defend the tax increases, spending decisions, development decisions and policies adopted during your term. Then ask the public for another mandate. That's how municipal elections should work. AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE ELECTION? There is another reason I always believed elected officials should be careful about interfering in one another's campaigns. You don't know who you're going to have to work with after election day. Suppose a Mayor openly campaigns against a challenger to an incumbent councillor. Then the challenger wins. Congratulations. You now have four years to work together. Municipal government requires cooperation between people who frequently disagree. Poisoning those relationships during an election for the sake of protecting an incumbent colleague may be politically convenient in September, but it can make governing considerably more difficult afterward. That's why the old approach made sense: Run your race. Let them run theirs. And respect the voters' decision. INDEPENDENCE MATTERS This isn't about whether politicians are allowed to have friends. Of course they are. It isn't about whether one candidate is legally permitted to endorse another. It is about something much more fundamental: What kind of municipal government do we want? I want councillors who can look a Mayor in the eye and say no. I want councillors who don't owe their election to somebody else's political machine. I want councillors whose first question is not, "What does the team want?" It should be: "What do the people I represent need?" Clarington residents should examine every candidate individually - incumbent or challenger. Look at their record. Look at their ideas. Look at their attendance. Look at how they voted. Look at whether your taxes went up or down. And most importantly, decide whether that individual deserves your vote. Municipal democracy works best when we elect independent representatives - not slates, factions or unofficial political parties. Because the moment municipal elections become about electing the team, we have taken another step toward the partisan municipal politics that Ontario has wisely avoided for generations. And once that door is opened, it may be very difficult to close.

5 Minutes can change your life

By Tom Reimer Sly wasn’t the type to quit. Failure annoyed him, but it also energized him. Standing in the shadows behind your house, he glared at the back patio door as if sheer determination might make it surrender. It didn’t. The reinforced frame, the multi‑point locking system, the shatter‑resistant glass—every inch of it mocked him. He pressed his palm against the surface, feeling nothing but cold, immovable strength. No give. No weakness. No chance. Fine. He shifted to the basement window, hoping for a miracle. But the moment he crouched down, he saw the same problem he’d faced last week: the interior window guard, bolted deep into the masonry, unmoving and absolute. He tapped the glass lightly. Dull. Dead. Security film. He hated that sound. It meant you’d thought ahead. It meant he wasn’t getting in. He exhaled sharply, annoyed but not defeated. “You’re thorough,” he muttered. “I’ll give you that.” Sly straightened up and scanned the house again. The first floor was a fortress. Every door reinforced. Every window guarded. Every angle covered by cameras or motion lights. You’d built layers of protection, and he’d run into every one of them. But there was still the second floor. He tilted his head back, studying it carefully. Two windows facing the yard. One above the patio, one near the corner. Higher, harder to reach, but maybe—just maybe—less fortified. People rarely secured their second floor as tightly as the first. They assumed height was protection enough. Sly knew better. Height was just an inconvenience. He circled to the side of the house, moving quietly, eyes scanning for anything he could use. A trellis? No. Too flimsy. A drainpipe? Possibly. It ran straight up the wall, bolted every few feet. Old, but not ancient. He tested it with a tug. Solid. He smirked. “Finally.” He climbed slowly, carefully, distributing his weight, listening for creaks or shifts. The pipe held. He reached the midpoint, paused, then continued until he was level with the second‑floor window. He hooked a foot against the siding, steadied himself, and examined the frame. No security film. No bars. No visible sensors. His pulse quickened. This was it. His chance. He pulled a small tool from his pocket and slid it between the sash and frame. The lock inside clicked faintly. He grinned. “Got you.” But when he tried to lift the window, it didn’t budge. He frowned and tried again. Nothing. He shifted his grip, braced himself, and pulled harder. Still nothing. Then he saw it—barely visible in the moonlight. A secondary lock. A small interior latch drilled directly into the frame. Manual. Simple. Brilliant. You’d secured the second floor too. Sly hung there, suspended against the wall, staring at the stubborn window. He felt the same frustration he’d felt at the patio door, the basement window, the entire house. You’d anticipated him again. He sighed, defeated but grudgingly impressed. “Not on my watch, Sly,” he whispered, imagining your voice saying it. He climbed down slowly, retreating into the night, already wondering if next week anyone else would dare try the second floor—or if your fortress would turn them away just as easily.

