Is a renter always a tenant?

Is a renter always a tenant? By Theresa Grant Real estate columnist Renting in the province of Ontario doesn’t always mean you’re considered a tenant. As such, not everyone is protected under the RTA, The residential Tenancies Act. Whether or not you are covered under the Residential Tenancies Act depends on the type of accommodation you are renting. If you are renting an apartment in a large building with multiple units for instance, you would be considered a tenant. As such, you would be covered under the Residential Tenancies act. If you are renting a room in a house where your landlord or the owner of the house also lives, you would be considered a boarder or a lodger. If you are renting a self-contained basement apartment with a separate entrance, and the owner of the house, the landlord or landlady lives upstairs, you would be considered a tenant. It can get confusing. Renting rooms in a house where the owner or landlord does not reside, is different yet again. If that is the case, you would be considered a tenant. Rooming houses were a way of life many years ago especially in populated cities like Toronto. That may have been a person’s first home away from home as they migrated to the city for work or school. Over the years, their popularity dwindled and, in some cases, became neglected run-down fire traps. There are very strict fire regulations on the registered rooming houses that remain. There are a few registered rooming houses here in Oshawa. They are inspected by the fire department on a regular basis. The official inspection pass is usually located just inside the front door along with the occupancy maximum. They are run like a business because that is what they are considered. As rents surged over the last few years, rooming houses seem to have regained some popularity. If you are living in a four-bedroom house and the owner and or the owner’s family also reside in the house, you are a boarder or a lodger. You are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act. One helpful notation to all of this confusion seems to be that if you are renting a space within the home of the landlord or landlady, and you do not have a kitchen or bath, you are then considered a lodger as opposed to a tenant. It is always recommended to know your rights and responsibilities when it comes to renting and always know whether you are considered a tenant or a boarder.

