Showing posts with label #Central. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Central. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2025
So Many Questions
So Many Questions
By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist
A while back I was having dinner with a friend when her son came home with his girlfriend. They are in their twenties and recent graduates of university. With their careers on track, their next step according to them is to plan for buying a house and planning their future together.
As many people do, they have amassed a lot of information, but it was apparent after just a few minutes of conversation that much of the information they were equipped with was flat out wrong.
So began an evening of answering many questions and dispelling many myths regarding purchasing a home. It was very impromptu but welcome at the same time as I hate to see people wondering around ill-informed when it comes to buying a home. Misinformation in this area can literally alter the trajectory of someone’s life. If a person is not aware of their options, they often make decisions that they would not have otherwise made, but they weren’t aware of what was available to them.
One of the first questions they had was regarding income. In an effort to bump up their income, they were not only working but they had put together a little side business. Their business was viable and generated income. The problem was that they were just taking the income as it came in and putting it in the bank. They thought that if they just put the money in the bank and told the bank officer where it had come from that all would be well, and it could be considered part of their overall income. I told them that if they wanted it to count
as income that would be recognized by the bank when it came time to get a mortgage that they would have to structure that income as being received through their small business and that they would have to open a business account and show that to the bank officer. One thing about income that hasn’t changed too much over the years is that banks want to see stable sources of income, and they want to see proper documentation. A good rule of thumb is that to have part-time income included you should have that part-time job for 2 years. That is the same for self-employed people.
Another question they had pertained to downpayment. All of the examples they had seen referred to a 20% downpayment. So, naturally they thought that they needed to come up with 20% down as a minimum. That is not accurate. 5% is the requirement. The reason 20% is always thrown out there is because when you put 20% down you do not have to obtain mortgage insurance through CMHC. There is a minimal cost for the insurance and that is factored into your payments. While the more you can put down, the better it is for you, you can get into the market at 5% down. Never hesitate to ask questions. 
OSHAWA COUNCILLORS TURN A ‘SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING’ INTO A SATIRICAL ‘COMEDY OF ERRORS’
This Is Not Discipline It’s Political Punishment
This Is Not Discipline It’s Political Punishment
By Councillor Lisa Robinson
On Monday, Pickering Council will vote - again - to take away my income. If they approve the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendation, I will have officially worked an entire year without pay. A single mother, elected by the people to represent them, will be punished for doing just that - representing the people.
Let’s be absolutely clear: I submitted a full rebuttal to the Integrity Commissioner’s Preliminary Findings on June 6, 2025 - two separate emails outlining my response in detail. That submission addressed every allegation with facts and evidence. But the final report - the one being used to justify this punishment - falsely claims that I didn’t respond at all.
That is a lie. And when I asked that the item be removed from the agenda so this glaring error could be corrected, they refused.
Not only is this a blatant violation of procedural fairness, it exposes the political agenda at play. While the full contents of my response may not have been reviewed, Council, the Clerk, the Mayor, and the Solicitor are fully aware that I responded - and they’re choosing to move forward anyway.
This isn’t about conduct. It’s about control.
Let’s talk about the source of these complaints. Aside from the first two sanctions - one brought by Councillor’s Brenner, Cook, and Nagy, and the second, which I strongly suspect also involved a member of Council - every single complaint since then has come directly from the CAO or the Mayor, the two highest-ranking powerholders in the corporation. In fact, there are additional complaints from the CAO that were submitted even before she submitted this current one, but the Integrity Commissioner is deliberately holding them back - waiting to bring them forward after Monday’s vote, so they can hit me with yet another 90-day suspension. That’s not accountability. That’s strategic punishment - carefully staggered to keep me under continuous attack and financially crippled.
And what kicked it all off? A simple, honest statement I made months ago:
“If I were Mayor, I would remove the CAO, the City Solicitor, and several Directors - because corruption starts at the top. I’d tear down city hall, rebuild it from the ground up, and give it back to the people.”
That’s the truth - and it shook them. Because if I win the mayoral seat in October 2026, the CAO could lose her $250,000-a-year job. That’s over $4,500 a week. So ask yourself: are these complaints really about Code violations - or are they about protecting power, position, and
paycheques?
And let’s not pretend this is a fair process. The report actually says it’s “unfortunate” that Council can’t bar me from attending meetings, as if my very presence on the floor is something they’d eliminate if they had the legal authority. They use words like “sentencing” and
“deterrence,” as though this were a criminal courtroom and I were some repeat offender, not a duly elected official fulfilling her mandate, by being the voice of the people who voted for me, and even those who didn’t.
Even the Mayor himself has said, on the record, “She hasn’t learned her lesson” - like I’m a
disobedient child who needs to be punished into submission. That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset behind these votes. They don’t want accountability.
They want obedience.
Let me be clear: Council does not have to accept the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner. The Municipal Act allows for alternatives: training, education, even community service. But they’ve never once considered a single other option. It’s always straight to the most extreme measure: take her pay. Why? Because that’s what hurts most.
And if Council votes in favour of this - knowing the report is flawed, knowing my response exists, knowing the bias behind these complaints - then every councillor who votes yes is complicit. It will say everything about their character, their cowardice, and their willingness to follow orders instead of doing what’s right.
This should concern every person in Pickering. If this council can financially destroy an elected official simply for telling the truth, what will they do to you when you speak up?
This is not democracy. This is dictatorship by majority vote. This is not discipline.
This is targeted political punishment.
I was elected to stand for the people. And no matter how many times they try to crush me, I will not back down.
Councillor Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor”
“Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head On And Rise Above It” - 2023 
SOME FIESTA OSHAWA’S SILENT FIESTAS
SOME FIESTA
OSHAWA’S SILENT FIESTAS
B.A. Psychology
Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers
ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000
Published Columns in Canada and The United States
Have we not learned anything from Albert Einstein quote, “"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,". Well, it appears not.
The City of Oshawa has great potentials but unfortunately it has become Southern Ontario’s best kept secret.
From the political in- fighting to the petty committees that have to vote on who will be turning the lights off or on. They lack direction, conviction and leadership as most of them have no clue what they are doing and the fact that they sit in a committee, it swells most of their heads to a new level of importance and along the way they loose the purpose of their role and become politicized. I have been in Oshawa for over 30 years and it has not changed and if anything it has got worst. The quality of life has deteriorated to the point that we have people living on our streets, crime and drug use at an all time high.
