51st

“I live a dream in a nightmare world” Always Remember That The cosmic blueprint of your life was written in code across the sky at the moment you were born. Decode Your Life By Living It Without Regret or Sorrow. - ONE DAY AT A TIME - 51st By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States I think in the new year I am going to enroll in a course and learn how to speak American. Ok, stop laughing. Let’s take a look at the possible surrender, invasion, liberation of Canada by/with the United States. I say surrender.... because as it stands Canadian politics is at an all time low. The Liberals have ruined the country by compromising just about every aspect of Canadian economics, politics. To a point that Canadian society has stopped to exist and Canada has become a cocktail of third world interests. For God’s sake we have be careful when we wish each other ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’ as to not offend anyone. How about the fact that someone gets offended at our tradition in itself is offensive and bias if not prejudice towards Canadian traditions, customs and culture. But we must stay silent and accept. As it stand no matter who wins... It be the same old same old. Only difference is that the new changes will only ad up to increase taxes in order to pay the previous regimes mistakes. Can we clearly say that the NDP or the Conservatives are or will be any different than the Liberals? Look at the policies. Look at the leaders of the parties. Look at the parties themselves. All three are rooted in the ‘dog eat dog’, mentality. It is not about the quality of leadership. It is about who you know. Look in Oshawa. The local MP Collin Carrie. Served for God knows how many terms. What has he done for Oshawa? Now he finally is retiring... and instead of looking for a candidate with real credentials. A local community business leader at the least. No. The party selects Collin’s assistance. Patronage for service rendered over the years. Like really this is the best selection to lead us? Collin’s personal assistant. I say let’s surrender to the U.S. and reap the benefits of a Trump no nonsense administration. Our dollar would automatically go up forty cents. Our gas and food prices would drop. I say, let the U.S. invade Canada. It appears that just about every other nation has already. Through our multicultural initiative. It is almost shameful to be Canadian. Canadians are forced to accept foreign customs, tradition and cultures. It is not about integrating but forced compliance or else be labeled. I say, let’s let the U.S. liberate us from our own stupidity. Let’s put common sense back in governance. As it stands discrimination has transformed from race to race to corporate, political, social and many other forms all in the guise of equality. Inclusion, diversity... meanwhile society has rotted to a point that our Canadian jobs are going to India, Phillipines and other third world countries. While our own youth can’t get work unless they are of a particular race or speak a particular language. Our youth can’t afford to buy homes as minimum wages does not even pay for rentals. We need Canada back. If we can’t have it. Let’s consider 51 as a real option.

Flipping houses

Flipping houses By Theresa Grant - Real Estate Columnist The idea of flipping a house sounds great on the surface. You can purchase a house that has been completely neglected and in need of some serious help, or you can simply purchase a house that hasn’t seen much updating through the years, if any at all. Either type of purchase will work for a flip. The whole idea of a flip is to take a property that you purchased on the cheap, rip out the old and put in the new. Once you have completed your flip, the idea is to be able to put it back on the market for a profit. It sounds much easier than it actually is in most cases. Usually, the type of property you are able to purchase on the cheap may be very old. With very old houses come a whole slew of issues. You may find when you start to rip things apart that there could be asbestos in the house. That calls for immediate remediation, and that can be costly. Another costly item can be having to bring things up to code. When I purchase an old Semi in downtown Oshawa several years back, it had no air conditioning. For me, air conditioning was a must have. I called a company to come and install it and was told I’d have to have my gas meter moved. That cost me a few hundred dollars to have that done before we could even get to the installation of the air conditioning. The point I’m trying to make is that for every intended cost, you may get hit with other unknown costs related to what you are trying to accomplish. We’ve all seen the HGTV programs that show houses being gutted and redone with stunning results. While completely redoing a house can bring immense satisfaction, if you are trying to make a living at it, well, that can be challenging. House flipping became popular kin the mid 2000s during the housing bubble. Since then, flipping has seen several cycles of popularity. The height of the flipping craze came in 2005 with 8.2% of single-family homes sold being flipped. This was due to rising house prices and easier access to mortgages. In 2008 the housing market collapsed, and flippers faced having to sell at lower prices. 2022 saw flipping houses hit its highest rate since 2005 with 8.4% of all home sales being flipped. Just a year later in 2023, flipping saw nearly a 30% drop, however it is on the rise again. There is a house on a street in Central Oshawa that garnered a lot of attention when it was purchased, redone and then unfortunately got caught in the market turndown. It sat on the market for months, went power of sale, and eventually sold for a staggering $300,000 loss. Flipping a house is not easy. If you are thinking of trying your hand at it, set a budget, focus on what sells as opposed to what you like personally. Have a game plan, hire trades people so you can get in and get out. Perhaps most of all, be prepared for the unexpexted. Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

My Christmas Wish List

By Lisa Robinson To The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Room 281, Legislative Building, Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 Premier@ontario.ca Subject: Protecting Democracy and Safeguarding the Voice of the People File: A1400 - 001 Dear Premier Ford, I am writing to you with deep concern regarding the most recent announcement to amend the Municipal Act. This proposal poses a serious threat to the democratic principles that underpin our nation and erodes the fundamental rights of Canadians to choose the elected officials who represent their voices. The introduction of such sweeping changes must be reconsidered, as it leaves the door wide open for abuse of power, corruption, and collusion among key municipal actors. Allowing council members, mayors, and city-paid Integrity Commissioners to collectively wield the power to remove an elected official sets a dangerous precedent. This approach is ripe for manipulation, retaliation, and political weaponization. It creates an environment where those in positions of influence can conspire to silence dissenting voices, punish political opponents, and skew future election outcomes—in essence, a form of election tampering. The power to elect and remove officials must remain firmly in the hands of the people, not in the hands of those who stand to benefit from their removal. The existing framework already includes mechanisms to address legitimate concerns like harassment, discrimination, or misconduct under workplace and human rights legislation. There is no justifiable reason to grant city councils and Integrity Commissioners the power to overrule the people's choice, especially when existing legal pathways are sufficient to address these issues. The City of Pickering is a stark example of how this system is already being exploited. Council has repeatedly targeted me, Councillor Lisa Robinson, by suspending my pay on three separate occasions—not for misconduct, but for exercising my right to freedom of expression and standing up for the beliefs and priorities of my constituents. My advocacy for transparent governance, my support for the principle that only governmental flags should fly on government buildings, and my call for fair and inclusive access to public restrooms are rooted in the will of the people I represent. Most recently, I face yet another attempt to strip me of three months' pay—my only source of income as a single mother. My so-called "offense" was stating, “If I were to become mayor, I would use strong mayor powers to remove the CAO, city solicitor, and a few directors because corruption starts at the top. I would tear down city hall, build it back up, and give it back to the people.” This is not misconduct—this is political expression. Every elected official should have the right to propose changes, share their vision, and advocate for what they believe is in the best interest of their constituents. Punishing this kind of expression is a gross misuse of power. Meanwhile, there have been far more serious transgressions by other council members that have gone unpunished. One council member has made violent threats towards me, stating they would "stick a knife in [my] back, twist it slowly, and [I] would never know until he was ready to pull it out." The same individual stated they would "sharpen their sword and decapitate the motherf---er" in reference to the mayor. (There is a recording of this comment). I have also endured sexual harassment and psychological harassment. Shockingly, there was no suspension or accountability for these threats or harassment. They were all swept under the carpet. Why? Because of the individual’s status as a senior councillor with close ties to the mayor, CAO, and city Integrity Commissioner. This clear double standard highlights how the proposed changes to the Municipal Act would be weaponized for political gain. The power to remove an elected official should never rest in the hands of council, the mayor, or the bureaucrats employed by the city. It should remain with the people. When municipal actors are permitted to play judge, jury, and executioner, democracy itself is at risk. Why even bother holding elections if those in power can remove their opponents on a whim? This new legislative change would serve as a backdoor to undermine political opposition and ensure only the "preferred" voices remain. I urge every Member of Parliament (MP) and Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) to take a hard look at the implications of this bill. It is not merely an amendment—it is a fundamental attack on the democratic process. When those in power can remove their opposition, they no longer serve the people—they serve only themselves. Minister Calandra, I implore you to reconsider this dangerous course of action. The people's right to choose their representatives is sacred, and any attempt to strip that right away must be met with fierce resistance. We must protect our democracy from corruption, collusion, and authoritarian overreach. If the Municipal Act is to be amended, it should be done to prevent such abuses of power—not to facilitate them. Protecting Democracy and Safeguarding the Voice of the People December 13, 2024 Sincerely, Lisa Robinson City Councillor, Ward 1