A TALE OF TWO MAYORS AND A D.E.I CULTURE GONE MAD THE ISSUES AND DEBATES THAT HAVE SHAPED THE WEEK

A TALE OF TWO MAYORS AND A D.E.I CULTURE GONE MAD THE ISSUES AND DEBATES THAT HAVE SHAPED THE WEEK By Dean Hickey THIS WEEK WE DIRECT OUR ATTENTION toward events which, by themselves, have displayed a range of unhealthy moral and philosophical principles, all of which account for much of what is lacking in the way we are governed. It is impossible at times, notwithstanding the most strenuous exertions, to raise the acuity of some among the elected officials who now occupy certain city council chambers. Readers of this column may surely grasp this reality as we consider recent social media posts that are generating plenty of controversy. PICKERING’S MAYOR ASHE TAKES TO SOCIAL MEDIA To even the most casual observer, the tensions that have plagued Pickering City Council so far this term are nothing less than troubling to residents within the community as well as some among the municipality’s staff. The source of this conflict continues to be a matter for debate, however, over the course of six days last month, Mayor Kevin Ashe took to Facebook in an attempt to offer up a series of provocative comments aimed at his well-known adversary, Ward 1 City councillor Lisa Robinson. The unfortunate narrative began with a post on March 22 in which the Mayor described councillor Robinson as a ‘hypocrite” suggesting she was “The only Councillor who has been found to breach our gifts policy…” This, as one might expect, gave rise to a public debate between the Mayor and his outspoken colleague. Their exchanges included the following remarks as each sought to outdo the other in what could only be described as an online sparring match: Ashe: “You can’t follow the rules. Why don’t you start there?” Robinson: “”Why don’t you start following the current rules?” Ashe: “I follow the rules…” Robinson: “Stop deflecting, Mr. Mayor. Why won’t you second the motion to ban gifts and benefits?” If that public display of animosity and schoolyard banter wasn’t enough, Mayor Ashe posted yet again on March 26, suggesting councillor Robinson take a leave of absence due to her having recently been selected as a federal candidate in a neighbouring riding. That post appears to have been removed, however, another was added in its place a mere 24 hours later. This time, the debate has been considerable, with one participant suggesting to the Mayor, “It’s actually embarrassing watching you whine about her” and another saying, “This bickering back and forth between Ashe and Robinson is unprofessional.” Perhaps the most memorable comment was offered by councillor Robinson herself when she told the Mayor, “Looks like I’ve taken up permanent residence in your thoughts…” The situation continues to unfold for all the world to see, and whether one agrees with Mayor Ashe or his opponent in the debate, this little exhibition of ‘catch me if you can’ does nothing but diminish the Office of the Mayor, and that is something everyone over at Pickering city hall needs to understand. OSHAWA’S MAYOR CARTER BUILDS A BUREAUCRATIC EMPIRE “At this particular time, I have embraced the Strong Mayor Powers, and I just want to remind everyone of that.” Those comments were made by Oshawa Mayor Dan Carter as some councillors attempted to debate a few key components of his tax-and-spend agenda. It began during a debate over public engagement opportunities for future budget deliberations, namely that a special meeting of council be held on a pre-scheduled weeknight this coming autumn to listen to residents’ concerns. Ward 5 Regional councillor Brian Nicholson was unequivocal in his comments to the Mayor as to how such a meeting may be perceived. “It leaves the impression that Council has some kind of authority or power in this process.” He went on to add, “When we say to the public that Council is going to listen and… control the budget process, we are misleading the public.” It is known that councillors attempted to bring forward amendments to last year’s budget, only to be vetoed by Mayor Carter as part of his overwhelming embrace of the supreme powers bestowed upon him by the Provincial government. Local taxpayers were subsequently faced with an increase in spending and staffing levels, to be paid for by a whopping 7.87% tax increase, far above that of the previous year, which amounted to less than 4%. The proposal for greater public input on the budgetary process was ultimately voted down, not only by the Mayor, but also councillors Bob Chapman, John Gray, John Neal, and Rick Kerr. Undeterred, councillor Nicholson went on to move a motion that “Council recommends a budget increase target of not more than 4% in 2026.” This proposal was ultimately successful, but without the support of the Mayor and certain councillors apparently unwilling to rule out another major tax increase, including Derek Giberson, Jim Lee, and Rick Kerr. OSHAWA DEI CHAMPIONS AWARDS PROGRAM Last week I told readers of this column about efforts within some municipalities, particularly the City of Toronto, to create an unelected council seat for a representative of the Indigenous community, part of a broad-reaching mandate by that city’s in-house Diversity Equity and Inclusion (D.E.I.) bureaucracy. Last week, Oshawa councillors approved an initiative by their own staff to establish a ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Champions Awards Program’ with an inaugural awards presentation scheduled for Spring 2026. For those who believe solely in the inherent fairness associated with a merit-based approach towards hiring and other selection processes, the staff report considered by Council is nothing more than an affirmative action and racial preferences mandate. The intent of the report is to see a government-initiated extension of D.E.I. initiatives toward individuals, schools, businesses, charities, and non-profit organizations, all under the guise of a so-called rewards program. The ideology behind this type of approach has rightly become a target of criticism, as the focus is inevitably on ‘identity’ over merit, leading to quotas and forced representation rather than on skills and qualifications. Certain among the anti-racism policies and other such programs which seek to foster a welcoming environment, fairness in the application of our laws, and the protection of individual rights are all positive steps. The mandate associated with overall D.E.I. ideology, however, may be seen as less valuable, and certainly less trustworthy. A COLLECTIVE DISPLAY OF RECKLESS IDEAS The unfortunate aspects of our political culture highlighted in this week’s column display, in a special manner, the truth of what this newspaper has heretofore identified as weaknesses within the democratic process. We see it as a waste of votes when citizens elect officials who start making decisions based on self-interest rather than those of the community which put them into office in the first place. Embarrassing debates on social media, a reckless disregard for over-burdened taxpayers, and the approval of policies that will only seek to divide rather than unify, are all part of a pattern bordering on ineptitude. Meanwhile, the threat of significant global economic challenges looms overhead, and will require a renewed focus among municipal councils on what really matters, being the economy and the creation of jobs. Let us hope common sense prevails.