Events such as fiesta, cars on main and the peony festival... all great events that could bring millions to the city. Unfortunately, flop after flop. Year after year.
Do organizers not get it. Some have the gul to actually call flops a success as at times not only the local dignitaries and elected wanna be’s show up but the odd homeless, hooker and drug dealer may show up... and they claim this an overwhelming crowd.
If I had won the Mayors seat. I would have turned the City of Oshawa in to a major marketing machine. Each event including, “Fiesta”. I would have found corporate sponsors and investors. I would have created programs where competition was judged by celebrity judges. I would have had a strong presentation across all media platforms including radio, newsprint and television not to mention social media. Social media in my expert opinion is becoming a media relic.
Social media if for people that have little or no budget as it is cheap and anyone can get on social media. More elaborate professionally targeted social media is costly and out of range for many small businesses and most of these volunteer committees.
Then what is the secret to Oshawa success. Create, using the current IT at the city a top notch media team. Releasing all kinds of promotional interest to all interested across the planet. Across all media. I would get rid of the corporate discrimination and corporate bias... I would eliminate patronage favoritism that is widely practiced at the city of Oshawa. Not one ad from the City to promote CANADA DAY. The most important day of the year next to Christmas. And these hypocrites are the same people that push down our throats Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.... These are the same people that cry publicly ‘That they care about local small businesses’. I say Malarkey. If they did then why is the City of Oshawa loosing businesses right left and center?
Why is the quality of life in Oshawa at an all time low? There is no inclusion in Oshawa. They openly practice corporate discrimination and favoritism and EXCLUDE anyone that does not brown nose. Oshawa has to be the most discriminatory City in Durham. Look at their own City hall meetings. In-fighting. Petty arguments and no sign of corporate leadership or concern for the taxpayer. This is wrong. Let’s stop voting in the same old incumbents and expect change.
Remember Einsteins observation and use common sense.
June is Men’s Mental Health Month
June is Men’s Mental Health Month
By Dale Jodoin
It’s supposed to be a time to help men and boys feel brave enough to talk. To cry if they need to. To say, “I’m not okay,” and still feel like they matter.
But most people don’t even know it exists.
And the truth is, many men are struggling—but feel like they can’t say a word.
How Many Men Are There?
In Canada, there are more than 20 million men. In the United States, there are about 168 million men. In Europe, there are around 360 million men. That’s a lot of people.
That’s millions of fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, grandpas. But when it comes time to talk about their health—especially their mental health—something happens:
They’re forgotten.
It Starts Early
In schools, most teachers are women. About 65% of all teachers in Canada are female. That number’s even higher in elementary school.
This is not an attack on women—it’s a fact.
Boys grow up without male teachers or mentors. Most of them go through years of school without one man showing them how to be strong in the right way.
They’re told to “sit still,” “calm down,” and “stop being loud.” If they run around or get too excited, they get told they have problems.
Many get put on medicine just for acting like boys.
They’re not allowed to talk about how they feel. They’re told, “Be quiet. Don’t cry. Don’t complain.” Some boys even believe something is wrong with them just because they’re boys.
Then It Gets Worse
When boys become teenagers, the confusion grows.
They’re told being “manly” is bad. That it’s wrong to be strong or competitive. They start to think that being themselves is not okay. And if they speak up about feeling sad or lost, they get laughed at or called names.
In high school and college, many boys stop trying to date. They’re scared to talk to girls. They’re scared of being accused of something. They’re scared to even be near people sometimes.
They feel like being a man is dangerous or bad.
And when some men in college try to start clubs just for men—to talk and feel safe—they get shut down. People say those groups “hate women,” even if they don’t.
So the men go quiet again.
What About Fathers?
Here’s something wild.
Father’s Day is in June.
That’s during Men’s Mental Health Month. A time meant to honour fathers.
But instead of feeling honoured, many dads feel beaten down. They get taken away from their kids in court. They get told they don’t matter as much as moms. They lose jobs and homes. And nobody checks on their hearts.
Many boys grow up watching their dads get pushed around, or pushed away.
So what do those boys learn?
They learn not to trust the system. They learn that being a man means being alone.
No One is Attacking Women
Let’s be clear: this is not about taking anything from girls or women.
This is about boys and men having a space too.
If a group is just for girls, people say “good for them!” But when boys want a group just for them, they’re told it’s “not fair.”
That’s not equal.
All-boy clubs, spaces, and safe places are not wrong. They are needed.
It’s not about hate. It’s about healing. Boys need room to talk with other boys. They need male role models. They need men who’ve been through pain and made it out the other side. That doesn’t take away from anyone. It just gives boys something they’ve lost.
What We Can Do
So what’s the answer? Let’s start in schools.
Bring in male mentors. Real men. Police officers. Soldiers. Firefighters. Dads. Uncles. Coaches. Let them sit with the boys. Let them say, “You’re not broken. You’re just growing.”
Let’s build new boys’ clubs. No girls or women allowed. Not because we’re mean, but because boys need space. Real space. To talk. To laugh. To cry. To heal.
That’s not against equal rights. That is equal rights—for the boys.
Let’s make a new National Boys and Men’s Association. It can follow boys from middle school to college. Help them find friends. Help them find mentors. Help them find hope.
We used to have places like that.
They were called Boy Scouts and frat houses.
Now they’re called nothing.
It’s time to change that.
If We Don’t Act
If we don’t make space for boys to grow and talk, things will keep getting worse.
More young men will give up on dating. On love. On family. More will feel afraid to speak. More will stop trying.
And the saddest thing of all? Many will think it’s their fault.
But it’s not. It’s our fault—for staying quiet.
Let’s Be Brave
Let’s not whisper about this anymore.Let’s speak loud. Let’s speak clearly. Men’s Mental Health Month is not a joke. It’s not weak. It’s not something to hide.
It is brave. It is strong. It is needed.
And it should be taught in schools. Celebrated in towns.
Respected in the media. Supported in homes.
Let’s raise boys to be proud of being boys. Let’s show them how to be good men, not silent ones.
Because every boy deserves a hero.
And every man deserves a month where he’s not invisible.