Being Angry at Employers for Looking out for Their Interests Won’t Land

By Nick Kossovan The current job market is a stark reminder of a fundamental truth: The employee-employer relationship is inherently asymmetrical. This asymmetry is the default of the employer taking on the risk of investing capital while employees only invest their time. Employers have the upper hand, and the right to work ultimately depends on their decisions, as evidenced by layoffs. Employees don't own their jobs; their employers do. In the face of rejection after rejection, job seekers become frustrated and angry, blaming employers for being unreasonable, greedy, or only looking out for their interests, as if employers are in the business of hiring people. This mindset is counterproductive and will only hinder your ability to land a job. I don't think job seekers are angry with employers. I think they're angry because they were in demand, and now they're not. Recently, the tech industry has had more than its share of layoffs. Most likely, until now, those laid off had only experienced being highly sought after. A shift of this kind requires humility, which is lacking amid all the anger directed at employers. When making a hiring decision, the employer rightfully prioritizes its interests over those of the job seeker. Employers seek candidates who can deliver value and contribute to their organization's success. In contrast, job seekers look for roles that fit their skills, experience, and career goals. Employers looking after their interests aren’t wrong or nefarious; it's simply smart business. Employers' self-interests are not your enemies. Instead, use them to your advantage by identifying them and positioning yourself as the solution. Demonstrating how you'll support the employer's interests will turn you from a generic candidate into an asset. Three strategies can be used to align your self-interests—presumably landing a job—with those of an employer (Envision, "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.”): Understand the employer's priorities, the obvious being to generate profit. Job seekers tend to focus solely on the job description and the required qualifications and overlook the company's overall goal(s). Knowing (read: researching) the company's goals will enable you to explain how your skills and experience can support their goals. Suppose you're applying for a marketing coordinator role at a rapidly growing tech startup. The job posting lists key responsibilities, including managing the company's social media accounts, creating content, and planning events. However, after studying the company holistically, you find, like most companies, it prioritizes gaining new customers. With this knowledge, you can position yourself as a candidate who can help drive that growth by emphasizing, using quantifying numbers (e.g., In eight months, increased Instagram followers from 1,200 to 32,000.) in your resume, LinkedIn profile, cover letter and during your interview, your experience developing high-performing social media campaigns attracting new leads for previous employers. You could mention your innovative ideas for using user-generated content to raise brand awareness or partnering with industry influencers. The key is to show that you possess the required functional skills and understand the company's overall goals and how you can help achieve them. Explain how you'll make your 'to-be' boss's life easier. Your 'to-be' boss is juggling a million competing priorities, budget constraints, and pressure from their boss to optimize their team's productivity. Position yourself as the candidate who'll simplify your 'to-be' boss's life, and you'll differentiate yourself from other candidates. During the interview, make it a point to understand the specific pain points and challenges your 'to-be' boss is facing—I outright ask, "What keeps you up at night?"—and then present yourself as a solution. Perhaps the department has a retention problem. You could tell a STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) story, demonstrating your ability to build strong cross-functional relationships and create a positive work culture that boosts employee engagement and loyalty. Educating your prospective boss that by hiring you, they'll have one less headache is a hard-to-ignore value proposition. Show how their success is equal to yours. Hiring boils down to finding candidates who can drive measurable business results. Don't rely solely on your skills and experience. Outline how you can deliver tangible benefits to the employer. Quantify the value you've brought to previous employers. If you're applying for a sales role, share data on the year-over-year revenue growth, client retention rates, and customer satisfaction scores you achieved in your previous positions. Quantify the value you brought to the organization, then explain how you can replicate or exceed that level of performance in the new role. Say you're interviewing for an IT support position. In addition to highlighting your technical expertise, again using a STAR story, highlight your expertise in streamlining processes, reducing downtime, and providing exceptional customer service. Tie those accomplishments back to the employer's need to maximize productivity and minimize disruptions. The key is to make a compelling case that the employer also succeeds when you succeed. It's understandable to feel frustrated by rejection, but the most successful candidates recognize that employers have legitimate business priorities. Identifying an employer's interests and showing how you can support them will improve your chances of landing a job. Stop expecting an employer to save you. Save an employer. _____________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

Is the Government Ignoring Canadian Economic Realty?

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Let’s face the crude reality. It is not just that people do not feel good about the economy; the economic wellbeing of Canadians has been declining for years. Although it is true that the overall economy is growing slowly and inflation has been brought back down to the Bank of Canada’s 2 per cent target, these struggling positive indicators do not necessarily mean that Canadians are better off. From the middle of 2019 to the end of 2023, Canada experienced one of the worst declines in inflation-adjusted GDP per person in the last 40 years. According to new data from Statistics Canada, this decline in living standards has continued for most of 2024, and as of September 2024, GDP per person ($58,601) was 2.2 per cent lower than it had been in June 2019 ($59,905). Simply put, Canadians have suffered a marked decline in living standards over the last five years. Moreover, Canada’s private-sector employment has stagnated. From 2019 to 2023 (the latest year of available data), employment in the private sector (including self-employment) grew by 3.6 per cent compared to 13.0 per cent in the government sector. This is a major problem that seems to be ignored by both the government and the opposition. The private sector pays for the government sector, primarily through taxes. While a growing private sector helps drive wealth-creation in the economy, a growing government sector extracts that wealth and redistributes it elsewhere or even inhibits that wealth-creation in the first place. Despite data showing that private-sector employment and living standards have stagnated and/or declined for years, the Trudeau government insists that everything is fine and Canadians just “feel” worse off. On top of this discouraging news, we have the saga of the recently released fall economic statement. In it, the federal government broke its key fiscal guardrail and posted a deficit of $61.9 billion for the 2023-2024 fiscal year, blowing past the $40.1 billion level at which it promised to keep the deficit. The Liberal government is further projected to go beyond the $40.1-billion guardrail for the next two fiscal years, with a deficit projection of $48.3 billion in 2024-2025 and $42.2 billion in 2025-2026. Not only is this higher than what was forecast in the budget last spring, but based on past performance, would it surprise anyone if they continue to exceed their projections in the future? Department of Finance officials claim that the deficit was $21.8 billion higher than expected for 2023-2024 due to exceptional factors. Those included future payments to compensate First Nations children and families who faced discrimination under the First Nations Child and Family Services program and under Jordan’s principle. The government previously set aside nearly $23.3 billion for compensation. The second factor is money that has not been recovered under the Covid-19 pandemic support programs. The higher-than-anticipated provision for these two categories accounted for $21.1 billion in accounting charges. Why is nobody talking about the more than 12 billion dollars forked out by the government on foreign projects with no accountability? Even the loyal opposition is totally silent on this issue. Why, instead, are they continuing to harp on the obsolete “gas tax”, like a dog barking in the desert? The statement projects that the economy will grow by 1.3 per cent in 2024 and 1.7 per cent in 2025. Tax revenues for 2023-2024 are expected to be $5.5 billion below the spring budget’s projection, due to lower tax revenue consistent with a softening economy. The most significant investments introduced in the fall economic statement include renewing the Accelerated Investment Incentive, to make Canada’s corporate tax system more competitive. First introduced by former finance minister Bill Morneau in 2018, the incentive was intended to address competitiveness concerns after Donald Trump was first elected U.S. president. The revival of these incentives will cost the federal government an estimated $17.4 billion over the next six years. They will slowly be phased out starting in 2030 to 2033. The government has also announced $1.1 billion in new spending to boost the Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program. An additional $1.6 billion was allocated for the government’s GST holiday, which gives a break from the goods and services tax on a number of goods between Dec. 14 and Feb. 15. The government has also committed $1.3 billion over six years for strengthening the border, a contentious issue with the incoming Trump administration that the federal government hopes to solve. On top of this evident government crisis, the sudden resignation of Crystia Freeland as Finance Minister just hours before the fall economic statement was to be tabled in Parliament, is also noted. The government house leader Karina Gould tabled the statement in her absence. In a letter addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Crystia Freeland said she had been at odds with the Prime minister for weeks over “the best path forward for Canada.” So, on top of an economic crisis we are inching towards a political one too? Clearly, this government is out of touch with Canadians.