OPINION: The Conservative & Liberal Parties Don’t Own Your Vote --- You Do ---

OPINION: The Conservative & Liberal Parties Don’t Own Your Vote --- You Do --- By Councillor Lisa Robinson Let’s talk about democracy. Not the kind politicians love to plaster on lawn signs — I mean real democracy. The kind where you choose your candidate, not some backroom party boss. Because what’s happening right now in Canada — and right here in Pickering–Brooklin — is a betrayal of everything democracy is supposed to stand for. The Conservative Party has handpicked candidates in approximately 90 ridings across the country, including ours. That means grassroots candidates who spent over a year knocking on doors, meeting residents, building relationships, and pouring their own time and money into earning a nomination were pushed aside at the last second. Why? Because they weren’t part of the inner circle. That’s not democracy. That’s elitism. And it gets worse. Our Liberal candidate isn’t even from Pickering–Brooklin — they’re being parachuted in from Markham. Meanwhile, the Conservative candidate doesn’t live here either, and she’s already proven she doesn’t share the values of real conservatives. This is someone who pushed vaccines on children and tried to bribe marginalized communities with dance parties and gift cards to get the jab. Is that conservative? That’s government overreach, coercion, and the exact opposite of bodily autonomy. And let’s not forget — she wasn’t voted in by the people. She was handpicked by Doug Ford, the very Premier who rammed through vaccine passports, locked down small businesses, and divided communities. If that’s not a follower looking for a paycheck, I don’t know what is. And if we ever face another medical or social crisis again, do you really believe this person will protect your job, your family, or your bodily autonomy? Because I don’t. And neither should you. If the party can’t even respect the basic right of members to choose their own nominee, what makes you think their candidate will respect you as a constituent? They weren’t chosen by you. They were chosen for you — and that’s the problem. And while they’ve been silent, collecting their endorsements and avoiding tough conversations, I’ve been the only elected official in this riding willing to stand up — and pay the price for it. I’ve been unpaid for nine months because I spoke the truth and refused to back down. Not one of these candidates said a word in support. Why? Because they don’t want to upset the system. They don’t rock the boat — they row it. So no — voting for what you believe in is not splitting the vote. That’s just a lie designed to control you. It’s how they keep you in fear, voting for the “lesser of two evils.” But ask yourself: what has that gotten you? More of the same. More mandates. More lockdowns. More broken promises. The Conservatives don’t own your vote. The Liberals don’t own your vote. You own your vote. And you deserve to give it to someone who will fight for you — not someone who’s just waiting to cash a paycheque and follow orders. This is your moment. If we want real change, we have to vote like it. Don’t vote out of fear. Vote with courage. Vote with conviction. Vote for someone who has already shown they’ll stand up — even when it costs them everything. Because the ballot belongs to the people. Let’s start acting like it. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor

TrumpedChumpedand left for Stupid…

trumped chumped and left for stupid... 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 Sometimes I feel like I am the only one awake. Does no one else see the business move Trump is pulling on the world and everyone is falling for it? Trump comes from the corporate world. A place where you have to win all the time. Open challenge normally is met with total annihilation. Or in what we all have got to know as ‘YOUR FIRED’. Challenging Trump on the Tariffs is economic suicide. Look at what is taking place in Canada. Before tariffs were even sanctioned. Companies laid off. Companies threaten economic downfall. Suppliers, threatened price increases.... What Trump has done is expose the vultures in our economy. The vultures that look for any opportunity to slim the work force and increase prices. Much like this crap about ‘BUY CANADIAN’. The question is why have we not been buying Canadian all along? Why because traditionally Canadian made products cost more. So people obviously went with China and the U.S. Look at the local municipalities for example. They are all quick for the photo opportunity, extending opinion and resolve on an issue they have no clue what they are saying other than parrot what the main media spews. FEAR MONGERING. This is ridiculous. Personally, I think what Trump has done should be a wake up call to all average hard working taxpayers. We are getting ripped off. Our tax dollars are being wasted. Back to Trump. What do we do. NOTHING. Let him put tariffs on us. Let him think he has won. Then, when he comes around wanting something. Here is where we negotiate for a Canada win. Us imposing tariffs on U.S. goods does nothing for our economy and puts us on a weak spot in future negotiations. As every attempt to negotiate will lead to the same resolve. We as Canadians have to be smarter. Trump worries about borders. Ok, we as a sovereign nation. Will open all our borders across Canada. No security. Let the Americans build another wall to the north. As for the pipeline. Sure let’s build it. But we would claim special building funds for the next 100 years for crossing our land. A lease of sort. As for U.S. goods coming to Canada. No Tariff. Let’s pull what China has for years. Use American goods and services to strength our country. Charge double on their needs without mentioning tariff. Remember it not personal it’s good sound business.