Desjardins’ $7-Million Vacation-Pay Settlement Shakes Up an Everyday HR Practice
Friday, June 13, 2025
Know Your Numbers
Know Your Numbers
By Theresa Grant Real Estate columnist
I want to tell you about a story that was relayed to me through a friend. I came to know this by way of dinner conversation with this friend when I inquired about a mutual acquaintance. I was shocked but not surprised. We both knew this couple that were looking for a house to purchase. They had an agent and were actively looking. After seeing many houses this couple found a house they really loved so they put an offer on it. What happens when someone puts an offer on a house is, the listing agent sends out a message to anyone who has viewed the house either through an open house or a personal tour. The message is to let those people know that there has been an offer registered on that property in case they may have been mulling it over. It essentially brings everyone to the table. If you had walked through and were thinking about it, now was the time to make an offer and everyone gets a chance. It’s also how agents whip up bidding wars. That is exactly what happened in the case of this couple. They ended up losing the house to someone who bid higher than they could afford to go. This actually happened not once, but a couple of times. The couple grew somewhat despondent, thinking that they may never be able to purchase a house if this was the process with every offer. The couple were drawn to this beautiful house that had absolutely everything they wanted in their new home. They put a offer on the house knowing there would probably be at least one more coming in. They had a plan. When the agent came back to them and asked if they’d like to improve their offer, they said yes. They had launching into the bidding war. The problem being that they could only afford a certain number. They were just so desperate to get the house, they kept raising their offer. Eventually the agent informed them that they had won, and that the sellers were going to work with their offer. They were thrilled. Now came the real problem. While they had been approved for a certain dollar value in terms of the mortgage, the bank ordered an appraisal of the house. That is common in most cases. The appraisal came back far below the offer price on the house. That left the couple in a real bind. They could either come up with the difference between what the bank said the house was worth and what they had offered to pay for the house or, the sellers could sue them. This is a situation that played out during Covid-19 far too often as people got caught up in desperately trying to purchase something for fear they would not have an opportunity down the road. In this case the couple was able to come up with the difference, but in most cases the situation winds up in court. The whole process of house hunting can be an emotional roller coaster but my advise to everyone is to never panic, and always know your numbers.
The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring
The Endless #OpenToWork Banner Debate is Tiring
By Nick Kossovan
A straightforward belief: A person's results speak for themselves. Making excuses for being a "victim of," "not having the same advantages as," or blaming your parents, the government, and the stars not being aligned doesn't change this. A person's results are influenced by how they respond to their circumstances, their actions—playing the hand they're dealt—and the amount of effort—strategic effort—they put forth.
When it comes to job search results, such as landing interviews, your results are a testament to the effectiveness of your job search strategy.
I'm sure you've noticed that many job seekers on LinkedIn harshly and venomously critique the job search strategies of other seekers. It's no one else's business how a job seeker conducts their job search, who ultimately must live with the results their job search strategy achieves. This supposed "concern" for what other job seekers are doing is why LinkedIn has become a digital hub for juvenile debates, the most prevalent being whether to use LinkedIn's #OpenToWork banner feature, adding a green circle frame to your LinkedIn profile picture to inform LinkedIn members you're seeking a new job.
My initial take: "Care about what other people think, and you will always be their prisoner." - Lao Tzu. Why do so many people give a f*ck about what others do on social media? An incessant need "to be right" (You're right, everyone else is wrong.) hinders personal growth. What prevents us from following the harmony principle: you do you, and I will do me? Basically, mind your own business!
My second take: Before LinkedIn became the dumpster fire it is today, where job seekers congregate to bash employers, essentially biting the hands they want to feed them, and self-proclaiming "experts" offering pseudo job search advice, followed by a pitch for their overpriced, never-guaranteed service, LinkedIn was the go-to platform for announcing you were looking for a new job. Why LinkedIn? LinkedIn was where your current and former colleagues, friends, hiring managers, and recruiters hung out. These days, many managers, directors, executives and even recruiters avoid LinkedIn. They no longer see LinkedIn's value or want to spend their time wading through the victim mentality drama that dominates the platform.
Once upon a time, you could concentrate all your job search efforts on LinkedIn. Today, LinkedIn should make up only a small part of your job search activities. The #OpenToWork banner is merely one tool in your job search toolkit. It's unlikely that the banner alone will significantly influence your job search, either positively or negatively; however, every little bit helps.
The #OpenToWork banner debate generally centres on whether the green banner makes a person seem "desperate." The banner is simply a sign that you're open (available) to opportunities, serving the same purpose as a red neon 'vacancy' sign in the window of a roadside motel, indicating to travellers that rooms are available. Is the owner of the roadside motel making it known they have rooms available "desperate"?
· If I owned a retail store, I'd display a sign that tells people what I sell.
· If I were selling my house, I would put a sign on my front lawn.
· If I were opening a new dental clinic, I would advertise on billboards.
· If I were looking for a job, I'd...
What LinkedIn's #OpenToWork doesn't do is help you establish your value proposition. It's your responsibility to demonstrate how you can contribute measurable value to an employer's bottom line. Hiring managers filter LinkedIn profiles by skills, experience, and other factors related to their search criteria. Filtering by "Open-To-Work" won't bring up LinkedIn profiles of those who possess the skills and expertise they're seeking. However, if your profile appears in an employer's or recruiter's search and you've toggled on the "Open to Work" setting, which is unrelated to the #OpenToWork photo frame and, while visible to everyone, isn't something recruiters and employers can search for, it makes sense, at least I think so, to contact you first since you're advertising that you're available and therefore are more likely to be open to discussing an opportunity than someone who's currently employed and will need to be persuaded to leave their current position.
Advertising your availability doesn't make you appear desperate; it removes ambiguity, making it easier for recruiters and employers to recognize candidates who are actively job searching. You're not pleading for a job; you're helping employers find you, which reflects a proactive mindset. I don't know any recruiter or employer who holds a candidate's proactive job search against them. However, it's crucial to recognize that being easy to find on LinkedIn and the impression a recruiter or hiring manager gets from your profile are two entirely separate influences on your job search. Unless your profile clearly states, using quantifying numbers, the value you've added to your previous employers, your #OpenToWork banner's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. One last note: if you're participating in the #OpenToWork banner debate, stop it! It's not your concern how others conduct their job search. Keep your focus on what you need to do to achieve your desired job search results, which speak for themselves.
_____________________________________________________
Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.