"The Tariff Tug-of-War: Why a 25% US Tariff Could Reshape Canada’s Trade Future"

By Dale Jodoin Canadians are fuming over the news of a 25% tariff being imposed on Canadian goods by the United States. The move, announced by the US President, is being interpreted by many as an attack on Canada. But is this really about destroying Canada’s economy, or is there a bigger picture to consider? Let’s break it down in simple terms to understand what’s happening and why it matters. The current US President approaches politics like he approaches business. For him, it’s all about fairness and ensuring that no side has an undue advantage. From his perspective, tariffs like this aren’t meant to punish Canada—they’re meant to equalize the playing field. Here’s the issue: Canada’s dollar is weaker than the US dollar, which means Canadian manufacturers can sell goods to Americans at a cheaper price than US manufacturers. This isn’t just about competition—it’s about fairness for American workers who feel they’re being undercut by cheaper imports from Canada and Mexico. Canada’s lower dollar has been a deliberate strategy by some policymakers. By keeping the dollar slightly devalued, Canada gains a competitive edge over both the US and other trading partners like China and Mexico. This allows Canadian goods to be priced more attractively in foreign markets. However, this strategy creates a significant trade imbalance. The US has a massive trade deficit with Canada, meaning Americans are buying far more from Canada than Canadians are buying from the US. In the eyes of the US President, this is unsustainable and unfair to American workers. Many Canadians are asking, “Doesn’t free trade mean equal prices for manufactured goods?” The answer is more complex. Free trade is supposed to create open markets, but if one country’s currency is devalued, it can tilt the scales in favor of that country. The US President sees this imbalance and is trying to correct it. His tariffs are aimed at encouraging Canada to rethink its policies and create a fairer system where both Canadian and American workers can thrive. The tariffs are not just about trade; they’re also tied to larger issues like the fentanyl crisis and border security. The US has accused Canada of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US. This deadly drug has devastated communities across America, and the President wants Canada to take stronger action. Additionally, the US has long criticized Canada’s lax border policies, especially under the current Liberal government. While Canada prides itself on being open and welcoming, this has created security concerns for its southern neighbor. The US President sees these issues as interconnected and wants Canada to step up. Instead of being angry at the US, Canadians might want to take a closer look at their own policies. Are we truly playing fair when it comes to trade? Could we compete on an equal dollar with the US? Many believe that Canadian manufacturers produce some of the best goods in the world. If that’s true, then why not level the playing field and prove it? Rather than pointing fingers, Canada and the US need to work together to create a more balanced trade relationship. This could involve: Adjusting Currency Policies: Finding a middle ground where the Canadian dollar isn’t deliberately devalued to gain a competitive edge. Strengthening Border Security: Addressing US concerns about fentanyl and border issues could improve trust and cooperation. Promoting Mutual Growth: Encouraging policies that benefit workers in both countries rather than pitting them against each other. It’s easy to get upset when policies like tariffs seem to target Canada, but it’s important to look at the bigger picture. The US President isn’t out to destroy Canada—he’s trying to ensure fairness for American workers. Instead of focusing on the negatives, Canada should seize this opportunity to prove that it can compete on a level playing field. With strong manufacturing, skilled workers, and innovative industries, Canada has what it takes to succeed. By addressing the underlying issues and working with the US, both countries can build a stronger, more balanced trade relationship that benefits everyone. So, instead of anger, let’s focus on solutions. How can we make trade between Canada and the US fairer and more beneficial for both sides? That’s the question we should be asking.

The Times They Are a Changing

The Times They Are a Changing By Theresa Grant - Real Estate Columnist The Real Estate market is a dynamic entity, continuously shifting between favouring buyers and sellers. Durham Region has been in a balanced market for quite some time now. In fact some would say that the market in Durham Region has been soft, quiet, weak. Any way you want to put it, houses have been sitting on the market in many cases, for months before selling or terminating with a thought to try listing again in a stronger market. Houses that are priced properly right out of the gate tend to sell quickly and still do. The would-be buyers have certainly sent a message to the sellers that they are not willing to pay more than the actual value of the home. Unfortunately, some home sellers are still stuck in the Covid craziness days and think that people are going to pay well more than what the house is worth. Another thing that potential home buyers have sent a strong message to the home sellers on is the idea of holding offers. Having a presentation date is not really effective when the buyers aren’t buying to begin with. Numerous houses have had their presentation date come and go with either no offers or low offers, but not high enough to seal a deal. The whole idea of an offer presentation date is to garner as much interest in the property as possible, bring in as many offers at one time as you can, as this benefits the seller client. We are seeing more and more listings saying, “offers anytime”, just like it used to be prior to Covid. I don’t think the offer presentation is going anywhere; I think that it is only effective in a seller’s market and that people will eventually understand that. With the Bank of Canada continuing to cut rates, Many will stay firmly planted on the sidelines, where they’ve been for a couple of years now. They will patiently wait for the news that the rates have hit rock bottom and then plan their jump into the market. The only problem with that is that when the rates finally hit rock bottom, the house prices will have risen considerably. Most analysts expect the Bank of Canada to cut through 2025. There is a sweet spot in the market right now and many buyers are taking advantage of this window of opportunity. Houses that have been sitting on the market for four, five, and even six months are now being snapped up. Buyers that thought they had time to look at a house, think about it and view it again before making a decision are finding that they don’t have that luxury at all in a lot of cases. I know a young couple looking for their first home and they are having their viewings cancelled because the house they were going to look at, that has been on the market for four months has just sold. This has happened to them in a few times. This indicates that the market is starting to tighten up. Inventory is really starting to move. It will be very interesting to see what 2025 holds in store for the Durham Region market. Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

Silence or Starve: How Pickering’s CAO and Council is Punishing Me for Telling the People the Truth