Turn Off the Panic: Why Pre-Planning a Death Matters

Turn Off the Panic: Why Pre-Planning a Death Matters By Dale Jodoin Inspired by a father’s real experience When someone dies, there is sadness, confusion, and sometimes even panic. Most people don’t realize that when a loved one dies, the family has to make more than 80 decisions within just a few days. These decisions are hard, and they cost money. For low-income families, this can be too much to handle. The person writing this article saw their father go through it. When a close family member passed, their father had to make dozens of decisions while grieving. It was painful, stressful, and expensive. That’s why this article was written — to help other families get ready before it happens. There’s good news. You can plan ahead. It’s called pre-planning, and it can help your family save time, money, and pain when the time comes. This article explains what pre-planning is, why it matters, and how to do it — even if you don’t have a lot of money. What Is Pre-Planning? Pre-planning means making choices about what you want after you die — before it happens. This can include things like: Do you want to be buried or cremated? Do you want a big funeral or something small? Who do you want to handle your belongings? What music or prayers do you want at your service? It may feel strange to think about death. But planning ahead is one of the kindest things you can do for your family. Why Pre-Planning Is Important When someone dies, loved ones are often shocked and upset. At the same time, they have to make lots of quick decisions. These choices can be hard, especially when people don’t know what the person wants. Families may argue or feel guilt. Some people end up spending too much money, thinking it shows more love. Pre-planning helps in three ways: It takes pressure off your family. It helps avoid arguments and confusion. It saves money. When you make these decisions in advance, your family can just follow your wishes. That way, they can spend more time supporting each other instead of stressing out. What If I Don’t Have a Lot of Money? Many people think pre-planning is only for the rich. That’s not true. Even if you’re low-income, you can still plan. In fact, it’s even more important for families with tight budgets. Here are some money-saving tips for pre-planning: Cremation is often cheaper than burial. Simple caskets can still be respectful and beautiful. You don’t need a fancy hall — services can be held at home, in a church, or at a community center. You don’t need flowers or catering — a potluck or snack table is fine. The most important thing is to be clear about what you want. That saves your family from guessing and spending money they don’t have. The 87 Decisions Families Must Make You might be surprised, but when someone dies, the family must quickly make up to 87 decisions. Here are just a few examples: Who do we call first? Which funeral home do we use? What kind of service do we have? What clothes will they wear? What day will the funeral be? What music will be played? Who will speak at the funeral? What do we do with their bank accounts? How many death certificates do we need? These are hard questions to answer quickly. That’s why pre-planning helps so much. Create a Death Checklist Making a simple checklist helps keep things organized. Here’s an easy one you can copy and fill in: Your Simple Pre-Planning Checklist Who do I want to handle when I die? Name: ________________________________ Do I want a burial or cremation? [ ] Burial [ ] Cremation Where should I be buried or have my ashes placed? Do I want a funeral service? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, where: ________________________ What music or reading would I like? Do I have a will? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, where is it kept? _____________ Tip: Find a lawyer who can help for free — many legal clinics and community centers offer this service. Do I want people to donate money to a cause instead of sending flowers? Cause: _______________________________ What should happen to my pets? Who should be told about my death right away? Any special instructions or wishes? Keep this checklist somewhere safe, like in a file marked “In Case of Death,” and tell a trusted friend or family member where to find it. Talk About It Now — Not Later It’s okay to talk about death. It doesn’t mean you’re giving up. It means you care about the people you’ll leave behind. Sit down with your family and say, “I want to make things easier for you when the time comes.” Some people also choose to talk to a local funeral home, church, or community group. Many offer free help with planning. Don’t Forget About Help In Canada, some provinces and cities offer death benefit programs for people with low income. These can help pay for a basic cremation or burial. You can also ask your local social services office or Indigenous support groups if you qualify for help. Some charities and churches also help families with final costs. It’s always okay to ask. Final Thoughts: Love Never Forgets Planning for death doesn’t take away from life. In fact, it protects the people you love. By making these decisions now, you give your family a gift: peace of mind. You don’t need a lot of money to plan. You just need a little time, a pen, and love in your heart. Remember — love never forgets. And that’s what pre-planning is all about.