Stop the Spin: Pickering Is Not the Fastest-Growing City - And Here’s Why That Matters
THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES ** A LOOK AT A FEW OF THEIR CURRENT PRIORITIES **
THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
** A LOOK AT A FEW OF THEIR CURRENT PRIORITIES **
THE CITY OF OSHAWA is a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and is specifically participating in FCM's Partners for Climate Protection program which helps municipalities reduce energy costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. Oshawa has also completed a Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of FCM programs. So, what exactly is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and what are their priorities?
FCM has been the national voice of municipal government in Canada since 1901. Their members include more than 2,100 municipalities of all sizes, from Canada's cities and rural communities, to northern communities and 20 provincial and territorial municipal associations. Together, they represent more than 92 percent of all Canadians. Municipal leaders from across Canada assemble each year to set FCM policy on key issues.
Historically, Canadian municipalities came together in 1901 as the Union of Canadian Municipalities. The Dominion Conference of Mayors was established in 1935 and by 1937 the two national bodies joined as the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities – renamed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 1976.
Now you know. As part of this educational column, I offer my readers a look at a few of the priorities upon which the FCM is currently focused:
CANADA-US RELATIONS: Trying to ensure the future prosperity of Canadian municipalities is absolutely critical amid current tensions between Canada and the United States. Cities like Oshawa are considered the engine of our country’s economic strength – driving growth, productivity and jobs. Amid the current economic climate over President Trump’s tariffs, the need to support and promote individual municipalities is paramount.
Measures need to be taken that will ensure a stronger and better Canada emerges from this crisis. That means prioritizing economic diversification, breaking down interprovincial trade barriers, prioritizing trade-enabling infrastructure, and recognizing that real economic growth is built by investing in communities, both urban and rural.
The FCM is calling on all levels of government to accelerate and increase investment in growth sustaining infrastructure, such as water systems, roads, and public transit. This may be seen as a straightforward way to create local jobs and enable the economic growth and diversification Canadians across the country deserve.
HOMELESSNESS: Canada’s homelessness crisis is reaching a breaking point, and municipalities are on the front lines. Tangible, permanent solutions are required so that local governments, including the Region of Durham, can tackle this unprecedented issue with a full list of appropriate measures. More and more Canadians are being pushed onto the streets and into encampments. Winter conditions in particular can take a harsh toll on the most vulnerable, while producing a complex human and financial burden which falls to local governments.
As shelters continue to fill up and community resources are stretched to the limit, the cracks in an underperforming federal homelessness strategy are on full display.
Local leaders throughout Canada and right here in Durham Region are working with limited resources. To ensure that municipalities are better equipped to truly address the situation, a new municipal growth framework is required, one that will provide communities with a fairer slice of existing resources.
HOUSING: Housing is the bedrock of livable and prosperous communities. Right now, the FCM is advocating for action on social and affordable housing so all Canadians have a decent place to call home. Recent polling indicates that 44% of Canadians feel housing affordability is their biggest worry.
This country is in the grip of a housing and affordability crisis. Housing is more than just a roof over one’s head, but a place to foster a sense of safety, belonging, and economic opportunity. Yet across Canada, safe and affordable housing options are dwindling.
Additionally, to ensure accessibility to the right type of housing, a coordinated effort is needed to increase the supply of non-profit housing, including co-op and non-profit rental housing for middle-income households and deeply affordable social housing for low-income Canadians. A more equitable funding model for municipalities is required to support the growth these communities have experienced over the last number of years.
Fortunately, there have been some major gains to help address gaps in housing and related infrastructure needs. A $6-billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund was announced in 2024 for housing-related infrastructure needs. The Housing Accelerator Fund, which was launched in 2023, helps municipalities access support needed to increase the right kind of housing supply for their communities. The National Housing Strategy, launched in 2017, supports municipalities in replacing, maintaining and building new social and affordable housing.
Leadership from all levels of government is required to tackle the housing affordability crisis, which shows no signs of abating.
MUNICIPAL GROWTH: Investing in infrastructure is the best way to turn Canada’s population growth into thriving communities and prevent a serious infrastructure gap. Ontario has experienced record population growth, and the question now is, how do we ensure our communities remain great places to live?
With 1.2 million new residents in the last year, municipalities are encountering a dual challenge: building enough housing to restore affordability while ensuring local infrastructure is sufficient to support a good quality of life.
PUBLIC TRANSIT: Public transit is the backbone of livable, competitive and sustainable cities. It’s no coincidence that the world’s most dynamic jurisdictions feature some of the best transit systems available. Modern and efficient public transit increases productivity, cuts commute times and reduces pollution—all while attracting top employers and skilled workers. Transit services are also disproportionately relied upon by women, students, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Quality transit creates equitable, vibrant cities.
Transit solutions are needed across the country in rural and regional communities as well as in our largest cities. The Rural Transit Solutions Fund provides $250 million over five years starting in 2021, for planning and design grants, capital procurement, and construction for a wide range of transit modes.
In the 19th century, railway systems were built at great cost to link regions right across this nation, and in the 20th century Canada reached out to the world through our highways and coastal ports. Tomorrow, our public transit will shape the next generation of livable, sustainable and world-class Canadian cities and regions.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has pledged to continue advocating for municipalities to be sure their citizens' needs are reflected in federal policies and programs. Year after year, their work benefits every municipal government and taxpayer in Canada, and their programming delivers tools that help municipalities tackle local challenges.
There is strength in numbers.
Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure
Conservative Party of Canada – success and failure
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
As world affairs return focus to the geopolitical scene, and we have a strong minority Liberal Government for the fourth time in Canada, one may wonder why the Conservative Party was not able to form the current government. Since 2015 when PM Stephen Harper lost to the liberals, the Conservative Party has been unable to rise and form government.
We need to find the root causes of this situation and that is not so easy. However, we can analyze some factors that may go some way toward explaining this failure and suggest ways to potentially correct the situation and steer the Party towards future success.
In this last round, the Party lost a remarkable 27-point lead in opinion polls and failed to win an election for the fourth time in a row. While it gained seats and earned almost 42% of the popular vote - its highest share since the party was founded in 2003 - its leader, Pierre Poilievre, was voted out of the seat he has held for the past 20 years.
One of the main problems was the candidate selection process. Not only was it tainted by undue influences, but the Party was late in nominating candidates, thus reducing the time candidates had to get themselves known to their electorate. They had more than two years to prepare for the election before it was called. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not seem to have been interested in choosing professionally qualified candidates. Instead, they selected candidates based on personal relationships with people close to the leader’s circle and staffers.