As the School Year Begins, Ontario’s Textbook Failure Is Undermining Public Education

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As Ontario families prepare for the beginning of another school year, students are gathering supplies, adjusting schedules and looking ahead to new academic challenges. Yet many will enter their classrooms without one of the most fundamental instruments of education: a current, comprehensive textbook. This is not a minor administrative matter. Before the first lesson is taught, every student should know that an organized and dependable resource will guide the course from September to June. Ontario taxpayers contribute billions of dollars annually to one of Canada’s most expensive public institutions: the education system. Property-tax bills include a clearly identified education component, and the provincial government provides substantial additional funding. Parents therefore have every reason to expect that students will receive the essential materials necessary for learning from the first day of school. Nevertheless, Ontario students are not necessarily issued textbooks. A striking example is Grade 9 mathematics, for which students are not guaranteed a current, comprehensive textbook. At the very least, high-school students should receive textbooks in their principal academic subjects if Ontario genuinely intends to build a technologically capable, knowledgeable and well-prepared society. Instead, students may begin the year with collections of worksheets, photocopied pages, online links, presentation slides and teacher-prepared notes. Some schools maintain classroom sets of older books, while others depend heavily on electronic resources. What a student receives varies by school, school board and individual teacher. This is not educational modernization. It is fragmentation disguised as flexibility. Ontario’s compulsory Grade 9 mathematics course, MTH1W, is governed by a Ministry of Education curriculum introduced in 2021. The official document is extensive—approximately 222 pages—and contains strands, expectations, instructional considerations, teacher prompts and assessment principles. The curriculum covers number sense, algebra, linear relations, geometry, measurement, data, probability, coding and financial literacy. It tells educators in considerable detail what students are expected to learn. However, it is not a student textbook. It does not provide students with a logically sequenced course containing clear explanations, worked examples, progressively challenging exercises, chapter reviews and answer sections. It is primarily a policy and professional document designed for administrators and educators. It serves regulatory compliance more effectively than it serves a 14-year-old trying to understand an algebraic equation at the kitchen table. A functional education system requires three connected instruments: a provincial curriculum identifying what must be learned, a teacher’s guide supporting instruction and assessment, and a student textbook presenting the subject in an organized and accessible manner. Ontario provides the first and offers extensive material toward the second. It does not guarantee the third—the resource most directly essential to the student. That omission has serious consequences from the opening day of the school year. A textbook gives a course intellectual structure. It allows a student to revisit yesterday’s lesson, prepare for tomorrow’s class, recover material missed during an absence and study independently before an examination. It enables parents and tutors to understand what is being taught and in what sequence. It also establishes a common academic foundation when students change schools or teachers during the year. A collection of digital links and worksheets does not necessarily provide that continuity. Files disappear, online platforms change, links expire, and individual pages become detached from the broader course. Students may complete exercises without understanding how one concept leads logically to the next. Technology can enhance education, but it should not be used as an excuse to abandon coherent instructional materials. Digital resources should complement a properly organized textbook, not replace it with an assortment of disconnected fragments. The problem is particularly serious for students with learning difficulties, limited internet access or a need for consistent organization. It also disadvantages families unable to purchase commercial workbooks, private tutoring or online subscriptions. Textbook policy is therefore an equity issue—and the inequality begins as soon as the school year starts. Some students enter Grade 9 with families able to purchase additional resources and tutoring. Others must depend entirely on whatever collection of materials their particular school or teacher assembles. Ontario law requires publicly funded school boards to provide students with required textbooks and learning materials without charge. Nevertheless, the practical meaning of “provide” has been seriously weakened. A temporary classroom copy, access to an online portal or a package of photocopies may technically satisfy an administrative interpretation while failing to give students a dependable and complete course resource. This is where bureaucratic compliance becomes disconnected from educational purpose. Every decision should be guided by one practical question: what tangible educational benefit does the student receive? The contrast with questionable school-board expenditures reported extensively in the press is disturbing. These incidents demonstrate why the Ontario Ministry of Education must exercise stronger oversight and demand strict accountability for how school boards spend taxpayers’ money. As another school year begins, families must ask why students cannot receive textbooks. These incidents are not representative of every educator, trustee or administrator. Ontario has many dedicated teachers who compensate for systemic deficiencies by producing their own excellent materials, often using their personal time and money. However, teachers should not be expected to spend the opening weeks of school functioning simultaneously as instructors, curriculum designers, editors and textbook publishers. The larger problem is institutional accountability. By 2026, eight Ontario school boards had been placed under provincial supervision amid concerns about deficits, depleted reserves, governance disputes and financial management. This represents a profound failure within the system responsible for safeguarding public education funds. Whether every questionable expenditure meets the criminal definition of corruption is not the central issue. When public money intended for education finances administrative privileges that lack a convincing benefit to students, it constitutes misuse of education funds. When this occurs within institutions protected by weak oversight, complicated procedures and evasive language, it may reasonably be described as institutional corruption in the ordinary moral and political sense. Taxpayers should not be diverted by lawyerly distinctions among “poor judgment,” “mismanagement” and “inappropriate discretionary spending.” The essential question is simple: did the expenditure materially benefit students and their education? If the answer is no, it should not have been charged to an education budget. Ontario should require every compulsory secondary-school course to have an approved, complete and current student resource ready before the school year begins. It may be printed or digital, but every student should receive access to the same core content on the first day of class. Printed copies must be available to students who need or prefer them. Education policy should begin with the learner, not the bureaucracy. A wealthy province capable of producing hundreds of pages of curriculum directives can also produce or procure a coherent Grade 9 mathematics textbook. There is no justification for beginning another school year without guaranteeing that resource to every student. Failure to do so is not innovation, modernization or flexibility. It is systemic educational negligence. As Ontario students return to school, they deserve more than curriculum expectations scattered across websites, worksheets and computer platforms. On the first day of class, every student should receive the basic instrument that generations of successful education systems have understood to be indispensable: a well-written book that enables them to learn throughout the school year.,