Silence or Starve: How Pickering’s CAO and Council is Punishing Me for Telling the People the Truth By Lisa Robinson Our Pickering CAO, Marisa Carpino, seems to think she’s untouchable. As an elected representative chosen by the people, I requested a meeting with her, that was scheduled for today, but she canceled it because I didn’t tell her about all the different topics I wanted to speak about. Since when does a public servant get to dictate terms to an elected official? I am quite certain that the CAO is supposed to work for the municipal council, not the other way around. But this is Pickering - where there is little transparency — and lots of arrogance and control. But it gets worse. Carpino filed a complaint against me to the biased “Principles Integrity” and now, on Monday, council will vote once again to strip me of another three months of pay. That’s a total of nine months without pay — nearly a full year without income — because I dared to speak the truth. I said that if I were mayor, I would use the strong mayor powers to get rid of the CAO, the City Solicitor, and a few of the directors. I said because corruption starts at the top. I’d tear down City Hall, build it back up, and give it back to the people. And for having the courage to say that, she ran to her city-paid integrity commissioner, crying “bullying” and “intimidation.” That’s not accountability — that’s a power trip. Let’s be clear: This is about control, plain and simple. When you punish an elected official for expressing their vision for the future, you’re trampling on their Charter-protected right to free expression under Section 2(b). This isn’t just my right — it’s the right of every elected official to speak freely on matters of public interest. But instead of defending that right, Pickering Council seeks to crush it. To make matters even more outrageous, Carpino was just named “CAO of the Year” by Municipal World. For what? Silencing dissent? Filing complaints to punish free speech? Weaponizing the integrity commissioner against her critics? Public servants should expect public scrutiny — that’s democracy. But apparently, Carpino believes she’s entitled to live without criticism, and if anyone dares challenge her, she pulls the levers of power to destroy them. Her fragile ego has real consequences. I’m being forced to go without pay for another three months. No pay means no mortgage payments, no food for my child, and no Christmas gifts for my family. And all because she didn't like that I said I’d fire her if I were mayor. Since when did being honest about your intentions as a leader become a crime worthy of financial ruin? On Monday, Pickering Council will have another chance to show where they stand. Will they side with the people or the bureaucrats? Every councilor who votes to support this punishment is complicit in this abuse of power. I wouldn’t even treat my worst enemy this way. It’s disgusting and exposes the rot in their character. If they think they can break me, they’re dead wrong. They are even upset that people had donated to a GiveSendGo that was set up for me a year ago. That donation symbolized the support of the people, and it enraged them. Why? Because they hate that the people still stand with me. To them, I haven’t "learned my lesson" to shut up and obey. That’s what this is really about — obedience. But it gets darker. They want me to lose my house. They want to see me unable to provide food or necessities for my child. They believe if they can push me to the brink of financial ruin, I’ll finally submit. They’re not just trying to take my pay — they’re trying to take my dignity, my family’s security, and my will to fight. That is pure evil. That’s not governance — it’s coercion. It’s an assault on democracy disguised as “accountability.” They don’t want honesty, transparency, or courage on council. They want puppets who never question, never challenge, and never expose corruption. But here’s the part they’ll never understand: I will never bow to bullies. I will never stop fighting for the people. If they want to strip my pay, so be it. But they will never take my voice. This fight is no longer just about me — it’s about you. If they can silence an elected official like this, what do you think they’ll do to you? This isn’t just evil — it’s dangerous. It’s a blueprint for tyranny. If we don’t stop it now, they’ll do it to anyone who dares to speak up. Just look at how they are desperately trying to change the Municipal Act to apply to a judiciary to remove an elected official who challenges their motivies, and exposes their corruption. The people of Pickering deserve better. All people deserve better from their governments. You deserve elected officials who stand for you — not bureaucrats who hide behind fake awards, photo ops and weaponize complaint systems to protect themselves from criticism. They may have the power now, but they’ll never have my submission. Mark my words: This isn’t over. The tide is changing I’ll keep fighting for the people of Pickering, and beyond— paid or not. This isn’t just about my pay. It’s about your right to have elected officials who speaks the truth, exposes corruption, and puts people before politics. Cities belong to the people, not bureaucrats hiding in backrooms. Remember that.

The #1 Skill I Look For When Hiring

The #1 Skill I Look For When Hiring By Nick Kossovan File this column under "for what it's worth." "Communication is one of the most important skills you require for a successful life." — Catherine Pulsifer, author. I'm one hundred percent in agreement with Pulsifer, which is why my evaluation of candidates begins with their writing skills. If a candidate's writing skills and verbal communication skills, which I'll assess when interviewing, aren't well above average, I'll pass on them regardless of their skills and experience. Why? Because business is fundamentally about getting other people to do things—getting employees to be productive, getting customers to buy your products or services, and getting vendors to agree to a counteroffer price. In business, as in life in general, you can't make anything happen without effective communication; this is especially true when job searching when your writing is often an employer's first impression of you. Think of all the writing you engage in during a job search (resumes, cover letters, emails, texts) and all your other writing (LinkedIn profile, as well as posts and comments, blogs, articles, tweets, etc.) employers will read when they Google you to determine if you're interview-worthy. With so much of our communication today taking place via writing (email, text, collaboration platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Slack, ClickUp, WhatsApp and Rocket.Chat), the importance of proficient writing skills can't be overstated. When assessing a candidate's writing skills, you probably think I'm looking for grammar and spelling errors. Although error-free writing is important—it shows professionalism and attention to detail—it's not the primary reason I look at a candidate's writing skills. The way someone writes reveals how they think. · Clear writing = Clear thinking · Structured paragraphs = Structured mind · Impactful sentences = Impactful ideas Effective writing isn't about using sophisticated vocabulary. Hemingway demonstrated that deceptively simple, stripped-down prose can captivate readers. Effective writing takes intricate thoughts and presents them in a way that makes the reader think, "Damn! Why didn't I see it that way?" A good writer is a dead giveaway for a good thinker. More than ever, the business world needs "good thinkers." Therefore, when I come across a candidate who's a good writer, hence a good thinker, I know they’re likely to be able to write: · Emails that don't get deleted immediately and are responded to · Simple, concise, and unambiguous instructions · Pitches that are likely to get read · Social media content that stops thumbs · Human-sounding website copy · Persuasively, while attuned to the reader’s possible sensitivities Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: AI, which job seekers are using en masse. Earlier this year, I wrote that AI's ability to hyper-increase an employee's productivity—AI is still in its infancy; we've seen nothing yet—in certain professions, such as writing, sales and marketing, computer programming, office and admin, and customer service, makes it a "fewer employees needed" tool, which understandably greatly appeals to employers. In my opinion, the recent layoffs aren't related to the economy; they're due to employers adopting AI. Additionally, companies are trying to balance investing in AI with cost-cutting measures. CEOs who've previously said, "Our people are everything," have arguably created today's job market by obsessively focusing on AI to gain competitive advantages and reduce their largest expense, their payroll. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that most AI usage involves generating written content, content that's obvious to me, and likely to you as well, to have been written by AI. However, here's the twist: I don't particularly care. Why? Because the fundamental skill I'm looking for is the ability to organize thoughts and communicate effectively. What I care about is whether the candidate can take AI-generated content and transform it into something uniquely valuable. If they can, they're demonstrating the skills of being a good thinker and communicator. It's like being a great DJ; anyone can push play, but it takes skill to read a room and mix music that gets people pumped. Using AI requires prompting effectively, which requires good writing skills to write clear and precise instructions that guide the AI to produce desired outcomes. Prompting AI effectively requires understanding structure, flow and impact. You need to know how to shape raw information, such as milestones throughout your career when you achieved quantitative results, into a compelling narrative. So, what's the best way to gain and enhance your writing skills? As with any skill, you've got to work at it. Two rules guide my writing: · Use strong verbs and nouns instead of relying on adverbs, such as "She dashed to the store." instead of "She ran quickly to the store." or "He whispered to the child." instead of "He spoke softly to the child." · Avoid using long words when a shorter one will do, such as "use" instead of "utilize" or "ask" instead of "inquire." As attention spans get shorter, I aim for clarity, simplicity and, most importantly, brevity in my writing. Don't just string words together; learn to organize your thoughts, think critically, and communicate clearly. Solid writing skills will significantly set you apart from your competition, giving you an advantage in your job search and career _____________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

Merry Christmas

Merry C

hristmas By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States What times we live in? When it has become offensive to wish someone a ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’. Many walk around almost in shame. Let’s look at what it really means when we wish someone a Merry Christmas. When one is speaking of a happy or merry Christmas, the adjectives are lowercase. Merry Christmas began as a saying in the 1500s. It was recorded in a letter as a wish that God would send the recipient a “merry Christmas”. Brian Earl's Christmas Past: The Fascinating Stories Behind Our Favorite Holiday's Traditions traces the first known instance of “Merry Christmas” to a 16th-century letter from a bishop to England's Chief Minister, in which the religious leader hoped God would bless the politician with a “Merry Christmas.” Deciding whether to say, 'Happy Holidays' or 'Merry Christmas' can be a personal choice. But for employers, government agencies, and schools, holiday activities or public displays must respect freedom of religion; otherwise, they could be held liable for discrimination. What is the real reason for Merry Christmas? Because Christmas is about the birth of God's Son – Jesus. It is about how he came to give us love, hope and joy. That message doesn't change from year to year. When there is so much bad news and devastation in the world, this is good news worth celebrating! Which country first invented Christmas? This is the origin of the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Christ-mass was being celebrated in Rome by 350AD and this is probably the place that the celebration of Christmas originated. Is Merry Christmas religious? Wishing happy holidays or season's greetings is a way of acknowledging the various holidays taking place at the end of the year: Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa. When you wish someone a Merry Christmas, you are saying you wish him or her a happy day of celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. Christmas, is a special time across the globe. During world wars. Wars would pause during Christmas in an act of good faith and celebration from opposing forces. This national/global tradition is not about religion or faith per se as it is the basis... or root. Christmas is about celebrating peace, love and all that is innocent and pure. From the nostalgia of a Santa Clause. To baby Jesus. The one time of the year that our hearts feel pure and innocent. Full of love, compassion and giving. The human essence is Christmas. No matter your faith or your God. Peace and joy is always found in communal celebration. From the lights to the trees. From the decorations to the chilling weather. The spirit is all around us. To think some may be offended by such celebration is offensive in itself as it clearly shows their lack of compassion, understanding and appreciation. Merry Christmas.