Much of the time, they overruled their own established rules, which was allowed by one toothless and apparently useless Conservative Party National Council. There were many cases of potential good and experienced candidates, who were denied the opportunity to be nominated. There were even situations where preferred candidates were nominated in new ridings even before a riding association was constituted.
Then came the resignation of Justin Trudeau on January 6 2025. After a short leadership contest organized by the Liberal Party Mark Carney was chosen as Leader and Prime Minister. An experienced professional with glowing qualifications, albeit non-political ones, he immediately called an election.
In the mean time, our neighbour to the South made some unfriendly gestures towards Canada, and the Conservative party leadership was slow to react. Most Canadians perceived this hesitancy in reacting to the American threats menacing our national existence as lack of courage and confidence.
The combination of all of these mistakes contributed to the sudden evaporation of the Party’s impressive lead in the polls built up over the Trudeau years, and the ultimate loss of the election.
The Conservatives have once again become the official opposition, and are stuck with a dilemma. What, if anything, should they do differently in the coming years, than they did before the election?
Do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who did not quite win? And, how do you answer that question when you don’t know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn’t respond effectively when the playing field changed?
As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them in second place once again.
Yes, Poilievre has done better than the previous leaders and Poilievre was not necessarily disliked by people; he was simply less liked than his opponent Mark Carney. In short order, Carney became the most positively viewed political leader in the country, generating positive impressions we have not seen since 2015.
In a campaign where trust and risk were key themes that made all the difference, Carney consistently outperformed Poilievre in leadership attributes such as trustworthiness, competence, and experience.
Their arrogance and inertia didn’t allow Pollievre’s, campaign staff, headed by Jenni Byrne, to see the shift of the electorate towards liberals in time to react effectively.
If they ever want to form the government, the Conservative Party needs to look at the lessons learned in the last campaign and needs to make some radical changes.
The beginning of these necessary changes starts with the Conservative Party's National Council, which is scheduled to meet on June 14 for its quarterly meeting. They will decide, among other issues, the timing and venue of the next policy convention.
So let us see if any changes are forthcoming in the Conservative party and its leader Pierre Poilievre. He appears to remain committed to key strategist and enforcer Jenni Byrne; a woman whose ability to make enemies is legendary and whose treatment of the Conservative caucus evokes thoughts of the Commissars in the soviet regime.
Indeed, whether or not Byrne keeps her job will be a telling sign of whether Poilievre’s support for change includes change on his own behalf.
In conclusion, having failed to react successfully to changed circumstances in the latest election, Conservatives need time to better prepare for the next one.
Let us hope that their leaders see the light sooner rather than later. It seems to me that a little hubris would not be out of place.
What do you think?
Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price
Ontario Courts to Employers: Update Your Contracts or Pay the Price
By Tahir Khorasanee, LL.M.
Senior Associate, Steinbergs LLP
Ontario employers are being put on high alert: outdated, vague, or improperly drafted employment agreements are increasingly being rejected by courts, often at great cost to the employer. A wave of recent decisions, including two in June 2025, has reaffirmed that poorly worded termination and layoff clauses can leave employers on the hook for significant severance obligations.
In one case, the Ontario Superior Court awarded 16 months' notice to an employee who had been placed on a temporary layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The employer assumed it had the right to lay off the employee due to the pandemic's exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that because the employment agreement did not contain a valid and enforceable layoff clause, the layoff constituted a constructive dismissal.
In another high-profile decision, the Township of Ignace was ordered to pay damages in a wrongful dismissal suit after failing to comply with contractual and statutory obligations. The employee was dismissed without sufficient cause or notice, and the municipality's failure to adhere to the Employment Standards Act (ESA) requirements proved costly.
These rulings underscore a broader legal trend in Ontario: the courts are scrutinizing employment contracts more rigorously than ever, and any clause that fails to comply with the ESA may be deemed unenforceable in its entirety.
Why Contracts Are Being Struck Down
Under the ESA, employees are entitled to minimum protections regarding termination, notice, severance, and conditions of layoff. If an employment agreement includes language that even potentially denies or undercuts those entitlements, it risks being void.
One common example is a "just cause" termination clause that defines cause more broadly than the ESA. Because the ESA has a higher threshold for when notice can be withheld, these overreaching definitions can lead to the entire termination provision being invalidated.
Similarly, layoff clauses must explicitly authorize the employer to place an employee on a temporary layoff in accordance with the ESA. If the agreement is silent or ambiguous on this right, any layoff may be interpreted as a constructive dismissal, triggering full common law notice obligations.
Key Clauses That Must Be Updated
Legal experts now urge employers to review the following clauses in all employment agreements:
Layoff Clauses: Must expressly permit layoffs under ESA terms. Without it, employers risk exposure to constructive dismissal claims.
Termination Clauses: Must clearly state that employees will receive at least ESA minimums, and must not attempt to contract out of those minimums either directly or indirectly.
Just Cause Provisions: Avoid overly broad language. Limit definitions to what the ESA recognizes.
Severability Clauses: Although helpful, they will not save a termination provision that violates ESA minimums.
Real-World Impact
When a contract is struck down, courts do not revert to some "middle ground." Instead, they fall back on the common law, which typically awards one month of notice per year of service, and sometimes significantly more depending on the employee's age, position, and job market conditions.
For example, in the COVID-related case, the terminated employee had a relatively short tenure but was still awarded 16 months of pay because the court found the layoff unjustified and the termination clause unenforceable. This is a stark reminder that employees don’t need decades of service to be awarded lengthy notice periods.
Broader Context: Uncertain Economy, Increased Scrutiny
These decisions come at a time of economic uncertainty, where layoffs, restructurings, and cost-cutting are common. Employers that rely on outdated contract templates are particularly vulnerable.
The pandemic shifted the legal landscape. It exposed just how many employers failed to include valid layoff language in their contracts. Now courts are closing the door on those arguments.
Moreover, the courts are showing less willingness to "blue pencil" or fix flawed clauses. Instead, they are invalidating entire sections, resulting in greater liability than many employers anticipate.
Practical Tips for Employers
If you're an employer in Ontario, here are steps to reduce risk:
Audit Your Existing Agreements: Especially for long-standing employees. Even minor language issues can render termination clauses void.
Use ESA-Compliant Language: Clauses must reflect the exact language and requirements of the ESA. Courts look at technical accuracy.