WHO ARE THESE MAYORAL CANDIDATES

By Joe Ingino Those who read my column on a regular basis will note how critical I am of municipal elected officials. Election time proves my theory that good intentions and pretenders just don’t cut the mustard. Now, let’s turn our attention to current downtown Oshawa councillor and mayoral candidate Derek Giberson. A council member who had the opportunity to turn the core around and has done nothing. For some magical reason, he is now under the impression that he can run the City.In his defence, if Carter ran it, I guess just about anyone can. Then again, look at the quality of life and the general appearance of the core. This Giberson is the same character who pushed for all kinds of social services and drug-related services to be allowed in the core. Open drug use has no place in society. This Giberson is the same person who has wasted your tax dollars persecuting downtown businesses, former political challengers and the like. Were those tax dollars well spent? He does not appear to care. It is not his money.In my opinion, this character does not belong in politics. A third-rate politician with no real working experience. SAY NO TO GIBERSON. I am not the only one to share these sentiments. In a Facebook post, Downtown Oshawa Uncensored had this to say:DEREK GIBERSON — RECORD ON PUBLIC DRUG USE AND DRUG DEALERS October 2025 Motion(The Lone Dissenting Vote): A motion went to the floor declaring that flagrant public drug use and drug dealers in the city directly impede public safety and drug recovery efforts. The Action: The motion passed nearly unanimously by a 10–1 vote. Councillor Derek Giberson was the only councillor out of 11 to vote against it. DISASTER CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF OSHAWAGreg Plummer from the group was noted as stating:“Begs the questions: Is he a drug user? Does he have close friends or family who are street dealers and users?”Jenn Baker replied:“Greg Plummer, he sure does advocate for them a lot! They don't even pay taxes!” A participant who went by the name Peanut Butters contributed: “The fact that he lives downtown and can see it outside his window, and gets woken up by this shit every night like the rest of us do, and yet he's unbothered by it, is actually really concerning. “There’s one thing to have sympathy for drug addicts, but when they affect the quality of one’s life — or a whole neighbourhood’s — you’d think you’d want them to move out of your neighbourhood ASAP.” Mike Minichiello commented: “There’s no stinking way in hell this guy would make a good mayor. He’s not even a half-decent councillor in Ward 4.“Mr. ‘Don’t Answer His Damn Constituents’ Emails’ about real concerns, instead catering to those who are costing the tax base. “He is a train wreck of a councillor, does nothing for his constituents, and now he wants to be mayor? I don’t think so. Not on my watch.” Mike Mell commented: “Maybe he was high when they ran that vote?” Amber Thompson commented: “Not surprising, as our councillor is nonexistent and doesn’t help anything or make any improvements to our lives down here. How embarrassing to vote against that! Your ward is a damn dumpster fire, and residents are past their breaking point for tolerance and understanding.”Renee McLaughlin commented: “The guy’s a loser. He needs to go, let alone run for mayor.” What has many people wondering is this: When will anyone see him campaigning? So far, he has been a ghost. People have called and can’t get through. Those who do get through never hear back.He is almost taking a page out of Tito-Dante’s playbook. The arrogance. This just tells us how bad the next four years could become.I would support anyone who has good intentions and anyone who cares about our City. Unfortunately, neither Giberson nor Tito has proven to be anything more than about themselves. Their only real concern appears to be staying in the system and continuing to suck on the City’s cash cow. Well, as usual, my week’s mouthful is about complete. But stay tuned, because next week I am going to be featuring another mayoral candidate with a Napoleon complex. None other than Dave Westlake — a self-professed business person with pie-in-the-sky plans but no real solutions. If I am wrong, come to my office and prove me wrong. I am a fair man.

Municipal elections should be about the community in front of us