Recruitment and Retention Crisis

Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention Crisis by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East During this period of daily decay in global security, not strengthening our armed forces adequately has serious implications for our nation’s security, wellbeing and integrity. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis, one that threatens not just Canada’s own security, but its standing with allies like the United States. With approximately 12,000 unfilled positions, which represent 16% of its target strength of 71,500 regular members, the military is struggling to maintain basic operational capacity. This shortfall, compounded by outdated equipment, rising attrition, and a lack of political urgency, reveals deep structural flaws. The stakes are high, and the question is not just what should be done, but whether Canada’s political leaders are willing and able to do it. You may have noted that at this time Canada is spending a lot of defence-targeted money, in the order of billions of dollars, for military support in foreign countries instead of strengthening our own military. The importance of recruiting is paramount for a healthy military, but to assure success a sincere and committed political involvement is needed. Realistically, I do not see any serious actions from either the Liberal government or the Conservative opposition in support of the military. The question of who can fix the CAF’s recruitment and retention crisis is as important as the solutions themselves. Canada’s two major governing political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, offer differing visions for defense policy, but neither has a flawless record of accomplishment. The Liberal Party, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been criticized for its lack of urgency on defense. While the government introduced a defense policy update in 2023 that included $15 billion in new spending commitments, much of this funding remains unallocated or delayed. The Liberals have also struggled with procurement delays, such as the eternal saga of replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets, which has dragged on for over a decade. Efforts to promote diversity within the military are commendable but the Liberals’ approach has been too slow to address the scale of the crisis. The Conservatives position themselves as the party of defense, emphasizing the importance of meeting NATO commitments and strengthening Canada’s military capabilities. Their "Canada First Defence Strategy" includes promises to increase defense spending and streamline procurement, aligning with the urgency of the CAF’s challenges. However, past Conservative governments have also struggled with procurement delays and personnel shortages, raising questions about whether they can deliver on their promises. The CAF’s recruitment and retention issues are a systemic problem, not a passing phase. Recruitment processes are outdated and cumbersome, with timelines that stretch over six to nine months, an eternity for applicants in today’s competitive job market. The quality of military recruiters also leaves a lot to be desired. The quality of recruiters is crucial in the recruiting process, a systemic problem senior military officials continues to ignore. These inefficiencies discourage potential recruits, many of whom turn to private-sector opportunities that offer quicker hiring processes, better pay, and clearer career paths. In 2023, the CAF recruited only 2,800 new members, far short of its annual target of 5,900. The recruitment crisis is compounded by a lack of serious outreach to underrepresented groups. Women, Indigenous communities, and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in the military, despite Canada’s diverse population. Efforts to improve diversity have been sporadic and insufficiently integrated into broader recruitment strategies. Retention poses an equally significant challenge. The CAF’s attrition rate climbed to nearly 8% in 2022, with over 5,000 personnel voluntarily leaving the military. Job dissatisfaction is a major factor, driven by limited career progression and long deployments. Many service members cite frustration with outdated equipment and inadequate infrastructure as contributing to their decision to leave. For instance, the CAF’s barracks and training facilities are widely seen as substandard, and the delays in procuring modern equipment, such as new fighting and engineering military vehicles, fighter jets and naval vessels, have eroded confidence in the military’s ability to meet operational demands. Morale is further undermined by a perception that successive federal governments have not prioritized defense. They have allocated resources only when forced to do so by external pressures or crises. This lack of consistent political support has left service members feeling undervalued, exacerbating retention problems and creating a cycle of dissatisfaction that the CAF has struggled to break. In addition, senior military personnel are more preoccupied with their own promotions than dedicating attention to this endemic problem, which is consuming the military. Beyond being an internal CAF issue, the recruitment and retention crisis has profound implications for Canada’s ability to respond to domestic and international security challenges. Domestically, the shortfall in personnel undermines the CAF’s capacity to respond to emergencies such as natural disasters or threats to Arctic sovereignty. The Arctic, in particular, is an area of growing concern I mentioned several times during my time in Ottawa, but my concerns fell on deaf ears. With the opening of new shipping routes in the Arctic and increasing competition for resources, Canada’s ability to assert its sovereignty in the region is critical. Neglecting the Artic leaves a gap that adversaries like Russia and China could well exploit. When I noted in the House ten years ago that Russia is a potential threat because it was refurbishing its arctic military bases at a phenomenal rate, I was assured that ‘Russia is not a threat at this time’. Internationally, the crisis weakens Canada’s contributions to NATO and its defense partnership with the United States. Canada has consistently failed to meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, a shortfall that has not gone unnoticed by its allies. At present, Canada spends only 1.37% of GDP on defense, placing it near the bottom of NATO member states. This chronic underfunding has strained Canada’s relationships within the alliance as well as the United States, where incoming President Donald Trump has already indicated that he will take some painful actions against Canada unless we ‘ante up’. In fact, the U.S.-Canada defense relationship, exemplified by joint operations in the Arctic and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), is also at risk. With Russia increasing its Arctic presence and China seeking greater influence in the region, the United States needs a strong partner to help secure North American interests. Canada’s inability to maintain a fully operational military not only jeopardizes its own security but places additional strain on U.S. resources and planning. In conclusion, the CAF’s recruitment and retention crisis is a test of Canada’s political will and its ability to meet the demands of a changing security environment. The right solutions must be found quickly and implementing them requires sustained effort, adequate funding, and a commitment to making defense a national priority. Canada’s security and its reputation as a reliable ally depend on decisive action. This is not just about filling vacancies; it is about reaffirming Canada’s role as a credible partner in NATO and a trusted ally of the United States. The time for half-measures is over. Canada must act decisively to fix its military, or risk becoming a nation that cannot defend itself or its allies.