The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up

The Myth of Splitting the Vote And Why I Chose to Stand Up By Councillor Lisa Robinson We’ve all heard it before: “Don’t split the vote.” It's the line the political establishment uses to scare good people into supporting bad candidates. But let’s be honest—this is nothing more than a tactic to keep you locked into a broken system, one that no longer serves the people it was meant to represent. The truth is, there’s no such thing as splitting the vote when your vote never truly belonged to a party in the first place. Your vote is yours. It belongs to your conscience, your values, and your future—not to strategists in Ottawa or party insiders trying to control the outcome. The past few years under Liberal leadership have been nothing short of disastrous. Taxes are up. Food prices have skyrocketed. Gas is unaffordable. Our small businesses have suffered. Families are stretched thin, seniors are being left behind, and young people are losing hope. This government has bled us dry while smiling for the cameras—and they have the nerve to ask for four more years? And now, in Pickering–Brooklin, they’ve parachuted in a Liberal candidate who doesn’t even live here—she lives in Markham. Let that sink in. She doesn’t share your streets, your schools, or your struggles. But she wants to represent you? On the other side, we have the so-called Conservative candidate—also not from Pickering. Not even from Durham. Dropped in from elsewhere, with no skin in the game, no history with our people, and no understanding of what we’ve been through. And worst of all? This same individual pushed vaccine mandates on innocent people—including marginalized communities—forcing people to choose between feeding their families or complying with a political agenda. How could anyone support that over someone who has been in the trenches with you—fighting, sacrificing, and standing firm when it mattered most? That’s why I chose to run for the People’s Party of Canada. Because I know what it means to stand up—when it’s hard, when it’s costly, and when you’re standing alone. If I didn’t step forward now, I would never be able to look myself in the mirror. I’d be betraying everything I believe in—and everyone who put their trust in me. This isn’t about ego. It’s about principle. It’s about truth. It’s about doing everything in my power to give you a real voice in a system that has tried again and again to silence people like us. I’ve faced council censorship. I’ve gone without pay for nearly a year. I’ve been smeared and attacked because I dared to expose corruption, speak honestly, and refuse to be bought or bullied. And I’m still here—because I refuse to quit on you. They’ll say I’m splitting the vote. I say I’m offering the only real choice. Because when your options are a Liberal who doesn’t live here, has ruined our economy, made life unaffordable and a so called conservative who pushed mandates on your children, the question isn’t “Why vote for me?” The real question is: Why on earth would you vote for them? Your vote is your voice. And it’s time to use it not out of fear—but with boldness. With courage. With the conviction that we, the people, still hold the power in this country. They can try to divide us. They can parachute in strangers. But they can’t stop the truth. And they can’t stop a people who are finally ready to rise. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor, A True Conservative MP Candidate for the People’s Party of Canada

Do we need municipal government?

do we need municipal government?

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 You always hear... Democracy is failing society... Democracy is under siege. When in reality Democracy is the vehicle that allows the people to elect someone to office. Traditionally, the electorate selected candidates based on credentials and stature in the community. People they could trust to work in their best interest. This worked well for hundreds of years as long as it was a communal mentality. In today's modern society it still works fine as a vehicle for selecting representatives. The problem is the quality of representative is what has become questionable as most of those elected do not have life experience, the academic qualification and or intellect to be able to make the decisions that they are faced once in office. So what do we have. Wasted tax payers money. Little or no representation. Think about this. When was the last time you ran into your local or regional council member? Do you even know who they are? Then how is it they are representing you? Do you know the issues? Do you know what is happening in your community? If you answered ‘NO’, to any of the above. Then you proven my point. Modern day municipal government is a waste of money. We have no representation. Unfortunately, those elected may not even have the answers. As they depend on staff recommendations and peer opinion. Not on hard sound decision making based on common sense and rational thinking. Look at Oshawa. They spend millions of taxpayers dollars to erect a park next to a park. The ED BROADBENT park next to Lakeview. Is that sound, rational planning? Or wise expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers. This is one example. Now you can’t blame those elected? As they have clearly proven they have no clue what they are doing. It has become so bad... that most of the municipalities across Durham have shut down public access to the municipal offices. The public is so fed up that out of desperation they see municipal government as the enemy. Oshawa, a municipal fortress with three levels of security. Civic, police and a 2 million dollar para-military security firm that primarily protects the mayor and council members from taxpayers. Is this what we pay our taxes for? Don’t think so. But let’s not blame the incompetent we elected in office as they do not have the life experience and or intellect to deal with the general public. Once elected they employ a hit and miss approach towards matters. What we need is to vote based on credentials. Life experience. Imagine how much we the taxpayers would save with just a regional government. We need to get government back to the people and out of the hands of incompetents.