Clarify Just Cause and Termination Rights: Ensure your contracts don’t appear to waive ESA rights or exaggerate your grounds to terminate without notice.
Include Layoff Provisions: If you foresee needing flexibility during economic downturns, ensure temporary layoffs are explicitly permitted.
Consult Employment Counsel: Generic templates downloaded from the internet may not be valid in Ontario. Legal review can save six-figure payouts.
The Bottom Line
In both the COVID layoff and Ignace cases, employers relied on outdated or unenforceable agreements. The result? A common law windfall for the employees and avoidable legal costs for the employers.
As more employment cases arise post-pandemic, courts are sending a clear message: contracts must be clear, compliant, and current. A few pages of well-drafted language can mean the difference between a manageable notice payout and a six-figure judgment.
For Ontario businesses, the time to act is now. Review your employment agreements, revise your contracts, and protect your business before it becomes the next cautionary tale in a courtroom.
Because in 2025, ignorance of contract law is not just costly—it’s entirely avoidable.
Saturday, June 7, 2025
Judging an Employer by Their Hiring Process is a Mistake
Judging an Employer by Their Hiring Process is a Mistake
By Nick Kossovan
"People are so quick to judge and make decisions for themselves about situations they know absolutely nothing about." - LeAnn Rimes, American singer and songwriter.
LinkedIn would be eerily quieter—I'd estimate 30% fewer rants and significantly less nonsensical drama—if job seekers stopped perpetuating the false narrative that their experiences with a company's Director of Talent Acquisition or Human Resources Manager reflect the company's culture. It's perplexing that many job seekers judge a company based on just a few interactions. This shortsightedness does not do their job search any favours.
Many job seekers like to proclaim, "A company's hiring process is a reflection of its culture." This is a limiting belief. Just because Mary in HR is having a bad day doesn't mean all her colleagues are equally miserable. Terrance, your interviewer and potential boss, ghosting you after a second interview says everything about him and nothing about the company itself.
One, two, or even five employees' behaviours—especially within a large company—don't represent the entire company. Assuming that being ghosted—as off-putting or even hurtful as the behaviour is—is indicative of the company's culture demonstrates a failure on the job seeker's part to grasp the wisdom behind the adage "Never judge a book by its cover." If I have a poor customer experience in a department store's sporting goods section, does that mean I'll face the same issues in their shoe or toy departments? Of course not! My negative experience with a specific employee isn't a reflection of the entire store.
A company is essentially a group of individuals under one umbrella. Every person approaches their job differently, influenced by their own agendas and priorities. One nuance that few job seekers understand, which they should at least try to, is that an employee's human dynamics dictate their priorities and, consequently, their behaviour. An employee aiming to become the VP of Customer Experience will engage with their role considerably differently than someone who's coasting along, which arguably is a large percentage of employees.
It's unrealistic to expect that every interaction within a large company—between employees and customers or within the company itself—will accurately reflect the company's culture. Just as you wouldn't judge a restaurant by one dish—though we all know people who do—you shouldn't judge an employer solely based on your experience with an HR employee or the hiring manager. Instead, take a more comprehensive view of the company.
Anyone who's spent time in the corporate world knows that every workplace has its share of "less than ideal," bad apples, so to speak, including some in recruitment roles. A negative interaction with an HR employee at a multinational pharmaceutical company doesn't necessarily reflect the company's overall professionalism or work ethic.
Referring back to the adage, "Never judge a book by its cover," when job searching means looking beyond the gatekeepers of the hiring process. Conduct in-depth research into the company's culture and values. This could involve speaking with current and former employees, reading the company's most recent annual report, which outlines its financial performance, operational activities, and future prospects, and even visiting the company's premises. Learn as much as you can to gain a clear understanding of what to expect as an employee.
It's worth noting that I've learned from experience that an employer can have a stellar hiring process, all nice and shiny, yet their workplace resembles a dumpster fire—again proving the wisdom behind not judging a book by its cover. Never assume!
Dismissing a potential employer based on one or two negative interactions could mean missing out on a position that may lead to significant career growth and satisfaction. The key to a rewarding career is to maintain an open mind and assess opportunities from a broad perspective.
Some of the best companies to work for have frustrating hiring processes. Throughout my career, I've landed several jobs I've enjoyed, even though I faced an aggravating hiring experience with the HR manager, who seemed determined to "test" my patience and tolerance level.
Career-minded individuals take the time to understand the companies to which they are applying. They don't allow one negative interaction to shape their entire perception of a company. Being easily influenced is lazy. Those serious about their career know that human resources personnel are known for frequently moving around, making it myopic to judge a company solely based on its hiring or interviewing practices or a person's attitude.
You don't need me to tell you that job opportunities are scarce, particularly desirable ones. As artificial intelligence and automation continue to infiltrate workplaces, providing employers with increased efficiencies and significant payroll savings, well-paying white-collar jobs are becoming scarcer.
Judging an entire company based on the behaviour of a few employees or a department is shortsighted. Don't let a single bad experience close the door on your future. Always keep in mind that recruiters and HR personnel are merely the front of the company—of course, this isn't the case when you're being interviewed by the person you'd be reporting to—hence the truism in the second century AD, the Roman author Juvenal words, "Fronti nulla fides" which translates to: "Never have faith in the front."
ONTARIO’S BILL 5 RECEIVES ROYAL ASSENT ** RADICAL OPPOSITION ASSURES US IT’S A GOOD THING **
ONTARIO’S BILL 5 RECEIVES ROYAL ASSENT
** RADICAL OPPOSITION ASSURES US IT’S A GOOD THING **
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF ONTARIO, the Honourable Edith Dumont, granted royal assent to the Ford government’s new mining legislation on June 5, officially passing it into law at Queen’s Park on Thursday. Bill 5, known as Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, will create special economic zones where certain projects can bypass various provincial laws.
The bill is a positive step forward for this province as it will permit major infrastructure and resource extraction projects to happen faster by reducing delays and eliminating duplication in the approvals process. Most observers see this as an urgent response to the economic threats posed by U.S. President Donald Trump and his tariffs. In addition, the bill will reduce the regulatory shackles that hinder many companies from operating effectively within northern Ontario.