Government Confiscates Guns from Legal Owners: A Controversial Move

Government Confiscates Guns from Legal Owners: A Controversial Move By Dale Jodoin The Canadian federal government has once again announced a plan to confiscate firearms from law-abiding gun owners, sparking outrage and debate across the country. This move, aimed at banning specific firearms, has raised questions about its fairness, effectiveness, and potential consequences. Adding fuel to the fire, reports suggest that some of these confiscated guns may be sent to Ukraine to support their fight against Russia, leaving many Canadians frustrated and concerned about the government's priorities. Under this new plan, a wide range of firearms is now considered illegal to own in Canada. Some of the most notable models include: AR-15: A popular semi-automatic rifle often used in sport shooting. Ruger Mini-14: A rifle commonly used by hunters and farmers. Mossberg 500: A reliable shotgun widely used for hunting and home defense. CZ Scorpion EVO 3: A modern firearm favored by sport shooters. These firearms, along with many others, are on a growing list of prohibited weapons. The government argues that removing these guns from civilian hands will reduce gun violence. However, critics say it unfairly targets people who have followed Canada’s strict rules for gun ownership. One of the most controversial aspects of this program is the idea that some confiscated guns might be sent to Ukraine. While the government has not officially confirmed this plan, rumors are swirling, and Canadians are asking tough questions. If the federal government can no longer afford to purchase guns for Ukraine, does that justify taking firearms from Canadian citizens who legally own them? Critics argue that confiscating property from law-abiding citizens and sending it overseas is not only unethical but also sets a dangerous precedent. "These guns were bought legally, with taxes paid, and owners followed all the rules," said one concerned gun owner. "Now the government is taking them away and possibly giving them to another country. What kind of message does that send?" Legal Gun Owners vs. Illegal Guns Statistics show that legal gun owners are rarely involved in crimes. According to Statistics Canada, more than 70% of guns used in crimes are smuggled into the country illegally, often from the United States. In contrast, legal gun owners are responsible for less than 2% of firearm-related crimes in Canada. These numbers suggest that the real problem lies with illegal gun trafficking, not with people who own firearms legally. Critics believe the government should focus its efforts on cracking down on smuggling and gang activity rather than penalizing responsible gun owners. What Does It Take to Own a Gun in Canada? Canada already has one of the strictest systems in the world for owning firearms. Here’s what Canadians must do to legally own a gun: Background Check: Applicants are screened for criminal records, mental health issues, and domestic violence history. Safety Training: Gun owners must complete a government-approved safety course and pass a test. Licensing: A firearm license is required, which must be renewed regularly. Registration: Many types of firearms must be registered with the government. These measures ensure that only responsible individuals can legally own firearms. Many gun owners feel betrayed by the government’s decision to target them when they’ve followed all the rules. The gun confiscation program is expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. The government has promised to compensate gun owners for the firearms they surrender, but critics argue this money could be better spent. Here are some alternative ways the funds could be used: Border Security: Strengthen efforts to stop illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada. Community Programs: Support initiatives to reduce gang violence and help at-risk youth. Mental Health Services: Invest in resources to address the root causes of violence. Critics question why the government is spending so much money on a program that targets law-abiding citizens instead of addressing the real sources of gun violence. Self-Defense and Rural Communities For many Canadians, especially those in rural areas, firearms are more than just tools for hunting or sport. They are also a means of protection. In remote areas, where police response times can be long, a firearm might be the only way to defend oneself or one’s family. By confiscating guns, critics argue that the government is leaving these individuals vulnerable. "If someone breaks into my home, what am I supposed to do?" asked a rural resident. "Call the police and hope they get here in time? That’s not realistic." The gun confiscation plan has deepened the divide between urban and rural Canadians. In cities, some people support stricter gun laws, believing they will make communities safer. In rural areas, where gun ownership is more common, many see this move as an attack on their way of life. Opposition politicians have also weighed in, accusing the government of ignoring the real issues. "This policy does nothing to stop gang violence or illegal gun smuggling," said one MP. "Instead, it punishes law-abiding Canadians who’ve done nothing wrong." The government has set deadlines for gun owners to surrender their prohibited firearms, promising compensation in return. However, many Canadians are resisting, saying they won’t give up their guns without a fight. Advocacy groups like the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) are planning legal challenges to the confiscation program. For Canadians who oppose the policy, here are some steps to take: Contact Your MP: Share your concerns with your Member of Parliament. Support Advocacy Groups: Join organizations that are fighting for gun owners’ rights. Stay Informed: Follow news updates and understand the impact of these policies. The government’s decision to confiscate guns from legal owners is one of the most controversial moves in recent memory. While officials claim it’s about public safety, many Canadians see it as an attack on their rights and freedoms. The added possibility that these guns might be sent to Ukraine has only made the situation more contentious. If the government can no longer afford to buy weapons for Ukraine, should they really be taking them from Canadians who followed the law? This issue raises important questions about fairness, priorities, and the future of gun ownership in Canada. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: this is a story that won’t be going away anytime soon.

Sale preparation on a budget

Sale preparation on a budget By Theresa Grant - Real Estate Columnist When it comes time to sell our home, there is often a laundry list of things that need to be done prior to listing. Some things are well worth the cost of doing the task as well as the time invested in getting it done. While other things may not make good financial sense. When deciding what you will tackle and what you will forgo, it may be worth while to talk to a professional in either design or real estate to get a good idea of what will add value and what may not. A lot of people think that any improvement they make will add value and it actually doesn’t work that way. Another reason to consult with an expert is that you don’t want to over improve and price yourself out of the market. A semi in a less desirable area of a city would not benefit from the same improvements that a million dollar home a great neighbourhood would. The reason being, you could spend thousands of dollars on renovations and fixtures in the former, and at the end of the day it’s still going to be a semi in a less desirable neighbourhood. A professional can help steer you away from making big money missteps. We all know that kitchens and bathrooms are where most people spend their money when it comes to renovations. If you cannot afford to hire professionals to do a complete kitchen or bath, think about just painting the cupboards, putting in new lighting, some new door pulls can really spruce things up. Keep in mind, not everything needs to be new from Home Depot either. Many contractors advertise their excess materials from previous jobs on websites like Marketplace or Kijiji. There are also stores that deal in left over materials. Look to window coverings and see if you could or should replace or update them. Paint is probably the very best investment you can make in decorating. It gives you the most bang for your buck without question and adds real value to your bottom line. Look at painting your front door if it is tired or could use some pizazz. If you cannot afford to hire a stager, there are some great finds in second hand store that will do the job. Take a picture of a staged house with you and set out to find similar items. You’ll be surprised at what you find. First impressions matter so along with a nice front door, anything you can find to enhance the entrance area will benefit you. Think planters, baskets, decorative mailbox that type of thing. Fixing up your property to maximize its value is a delicate balance of smart investments and cost-effective updates. By focusing on areas with the highest return on investment like the kitchen, bathroom and front of your home, you will significantly increase the chances of getting top dollar for your home. With the right approach, you can turn a modest home into a sought-after gem.Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials

Who’s Really Running Pickering? The CAO’s Growing Influence Overshadows Elected Officials By Lisa Robinson In a democracy, elected officials represent the will of the people, shaping policies that reflect the community's priorities. But in Pickering, the real power seems to rest not with your elected representatives, but with the unelected Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and staff. This troubling shift raises serious concerns about who truly governs our city and whether the democratic process is being subverted. The CAO’s role is supposed to be administrative, not political—tasked with implementing the policies set by council. Yet in Pickering, the CAO appears to wield outsized influence, acting less like a public servant and more like the CEO of a private corporation, unaccountable to residents. Take the renovation of council chambers, for example. This multimillion-dollar project was driven almost entirely by staff, with the CAO steering the process. Out of three proposed designs, only one—the staff-preferred option—was presented to council for approval. This wasn’t a collaborative process; it was a blatant rubber-stamping exercise, designed to sideline elected officials while staff pushed their agenda unchecked. But the CAO’s influence extends far beyond renovations. Staff have increasingly dictated how council meetings are conducted, with an alarming number of discussions moved into “in-camera” sessions. These closed-door meetings are justified under the pretense of confidentiality but ultimately erode public trust. When councillors question these practices, they're met with dismissive excuses about "efficiency" or "privacy," leaving both council and residents in the dark. Now, the CAO and staff are pushing a new restructuring of council chambers that is as symbolic as it is concerning. The proposed schematic positions the mayor, the CAO, and the city clerk as the central figures the public directly faces during meetings, relegating elected councillors to the periphery. This setup mimics a courtroom rather than a welcoming community space, exuding an authoritarian “we’re in charge; you must obey” vibe. This change sends a chilling message: elected officials and residents alike are secondary to the unelected power players at City Hall. It doesn’t stop there. Staff appear to resent being challenged or questioned. They prefer motions to be run by them first—essentially seeking their blessing before council can even discuss them. If a councillor dares to question staff’s capabilities, catches them in a lie, or exposes their partial truths, the retaliation is swift and calculated: a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner, thinly veiled as a Code of Conduct breach. These complaints aren’t about maintaining decorum—they’re about silencing dissent and shielding staff from accountability. This growing pattern of staff overreach sends a clear message: it’s the CAO and their team—not elected officials—who are running Pickering. This subversion of roles reduces councillors to figureheads, there only for photo ops, while the bureaucracy tightens its grip on decision-making. It wasn’t long ago, shortly after being elected, that I encountered a moment that opened my eyes to just how tightly controlled and untransparent the leadership of Pickering can be. I had requested a report, paid for with taxpayers’ money, that focused on Durham’s nuclear power plant. This was a report commissioned by consultants—information that I believed should be accessible to both council and the public. The response to my request? A private meeting with the CAO. But when I arrived at her office, it wasn’t just the CAO waiting for me—it was also the city solicitor I believe. They informed me that the report had all of a sudden been “pink-papered,” a term I use that essentially means it was deemed so confidential that even discussing it openly was off the table. When I asked why, I was told because a new study was underway, and they didn’t want the results of this report released to the public. Asking why again, I was told that If the public saw the findings, they might disagree with them and use the information from that report to challenge the conclusions of the new study. Let that sink in. Taxpayer money was used to produce a report, and instead of transparency, they chose to bury it—specifically to control public perception and shield themselves from potential criticism. Need I say more? This is corruption in its purest form: secrecy, manipulation, and a lack of accountability to the people they are supposed to serve. It starts at the top, and I assure you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is not just frustrating; it’s undemocratic. Staff are meant to support council, not dictate terms. They are public servants, not policymakers. Yet in Pickering, the balance of power has shifted, leaving residents without the representation they deserve. “It has become nothing more than a game of follow the leader” but I refuse to be a follower. I will stand up for what’s right, even when others blindly go along with the agenda. At the end of the day, Pickering doesn’t belong to the bureaucrats in City Hall—it belongs to its residents. It’s time to stand up and remind everyone who works for whom.