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted

Job Seekers: Consider How You Are Interpreted By Nick Kossovan People—hiring managers, recruiters, receptionists, your network, human resources—are what carbonates the job search experience. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that how you're interpreted (read: perceived) is the deciding factor in whether your networking efforts bear fruit, whether you're referred, whether you move along in the hiring process, and whether you're ultimately hired. This truism echoes the cautionary words of American rapper and actor Jaden Smith: "Be careful with how you make the world perceive you because they'll perceive you like that for the rest of your life." Undeniably, image is everything. Yet, many job seekers fail to manage their image effectively and wonder why they're stuck in a lengthy job search. Basically, interpreting someone involves attributing meaning to information, which could be visual (how the person is dressed, physical mannerisms, the car they drive, what they're eating, how they keep their work area) or auditory (accent, use of slang, lexicons, profanity, pronunciation). We do this constantly while communicating, which is why communication is messy. For an employer to whittle down a stack of applications to the one they'll hire, they must interpret what they know and see, making judgments that sometimes lead to accusations of bias or "ism." According to philosopher Hannah Arendt, identity is formed through public actions; we become who we are based on how others see us. Thus, "people treat you as they see you." Be mindful of the impression you make on others, remember: · Image is everything! · How you make someone feel is everything! Since your image and how you make your interviewer(s) feel significantly influence your job search success, knowing what isn't a 'good look'—what turns off employers—is essential. Based on my observations, most job seekers either don't know what isn't a 'good look' or don't care about how they're perceived by employers. What isn't a 'good look' Publicly Bashing Employers: It's common knowledge that employers scrutinize a candidate's online activities to determine whether they're interview-worthy, which is why it amazes me how many job seekers bash employers. Do they believe employers will read their "frustrations" and say, "He's right! Let's change everything we've been doing"? Publicly bashing employers is like biting the hands you want to feed you. Why go on a platform like LinkedIn to malign those who could potentially help you? Publicly bashing employers shows poor judgment and a lack of emotional control. Sloppy Self-Presentation Apicius, a 1st-century Roman gourmet, famously said, "We eat with our eyes first." This principle applies when meeting someone for the first time. It's human nature to assume a person's outward appearance reflects their inner qualities. If there's ever a time to look your best, it's during a job search. Also, presenting yourself well extends beyond your appearance; your resume, LinkedIn profile, and social media activities contribute to the overall impression of who you are. Typos, vague results, poor grammar, and inappropriate social media posts turn employers off. Aggressive Communication Many job seekers often confuse assertiveness with aggression, possibly due to a prevalent sense of entitlement. Assertive communication expresses needs and opinions directly and respectfully, while aggressive communication prioritizes personal needs at the expense of others. I view assertiveness as a two-way dialogue, whereas aggression feels like a one-way proclamation. Aggressive communication leads to the aforementioned employer bashing and having a standoffish attitude with interviewers as if they're the enemy. In contrast, assertiveness means being clear about what you want while considering the employer's needs. The easiest way to expedite your job search is to focus on how you can solve an employer's problems and align your communication accordingly. Job seekers should aim to communicate from a "What can I do for you?" perspective rather than a "What's in it for me?" stance. Lack of Manners and Social Skills Although manners and social skills have declined, they are still crucial for career success. Lacking these skills makes you less likeable (read: affects how others feel about you). I've yet to meet a hiring manager who hires someone they don't like. Good manners facilitate relationships, which are vital to career success. Ignoring social cues or failing to read a room can lead to misunderstandings and hinder relationship-building. How people receive your message, what they remember about you, and how they feel afterward matters. At some point, everyone feels that how they're being interpreted is holding them back. When that happens, it's in your best interest to figure it out. If you feel unappreciated or misunderstood, look in the mirror instead of blaming "the world." You control your destiny through how you present yourself and how you communicate. Nobody is owed acceptance. While it’s contrary to the popular advice to "be yourself," that assumes 'yourself' is someone people actually like—a dangerous assumption—because your physical appearance and actions are what others use to interpret you, perception management is crucial to job search success; therefore, care as much, if not more, about how others perceive you than how you perceive yourself. The phrase "perception is reality," attributed to American political strategist Lee Atwater, echoes throughout an employer's hiring process; therefore, what employers see about you is your responsibility. ___________________________________________________________________ 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