By John Meloche Taxes. Roads. Development. Public safety. Recreation. Infrastructure. Local jobs. City services. Transparency. Whether elected officials answer residents and whether taxpayers are getting value for their money Yet as election day approaches, local politics can increasingly start to resemble the deeply polarized politics we see provincially, federally and south of the border. A candidate attends an event. Someone discovers an old photograph. They speak with a politician from another level of government. They agree with one organization on one issue. Before long, a partisan label is attached and everything else about that candidate becomes secondary. That is where voters need to be careful. There is ideology, and then there is what I’ll jokingly call “idi-ology.” Yes, the spelling is intentional. “Idi-ology” is not about calling anyone an idiot. It describes the increasingly common habit of allowing one issue, one association, one disagreement or one political label to do all of our thinking for us. It creates the single-issue voter. Values absolutely matter. Political philosophy matters. Someone can quite reasonably favour a small-c conservative approach that emphasizes careful spending, individual responsibility, public safety, accountability and limited government. Someone else may place greater emphasis on public investment, social programs or a different approach to government services. Those differences deserve debate. But municipal government rarely fits neatly into partisan boxes. Is fixing a deteriorating road Conservative or Liberal? Is improving a dangerous intersection left-wing or right-wing? Is asking whether a $4-million project represents good value for taxpayers partisan? Is wanting to help fix the homelessness, mental health, drug use and food insecurity crisis in our cities left-wing or right-wing? What political party owns cleaner parks, responsive City Hall, responsible development or better recreation facilities? These are practical questions requiring judgement, research and compromise. Our community Facebook groups and neighbourhood forums have become particularly important during local elections. They can be tremendous resources. Residents share information, challenge candidates, uncover issues and raise concerns that might otherwise receive little attention. But those same groups can also become echo chambers. A screenshot gets posted. A provocative headline is added. Someone makes an association between two people, then another association, and within a few comments an entire political identity has been constructed for someone who may never have said any of those things. That isn’t scrutiny. Scrutiny means examining what candidates actually believe. Read their platforms. Look at their records. Ask them questions. See whether they provide substantive answers. Look at how they behave when someone disagrees with them. Determine whether they understand municipal government and whether their promises are actually within a councillor’s authority to deliver. And perhaps most importantly, look at the entire candidate. If you agree with someone on nine important municipal issues but disagree strongly on a tenth, you may still decide that tenth issue is a deal-breaker. That is your right. But make that decision consciously. Don’t allow somebody else’s Facebook post, partisan label or carefully selected screenshot to make it for you. Healthy democracy requires something increasingly rare: being willing to hear an idea without first asking which “team” it came from. A good councillor should be capable of speaking with Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, business owners, labour representatives, environmental advocates, developers, police, social-service organizations and residents with completely opposing opinions. Conversation is not endorsement. Listening is not agreement. And disagreement does not require hostility. This municipal election, challenge every candidate. Ask difficult questions. Question their numbers. Examine their judgement. Hold them accountable. But resist reducing any candidate to a single issue or political association. Our communities are far more complicated than that. Our vote should be too. Support thoughtful local democracy. Read beyond the headline, participate in your community groups, ask questions directly, and ultimately vote for the person you believe has the judgement, temperament and ability to do the job.