Premier Doug Ford has said the province must focus on accelerating infrastructure projects, particularly mines, as it finds itself in a "critical time" against U.S. tariffs. "We just want to get projects moving forward as quickly as possible," he said at Queen's Park last week. "There's no longer time to sit around and wait 10 years as we do an environmental assessment and everything else." He assured Ontarians that his government is "going to make sure that we always do environment assessments” but went on to say, "I'm not against it, I'm just against taking five years to get one done.”
Ford has cited the need to move more quickly on mining places such as the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in northern Ontario in order to strengthen the province’s economy.
Of course, the need to anticipate pushback from radical interest groups and others is paramount, and when asked as to whether he would use the Notwithstanding Clause in the face of any future court decisions that might try to deem Bill 5 as unconstitutional, the Premier said he would “cross that bridge” when he comes to it.
As part of the process still to come, the Province has committed to consult with Indigenous leaders over the summer months, and not designate any areas as special economic zones until that process is complete. Three First Nations have signed various agreements already in an effort to help the province build roads to the affected regions, and to develop the areas that connect to the provincial highway system.
Of course, as one might expect, a host of other First Nations leaders have said they won’t cooperate whatsoever under any conditions. Dozens flew in from the far north to Queen’s Park for the purpose of watching the Legislature pass Bill 5, and to rain down jeers upon politicians as they passed the bill into law. Many were forced to leave the chamber as a result.
Of course, the opposition doesn’t stop there, as radical environmentalists and those claiming to champion what they see as civil liberties attempt to capture as much air time as they can among national and international media outlets. Shouts of sanctimonious outrage could also be heard from various unions who see certain labour laws as somehow under threat due to the desire by the Province to simply speed up necessary approvals.
A glance at the Op-Ed pages among major newspapers will show letters-to-the-editor that offer up typical opposition party talking points that try to accuse the Ford government of overriding all the rules – meaning whatever the opposition parties are demanding on any given day. Apocalyptic pronouncements of so-called underfunded schools, crumbling higher education, hallway medicine, and even the proliferation of what has become known as ‘homelessness’ are being used to create an atmosphere of what this columnist identifies as simple comic relief.
Ontario’s Minister of Energy & Mines, Stephen Lecce, described the intent of Bill 5 in very clear terms when he told the Legislature, “We have a ‘one project, one process’ framework. It’s designed to deliver coordination…because it takes thousands of days to get to yes. We brought forward this bill to introduce benchmarks on government, and government alone, to set service standards and certainty…There are billions of dollars of investment that left Ontario, businesses that stalled or projects that never got off the ground because the Opposition designed a system to halt it to ‘no’ …We know 15 years is too long. We know 15 years to open a mine is unacceptable. We know it as amongst the slowest in the world.”
On the matter of Indigenous participation, the Minister went on say, “Many Indigenous nations and chiefs have said to us, “Look, we want to buy in, but not many entities or people or businesses or First Nation governments have access to hundreds of millions of dollars to buy into these equity projects,” which is a fair concern, and which thus disabled their ability to be equity partners or to own the project. So, in this most recent budget our Premier and Minister of Finance tabled a plan to put $3 billion for equity participation on the table.”
In contrast, perhaps the most glaring example of comic relief came from the Green Party’s Aislinn Clancy, who offered these intelligent remarks, “I’d like to say a few words about what this bill means to me, my community, the people who care about the planet, because there is no planet B. We try to go to Mars all the time and see what it’s like up there; we haven’t found life, so we have to really work hard to protect the planet that we have. And as Justin Bieber would like to say to the Premier, it’s not too late to say sorry and rescind this bill.”
But she didn’t end there. “I think this is our Amazon rainforest. This is our Avatar movie. Too many movies have been produced right now that show that when we put a price on the minerals without consideration for the future of humanity and the destruction caused in the pursuit of excess profit. So this is not about trying to survive; these are not people who are just trying to make do; this is about excess profit of the super-wealthy who are going to be capitalizing on this.”
One could be forgiven for thinking those comments were in fact written by a preschooler rather than an elected member of the Legislature, however I can assure you they came right out of Hansard.
In the meantime, expect a lot of saber-rattling from various Indigenous groups within the province, as well as a host of creative fiction coming from environmentalists attempting to forward their de-growth agenda.
Let the summer follies begin. 
D-Day anniversary 2025
D-Day anniversary 2025
by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC
FEC, CET, P.Eng.
Former Member of Parliament
Pickering-Scarborough East
In Canada today, we are at war with, uncertain economic times, strained relations with our neighbor to the south and international tension due to the continuing war in Ukraine and the Middle East. We therefore need to remember as never before, and reflect on the sacrifices that our ancestors have made for us. They should not have fought in vain to secure our freedom, to keep democracy alive in our country and the comfortable standard of living that we have enjoyed for generations.
It is time to cherish their memory and learn from their patriotism. We need to ensure that their efforts to win over the evils of fascism were not in vain. Particularly during this new dark period that threatens our very existence, we need to keep up our courage and stand up against our adversaries as our ancestors have done. We need to stay strong in the face of today’s unprecedented challenges.
We are currently facing a crucial time in our history in fighting the evil of an unknown upcoming new world order and related societal malaises. In combination, the consequences of the past pandemic and social dysfunction are similar to fighting a new kind of world war with worldwide implications and yet unforeseen effects on Canadians.
On 6 June we are marking the eighty-one anniversary of D-Day, the beginning of the Battle of Normandy, along a 100 km stretch of French coastline across the English Channel from Great Britain. This was the largest seaborne invasion in history and a crucial day in winning the war against evil; Nazi Germany.
The assault on the beaches of Normandy by British, American, and Canadian troops on the 6th of June 1944, who would then fight their way across Western Europe, has gone down in history as a memorable event. The codenames of where the troops landed — Omaha and Utah for the Americans, Gold and Sword for the British, and Juno for the Canadians — remain familiar today. The Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, marked the beginning of the end of six long years of conflict between Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the Allied forces.
The development of the role for Canada in the D-Day invasion has a history going back a few years. Following the Dunkirk evacuation Canadians began to come over to Great Britain. They were well-prepared and took on
the role of defending the British Isles. They built up around the south coast of England and operated in a defensive and anti-invasion role from May 1940 to July 1943. At that time the 1st Canadian Division was detached and sent to Italy, but the bulk of Canadian forces remained in Britain for all those years.
Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen played a critical role in the Allied invasion of Normandy, beginning the bloody campaign to liberate Western Europe from Nazi occupation. Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into the invasion area on D-Day, including 14,000 Canadians at Juno Beach. The Royal Canadian Navy contributed 110 ships and 10,000 sailors and the RCAF contributed 15 fighter and fighter-bomber squadrons to the assault. Total Allied casualties on D-Day reached more than 10,000. By the end of the Battle of Normandy, the Allies had suffered 209,000 casualties, including more than 18,700 Canadians. Over 5,000 Canadian soldiers died.
From the D-Day landings on the 6th of June 1944 through to the encirclement of the German army at Falaise on the 21st of August this was one of the pivotal events of the Second World War and the scene of some of Canada's greatest feats of arms.
Juno Beach was the Allied code name for a 10 km stretch of French coast. It fell to more than 14,000 volunteer soldiers from across Canada, under Major-General Rod Keller, commander of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division, to storm the Juno Beach coast line. They seized the beach and its seaside villages while under intense fire from German defenders — an extraordinary example of military skill, reinforced by countless acts of personal courage. The 3rd Infantry Division took heavy casualties in its first wave of attack but took control of the beach by the end of the day. There were 1,074 Canadian casualties, including 359 killed.
All things considered, the Canadian troops did very well on D-Day. The Canadians and the British in the Gold and Juno sector made it farther inland than any of the other invasion forces. They had managed to link up their forward units some distance inland, which was a measure of success. At the end of the day, the Queen’s Own Rifles had actually captured its objective, which was short of the overall divisional objective but goes to show that some of the Canadian units were quite successful in the first hours.
Their sacrifices will not be forgotten even though their generation is starting to fade into the fog of history. For the time being D-Day still seems to be in the Canadian public’s consciousness. Their memory must be preserved for the millennials and generations to come in order to eliminate the root causes of further conflagrations.
D-Day embodied the courage and determination to prevail in that war. It was fought over issues that are still alive today — such as ideology, globalism and injustice. It was an exceptionally difficult and hazardous military operation.
It was an operation in which Canadians took a major central role in the war to preserve freedom and democracy. For these reasons and more, it’s important to keep the memory of D-Day alive.
The dead, along with scores of other Canadians killed in the fighting during the weeks that followed, are buried in the serene and beautiful Canadian War Cemetery at Bény-sur-Mer, just behind Juno Beach. This, and numerous other memorials throughout Courseulles, Bernières and St. Aubin-sur-Mer, commemorate Canada’s sacrifice on D-Day. A private museum, the Juno Beach Centre, overlooking the beach at Courseulles, also tells the story of Canada’s role in the invasion of Normandy.
Every year on the 6th of June, the people of the villages along Juno Beach pay tribute to the men and women who fought and died there. They parade through streets festooned with maple leaf flags and hold services and vigils along parts of the seawall, in memory of their Canadian liberators.
Long live their memory!
Long live the courage those men and women demonstrated. May our current generations and governments show just as much courage in our current hour of need.
We can’t afford to wait for someone else to fight for our rights and freedom.
We must all take a stand against the tyranny of incompetent leadership, political correctness at the expense of merit, and the stripping away of our individual freedoms in the name of political expediency.
Wake up Canada
Christians Told to Stay Quiet: Why Free Speech Feels One-Sided
Christians Told to Stay Quiet: Why Free Speech Feels
One-Sided
By Dale Jodoin
Across Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe, many Christians feel like they are being told to sit down, be quiet, and not speak their beliefs. People say, "You can go to church. You can pray. Just don’t talk about it in public."
That may sound fair to some. But for those who believe deeply in their faith, this is not freedom. It is silent. Christians are allowed to worship privately, but if they speak up on issues like assisted suicide or abortion, they are called far-right, hateful, or even dangerous. This double standard is hard to ignore.
In England, a woman was arrested for standing silently and praying near an abortion clinic. She didn’t block the entrance. She didn’t shout. She just stood there. The police said she was breaking a law. But how can silent prayer be a crime? This is not the freedom people fought for.
In Canada and the U.S., Christian charities run food banks, addiction centres, and shelters. They help anyone in need, no questions asked. But the Canadian government is now considering removing their charitable status. If that happens, it will cost the country millions. It would also hurt the poor, the hungry, and the homeless who rely on these programs. Is this about fairness, or about punishing Christians for their beliefs?
Christians are not the only ones facing problems. Today, Jewish people are being attacked more often in many countries. In the past, Christians were often the ones to speak up for them. But now, many Christians are afraid to speak at all. They worry about being called names or targeted for simply having a different view.
When people on the political left protest, they sometimes damage buildings or take over streets. Still, the media often says, "They are passionate. They care about justice." But when Christians hold a sign or speak at a peaceful rally, they are called bigots or extremists. That’s a double standard.
The government says we have free speech. But it doesn’t feel that way when one group is told to stay silent while another can say or do almost anything. Free speech means everyone should be able to share their views—even when we disagree.
Many people forget that most of the soldiers who fought in World War I and World War II were Christians. They believed in freedom, in God, and in standing for what was right. Today, those voices are fading. Fewer people stand up for their beliefs, especially if they are Christian. Some fear losing their jobs. Others fear attacks online. Some just feel alone.
Jesus once said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." This meant that governments have power, but not all power. Our beliefs, our hearts, and our souls do not belong to the government. They belong to God. But today, it feels like the government wants everything—including your faith.
Christians do not want to control others. They want the same rights as everyone else. They want to help their neighbours, speak their beliefs, and live with honesty and love. They are not trying to hurt anyone. They are trying to live true to their faith.
If Canada takes away Christian charity rights, thousands of people will suffer. The homeless won’t get meals. Addicts won’t get support. Families in crisis will be left without help. These charities have been serving the country for decades. And now, they’re being told they might not be allowed to do so anymore.
This is not about one religion being better than another. It’s not about pushing faith on others. It’s about fairness. It’s about letting Christians speak, serve, and believe without fear.
We live in a time when people say they want equality. But real equality means protecting everyone’s voice—even the ones you don’t agree with. Christians are not perfect. No group is. But they deserve the right to speak without being punished.
The sad truth is many Christians now stay quiet. They go to church. They go home. They keep their faith private. But that’s not how it used to be. Christians used to speak for those who had no voice. Now, they are being told they have no right to speak at all.
So what happens next? Will we keep quiet out of fear? Or will we speak with kindness, with care, and with courage?
Christians are part of this country. They work hard, pay taxes, raise families, and help neighbours. They are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to be heard. Isn’t that what free speech is really about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)