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

A NEW FORM OF ‘REPRESENTATION’ WITHOUT ELECTION? APPOINTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS By Dean Hickey THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR CANADIAN STYLE OF GOVERNANCE from our federal parliament to our local and regional councils is based on democracy, not only in principle but in all its consequences. Canadians elect their representatives directly, and for the most part at regular intervals to ensure accountability. In this regard, you and I are the ultimate authority, and our collective interests remain a perpetual influence throughout our communities as we find ourselves surrounded by the incessant drumbeat of political propaganda. This decade has so far seen several attempts made to water down that democratic process among local municipal councils, and in particular, Toronto City Hall. Some among that august body of decision makers have recently formed the opinion that the affairs of their community may be better served by adding an unelected member of city council. At a recent meeting of their Executive Committee - which is chaired by Mayor Olivia Chow - a motion was brought forward by the Mayor that would see Toronto’s City Manager look into opportunities to ‘deepen meaningful representation of the Indigenous community in City decision-making… including through advisory bodies and other mechanisms.’ Those ‘other mechanisms’ are seen by many Toronto councillors as an attempt to add one or more members of council who would be appointed based on their ancestry, without having been given a mandate by the electors. It will be convenient at this stage to consider a little more clearly the nature of this proposal and how it might ultimately affect other councils within the province, including that of the city of Oshawa. Let us suppose such a change is eventually approved by the provincial government, under whose authority this issue rests. Our attention must first be directed to the degree to which land use and planning may be affected. The Reconciliation Action Plan created and approved by Toronto City Council strives to establish what they see as ‘collaborative decision making within many divisions whose work impacts Indigenous Peoples, land and water.’ There’s the first challenge, and one that will undoubtedly give rise to conflicts over what constitutes Indigenous lands, whether subject to Treaty disputes or not. Consider; every Oshawa council or committee meeting begins with a rather lengthy Land Acknowledgement statement, which among other things, seeks to recognize ‘our role in addressing the negative impacts that colonization continues to have.’ Those are strong words, and it is not unreasonable to suggest major decisions on residential and commercial developments could be challenged by appointed members whose mandate, some would say understandably, may include a focus on leveraging their ability to halt certain projects. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario makes reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a foundation for building relationship agreements. There’s the second challenge, being the potential for appointed councillors to bring the specter of international law to bear on local decisions. Municipalities do not have full access to information on Crown-Indigenous relations, nor do they have the financial resources or the capacity to assume any responsibility in that regard. Enhancing Indigenous civic engagement is certainly a positive step, however the prospect of bringing the debate directly into a city council chamber is unwise and unfair to all concerned. Consider this; Oshawa’s Safety & Facilities Services committee recently recommended to Council that the Open Air Burning Bylaw be amended to allow for ‘Sacred Fires’ which is a reference to a typical ceremonial fire of deep spiritual and cultural significance to many Indigenous Peoples. The staff report includes a reference to, among other things, the United Nations when recommending that such open air burning be exempt from the City’s Fire Permit process. Further consultations were made with the City’s Diversity, Equity and Reconciliation Division, specifically the Indigenous Relations Advisor. The City of Toronto already recognizes Sacred Fires, however they still require appropriate documentation to be submitted to their Fire Services to initiate a site safety review, as these fires are known to sometimes burn for days on end. Residents have a right to be concerned as to what appears to be the complete absence of due diligence on the part of the City of Oshawa to include the necessary safety provision requirements over Sacred Fires. The proposed exclusion from the Fire Permit process may reasonably be seen as over-zealousness on the part of the Diversity gang whose staffing level was in fact increased by Mayor Dan Carter in his latest budget. It is that kind of pressure that results in bad policy decisions, and the prospect of appointing one or more unelected members to any city council to potentially further advance such ideas is wrong. Circling back to the City of Toronto, a spokesman for the Ford government had this to say when asked about the ongoing efforts by Mayor Chow and her closest colleagues to appoint unelected members to council: “People have the right to elect their representatives. We will always support that right.” Daniel Tate, from the watchdog group IntegrityTO had this to say: “It’s really concerning that a taxpayer-funded committee thinks it’s appropriate to invent unelected council positions based on identity.” As to the final results of this debate, time alone will tell, however now that the issue is being studied, debated, and reported on by the media, you can rest assured this affront to democracy will someday be approved, and as with so many changes at the municipal level, city councils across Ontario will rush to step in line to enact similar policy changes in their own municipalities. Last year, Hamilton councillors voted down a similar proposal that would have seen their city become the first to have unelected members of council. At the time, councillor Tom Jackson offered up these words, which one can only hope will resonate with others, including Oshawa councillors, “I will not support the exploration of adding a non-elected seat. Imagine the supreme, ultimate honour of an Indigenous person… running for elected office… and winning” That is exactly how it works in a democracy.