Employers Hire Candidates That Are Best for Them

Employers Hire Candidates That Are Best for Them By Nick Kossovan Employers are human beings; like all humans, they look out for their interests. In other words, companies structure their hiring processes to identify and select candidates who will effectively serve their company's interests. People with meteoric careers often envied, acknowledge, and therefore strategically work with two facts: 1. The employer's interest dictates the workplace. 2. It's not the candidate's place to decide what's in the employer's best interest. "You can get everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar. Most job seekers hold the opinion that employers should select candidates purely based on their skills and qualifications. For the employer, "most qualified" doesn't necessarily equal "best." When recruiting and selecting new employees, employers have the right and responsibility to prioritize their organizational interests. Two harsh truisms: · Companies choose what's best for them. · There's no such thing as a "must-have" candidate. The concept of a great candidate (Yes, a great candidate is a concept.) is highly subjective. No company has gone bankrupt because it failed to hire a supposed "great candidate." Merely labelling yourself as a great candidate or talented without demonstrating your potential to enhance the employer's bottom line isn't a convincing reason to hire you. Unsubstantiated opinions are worthless. For your opinion(s) of yourself to be taken seriously, it must be backed up by credible evidence. During the hiring process, employers protect their interests in the following areas: Prioritizing Relevant Skills and Experience: Employers look for candidates with job-specific skills, knowledge, and experience. They want to ensure the new hire can hit the ground running and be productive immediately. Assessing Cultural Fit: Employers evaluate a candidate's values, working style, and personality to ensure they'll fit into the company's culture. All hiring decisions come down to: Will this candidate fit in? Considering Long-Term Potential: Employers prefer candidates with growth potential who can take on more responsibilities in the future. Avoiding Excessive Costs: Employers strive to hire the best possible candidate while managing their labour costs. (salary, benefits, training requirements) Mitigating Risks: In order to minimize the risk of making a bad hire, employers review a candidate's background and digital footprint, as well as speak to their references beforehand. With all of the above in mind, it's your responsibility as a job seeker to demonstrate to employers why hiring you would be in their best interest. Understand the Employer's Perspective "Your mindset matters more than your skillset." - Shiv Khera, Indian author and activist. Many job seekers struggle with their job search because of their mindset. A person's mindset is everything, especially when looking for work since it influences how they perceive employers and job possibilities. The savvy job searcher knows that it's not about them; it's about the employer. They envision the employer as a potential customer. Employers create jobs and, therefore, paychecks; consequently, they're the customers. As Harry Gordon Selfridge, the founder of Selfridge's department store in London, famously said, "The customer is always right." By empathizing with the employer's perspective, it'll become apparent that employers are making strategic investments in their human capital rather than simply filling open positions. An organization's long-term success requires hiring people who can contribute (read: add measurable value), not those with an extensive resume that doesn't show what measurable value-adds they can contribute to the employer. Employers are responsible for building a workforce that can drive productivity, protect the company's competitive advantages, and mitigate legal/reputation risks. Therefore, think about how you can position your candidacy as an excellent strategic investment. Highlight Your Unique Value Proposition When communicating with employers, you must go beyond simply stating your qualifications and experience. Focus on articulating a unique value proposition—your ability to meet the employer's most pressing needs and objectives—to answer the question in the back of the employer's mind, "Why should I hire this person? What difference will they make to the company?" Do you have a proven track record of boosting productivity and efficiency? Maybe you possess niche technical skills that would give the company a competitive edge. Perhaps you have a book of clients. Most job seekers fail to demonstrate how they'll provide a substantial return on their compensation—the employer's investment. Don't be like most job seekers! If you're asking for a salary of $95,000, be ready to explain quantitatively what the employer will get in return. Demonstrate Your Commitment to Their Success Employers are not just looking for someone to fill a role; they want someone who's passionate about contributing to the company's success. Show them that you're that person. Ultimately, the hiring process is not a charity or a favour employers do for job seekers. It is a strategic business decision that can make or break an organization's ability to thrive. While employers should treat all candidates with respect and fairness, they're well within their rights to design their hiring practices in a way that serves their own best interests. Just because an employer's hiring process doesn't work for the job seeker doesn't mean it doesn't work for the employer. _____________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned veteran of the corporate landscape, offers advice on searching for a job. You can send him your questions at artoffindingwork@gmail.com