Embracing Eco Clubs

By Larraine Roulston This month school eco clubs emerge to continue promoting last year’s passionate cause, or embrace a new environmental project. Whether they call themselves an Eco Action Team, Green Club, or Eco Avengers, these students engage their school’s community with environmental projects. Educators can gather inspiration and ideas for projects from both Green Teacher and Canadian Teacher Magazine. Green Teacher is primarily an academic journal published quarterly. It features ready-to-use activities, webinars, and resources for youth. The magazine’s portal and archives are managed alongside the Outdoor Learning School & Store. Canadian Teacher Magazine is both independent and national and is published three times a year. Besides featuring environmental information and student projects, it covers a variety of current trends, classroom management, professional and personal development, book reviews, instructional strategies and methodology, and national/international issues. I find great joy Googling ‘Our Canada Projects’ when choosing a school to feature in Canadian Teacher Magazine. By clicking on schools across Canada, teachers will discover what student Eco Clubs are doing from coast to coast to coast. For over a decade, I’ve featured student driven enthusiasm for such issues as: creating nature gardens; recycling; using a 3D printer to transform PET bottles into useful items; studying harmful microplastics; reusing textiles; composting with red wigglers; building bike racks, greenhouses, and clotheslines; printing a book about light pollution; protecting the pollinators; creating signs to encourage parents to stop idling their vehicles; eliminating plastic water bottles; and cleaning up local waterways. For any environmental classroom project, there are many grants available. Learning Sustainable Foundation (LSF) is one resource where I asked Samantha Gawron, Chief Strategy & Operations Officer, several questions on how LSF works: Q: What year did LSF begin? A: We've been around since 1991. Q: How many schools have you funded so far? A: We fund approximately 225 schools every year. Q: Do you get many repeats for funding from the same school? A: We do! For example, last year about half of our applications were from schools that received funding the year before. Q: How does a school qualify? A: LSF provides funding for students and teachers to engage their school and community in climate Action Projects. This includes any action that is student-led and contributes to the sustainability of your school or community - the only limit is the students’ imaginations! We work with grade K-12 students in Canada and can only fund 1 project per school - first come, first served. Applications will open in fall 2026 at https://lsf-lst.ca/programs/action-project-funding/ (or in French at https://lsf-lst.ca/fr/programmes/financement-de-projets-daction/). Need some Action Project inspiration? Check out last year’s Empowering Youth for Climate Action Award winners! new link: https://ourcanadaproject.ca/winners-2026/ A student driven team, working on environmental solutions, provides a cross-curricular learning activity that often enthusiastically engages their entire community to help build a healthier future.