New Relations on the Horizon for Canada and the United States

New Relations on the Horizon for Canada and the United States by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East There are just a few weeks left before President elect Donald Trump takes office on the 20th of January 2025. In the meantime, there are preparations for the new presidential administration, and the incoming President is putting new ideas forward in order to strengthen his mandate for making “America Great Again”. He is looking to implement a series of his ideas for strengthening the border both North and South of the United States. He is also looking to eliminate waste in government spending and keeping manufacturing jobs in the country. For instance, he has made a promise to impose a 25% tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada, until these countries make the required efforts to secure their borders with the States to curtail illegal immigration and lower the trade deficit. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s declaration that, as one of his first acts upon taking office on January 20th, he will impose a sweeping 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States has sent politicians, policymakers, and business leaders across the continent into a frenzy. The question is how seriously we should take this threat. Secondly, what can Canada do to prevent the North American free trade agreement from becoming a relic of the past? Based on our knowledge of the incoming President, it seems that the threat is very real and should not be taken in an easy and dismissive way. I see commotion in the Canadian Government, which was taken by surprise by the re-election of Donald Trump, and had not taken any steps to cultivate the appropriate relations that would avoid any surprises in bilateral relations. This commotion resulted in a sudden desperate trip of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to have dinner with the incoming President and try to resolve the issue. It should be noted however, that based on previous actions the two men are not on the best of terms, personally .Diplomatically, incoming President Trump affirmed that the meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau was productive. However, if we make deductions from what is publicly known about the meeting, as Canadians, we might well be concerned. According to people at the table who heard the discussion, Trump, while cordial and welcoming, was very direct when it came to what he wants from his counterpart to the North. Paraphrasing the discussion, Trump told Trudeau that Canada has failed the U.S. by allowing large amounts of drugs and people across the border, including illegal immigrants from over 70 different countries. Moreover, Trump became more animated when it came to the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, which he estimated to be more than $100 billion. The President-elect told the Prime Minister that if Canada cannot fix the border issues and trade deficit, he would levy a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods on day one when he returns to office. The reaction from Prime Minister Trudeau was that the President should not levy the tariff because it would kill the Canadian economy completely. Trump replied by asking, “so your country can't survive unless it's ripping off the U.S. to the tune of $100 billion?” Trump then suggested to Trudeau that Canada become the 51st state, which caused the Prime Minister and others to laugh nervously. Someone at the table chimed in and advised Trump that Canada would be a very liberal state, which received even more laughter. Trump then suggested that Canada could possibly become two states: a conservative and a liberal one. He told Trudeau that if he cannot handle his list of demands without ripping the United States off in trade, maybe Canada should really become a state or two and Trudeau could become a governor. While sources at the table say the exchange got many laughs, Trump delivered the message that he expected change by January 20. Talking seriously, the impact of a 25% tariff on imported goods from Canada will have a devastating result on the Canadian economy, especially in English Canada. In Ontario, for example, two-way trade makes up 41 percent of the province’s economy, and in Alberta, a major energy supplier to the U.S., it is 42 percent. As a result, a 25% tariff would be highly disruptive, potentially affecting millions of jobs. The threat of a 25% tariffs should not be taken lightly and Canadians need to be prepared for this alternative rather than dismissing it. Our politicians, both governing and in opposition, will need to be prepared for alternatives. We will soon see if they will be capable of doing so. Let me be clear, the incoming Trump administration sees restoring manufacturing production in the United States as a socio-economic imperative. It is at the centre of their vision for being responsive to the voters who elected them and restoring the social equilibrium of deindustrialized America. Through this lens, Trump’s tariffs targeting Canada and Mexico take on a different meaning. He has picked his North American partners first because the supply chains here are the shortest and producers in the two countries will face lower transaction costs for shifting production back into the United States than companies in Europe or elsewhere. The Trump-Vance policy bet is that a 25% tariff to access the U.S. market will represent such a high economic cost that companies will be prepared to absorb the short-term disruption of moving product mandates, production lines, and even entire facilities from Canada and Mexico back to the United States. Considering the disastrous fiscal position the United States finds itself in, a position that has deteriorated markedly not only because of the pandemic but also because of continued government deficit spending at levels normally seen during wartime, new innovative measures need to be taken. At this time, tariffs are considered to be a key part of a larger fiscal agenda for generating hundreds of billions in revenues to fund trillions in tax cuts without pushing up borrowing costs. They are no longer just a bargaining tool. In conclusion, comparing tariff threats in 2025 versus those in 2016, we must understand that the current threats are a fiscal necessity hardwired into Trump’s demand-side theory of stimulating economic growth through large-scale permanent tax expenditures. In view of this and in stark terms, the incoming Trump administration, nervous about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 124 percent, may not have very much choice when it comes to levying large tariffs. If Canadians continue to think that this President, his billionaire donors, and the current GOP are going to forgo tax cuts to forgo tariffs, they suffer from a level of national delusion that even Dracula cannot sort out. Are the politico in Ottawa prepared in their ivory towers? We will soon see

THROUGH THOSE EYES…

THROUGH THOSE EYES... By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States Nothing brings my heart greater sorrow than to drive down my city downtown and witness the suffering and despair of fellow citizens living on our streets. Thanksgiving comes, remembrance day passes and now Christmas. Times to celebrate with an open heart and generous spirit. A time to rejoice on spirit, faith and appreciation for all that makes Canada. CANADA. My mind happy, proud of our Canada. Yet, so full of sorrow and confusion as how can we celebrate knowing the truths that lurk before us. The realities of those fellow Canadians suffering. As I stop at a light. I look over at a soul staring right through me. Sitting on a cold sidewalk along with all his belongings. Shivering and suffering as the tempest weather pounds him. Surrendered to the realities of his life. He sits there in despair as a scene from some poor third world nation. This is not our Canada. This can’t be our Canada. How can we celebrate anything with the suffering right before us. As I look into his eyes, I can see down deep in his suffering soul. I can feel his pain. Through those eyes, I see me. You, any one of us. His pain becomes mine. As good as we may have it today. Life is a constant evolving change. A loss of job. Illness, death in the family. The realities of life can give great comforts, as it can take. Through those eyes I can feel that he does not want to be on the street. Any more than I would. Any more than any of our family members or friends would. Through those eyes I can see myself at any given time. Without money, food or shelter. No place to call home. Many discard the homeless as being addicts, mental health cases. In reality, they are one of us... with negative life circumstances. By-product of a broken social, political and cultural system. Systems that at one time focused on standards, quality of life and the preservation of culture, customs and Canadian traditions. Today’s we are quick to label people with struggles as suffering from an array of mental health issues. We have failed to be compassionate and understantive. Mental health has many faces and the social stigma in order to justify lack of standards and care is what is crippling our society. Through those eyes - I see the need for our country to go back to what worked. It may not have been pretty. But it worked. Many argue we have had this problem for ever. That due to increase population the problem is more noticeable. I say not. The poor have always been. They had their culture based on their own standards. Always maintaining the integrity of duty to Country. Today those eyes scream out for help. For guidance. We need solid change.

Community Newspapers: Connecting and Supporting Local Communities

Community Newspapers: Connecting and Supporting Local Communities By Dale Jodoin Community newspapers are a vital part of neighborhoods and towns, delivering local news to millions of Canadians every week. They serve more than just an informational role; they are key in connecting people, supporting local groups, and fostering collaboration. Across Canada, nearly 14 million copies of community newspapers are distributed weekly, often free of charge, making them an essential resource for many. Community newspapers provide straightforward news, helping readers stay informed about events and issues in their area. They act as a watchdog for local governance, holding politicians accountable by ensuring transparency in reporting. This role is critical to maintaining trust and credibility, as unbiased reporting empowers communities and encourages informed decision-making. However, concerns about political influence over some media outlets have sparked discussions about the importance of journalistic independence. Readers expect community newspapers to provide accurate, impartial news rather than being swayed by political agendas. Independence ensures newspapers can continue their role as a reliable source of truth and a platform for public accountability. Beyond reporting, community newspapers play an essential role in supporting local nonprofit organizations and community groups. These groups often rely on newspapers to raise awareness about their work, promote events, and recruit volunteers. Local food banks, for example, use newspapers to inform the public about distribution times and how to donate. Environmental groups share sustainability tips and event details, while other organizations highlight community resources, such as free educational programs or mental health services. Affordable advertising and feature stories in community newspapers allow nonprofits to reach a wide audience without straining their budgets. Public service announcements and advocacy pieces also provide these groups with a platform to communicate their mission and needs effectively. Community newspapers are a hub for building connections between local groups, businesses, and individuals. They encourage collaboration by sharing success stories of partnerships that benefit the community. For instance, a story about a local grocery store teaming up with a food bank to provide meals for families not only informs the public but also inspires similar initiatives. Additionally, newspapers help bridge gaps between local authorities and residents by sharing essential guidelines and updates. They educate readers about rules, such as food bank eligibility criteria, recycling practices, and safety protocols for community events. This information simplifies processes and ensures that people know how to access the help and resources they need. Community newspapers often serve as a platform for highlighting important local issues. Coverage of topics such as homelessness, public safety, or environmental challenges brings these issues to the forefront, encouraging community involvement. By reporting on these matters, newspapers motivate individuals and groups to take action and seek solutions. For example, stories about cleanup efforts in parks or volunteer recruitment for local shelters show the impact of collective action. These stories also provide recognition to those working tirelessly to improve their communities. Community newspapers are more than just a source of news. They act as a cornerstone for local engagement, bringing people together and supporting those in need. Their commitment to unbiased reporting, community support, and advocacy ensures they remain a valuable resource for towns and neighborhoods across Canada. By connecting people and sharing stories of positive change, community newspapers continue to strengthen the fabric of society, ensuring local voices are heard and local challenges are addressed.