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East As expected, Canada's 45th general election got underway Sunday March 23rd, with the party leaders vying to become Canada's next Prime Minister, each positioning himself as the best candidate to strengthen Canada's economy and stand up to United States President Donald Trump. Canadians will vote and the campaign will close on April 28th, making it one of the shortest campaigns (37 days) allowed by legislation. Liberal Leader Mark Carney triggered the campaign by visiting Governor General Mary Simon and asking her to dissolve Parliament. Speaking outside Rideau Hall following that meeting, he said he is offering solutions instead of anger and division. "It's easy to be negative about everything when you've never built anything; when you've never had to make a payroll," he said. "Negativity won't win a trade war." Right out of the gate Carney promised a one-point cut to the middle class tax rate and said an election is necessary to show a strong response to American economic threats. The Liberal leader, who has yet to serve as an MP, will seek election in the Ottawa riding of Nepean. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre launched his campaign an hour before Carney addressed media, saying he plans to restore the promise of Canada and tackle affordability issues that he blames on elites. "Our nation is more divided than ever before, because the Liberal, radical, post-national, borderless and globalist ideology has weakened our nation," Poilievre said in Gatineau, Que., overlooking Parliament Hill. "Now, desperate for a fourth term, Liberals have replaced Justin Trudeau with his economic advisor and handpicked successor, Mark Carney." Poilievre said he will bring down the cost of living and fix the immigration system while supporting a strong military. Recent polls have suggested the Liberals and Conservatives are in a neck-and-neck race and the comfortable polling lead the Conservatives enjoyed for more than a year has all but evaporated. The NDP, which was tied with the Liberals a few months ago according to many surveys, has watched its support plummet. President Trump has threatened to economically coerce Canada into becoming a U.S. state, implementing some debilitating tariffs and promising others in response for a shifting set of policy changes ranging from fentanyl flows to dairy quotas. The new tariffs proposed by the United States are to hit Canada in just a few days, on April 2nd. It will be an exiting election with many unknowns and dynamics. Both leaders of the main parties willing to govern are untested in previous elections. Mark Carney the Liberal party leader has never had an elected position. On the other hand, Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative party, is a politician by trade with a long record of political involvement, but other experience. We will have to see how the campaign evolves, because it is an important election in a tormented world. Canadians need to leave woke issues and need to be united to face an uncertain future. Canadian identity must be preserved and we must be proud to be Canadians as never before. At this point Canada as a nation needs to be patriotic and proud of its past and its history, in order to face the black clouds of political menace from our previously trusted friend and neighbour. But let us go a little back in time. In ways no one could have understood at the time, the summer of 2015, has turned out to be a momentous one for Canada and Canadian politics, and the reverberations are only being fully felt now, nearly a decade later. I remember the election of 2015 very well. It was an election to be lost by the Conservative party lead by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They approached it in a very unusual way and failed to identify the real threat, which was the Liberal party, reduced to third party status at the time. Unfortunately, many of the staff running the 2015 election campaign are still involved in senior positions in Pierre Poilivre’s campaign, and prone to commit the same fatal mistakes that lead to the loss of the 2015 election. In the summer of 2015, one of the significant events might have seemed to be an announcement made by the leader of the Liberal Party in downtown Ottawa. Still four months away from becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau stood before television cameras at the Château Laurier and presented a platform for sweeping political reform, including a categorical commitment to change Canada's existing electoral system. In reality, at about the same time, a more seismic event occurred. On Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan, dismissed by many politicos as insignificant at the time, a former reality TV star announced that he was running to be president of the United States. He said "drugs" and "rapists" were streaming across the American border with Mexico. He promised to build a wall. He said the United States was being "ripped off" by the rest of the world and that it didn't have "victories" anymore. He vowed to "make America great again." It was Donald Trump. In the years that followed, the United States had multiple opportunities to decisively reject Donald Trump’s ideas. But last fall the majority of Americans chose him to be their president for a second time. For Canada, the first four years of a Trump presidency were a time-consuming challenge. The scramble to maintain an open economic relationship with Canada's largest trading partner necessarily became the Trudeau government's top priority. At the time it was still possible to believe that those four years were a strange anomaly and that America would, after four years of Trump, snap back to normal. Joe Biden's victory in 2020 seemed to confirm that. However, the four years of Biden's presidency now seem like the last gasp of a world that no longer exists. Well, two months into the second four years of Trump, the threat to Canada now seems existential. The first time around, Trump talked about tearing up the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, he threatens to erase the border an "artificially drawn line," in his words between our two countries. Whoever is prime minister after April 28th will have to contend with this unsettled and unsettling new reality. He will have to fight a continental trade war. He will have to negotiate with an American president who openly pines for annexation. He may soon face a national or global recession brought on by a global trade war. He will have to make urgent decisions about domestic economic policy, resource development, national defence and international engagement. Being aware of the challenges the next Prime Minister must face, it is up to you to decide which contender is best qualified to be Prime Minister. So never before has it been so important for you to get involved. Canada’s future is at stake!

What Happened to the Sesame Street We All Know and Love?

What Happened to the Sesame Street We All Know and Love? By Dale Jodoin For over 50 years, Sesame Street has been a staple of children’s television, teaching generations of kids their ABCs and 123s. From Big Bird to Elmo, the show became more than just entertainment—it was an educational tool that shaped childhoods around the world. But something is happening to Sesame Street, and it has left many wondering: can we ever get back the version we all loved? The Big Change at Max The biggest shock came in December 2024, when Warner Bros. Discovery announced it would no longer produce new Sesame Street episodes for its streaming service, Max (formerly HBO Max). The decision came as part of a shift in focus—Max wants to cater more to adult and family content, moving away from children’s programming. This means that after Season 55, which premieres in January 2025, the show will need a new home. While older episodes will still be available on Max until at least 2027, the future of new seasons is uncertain. The producers of Sesame Street are now searching for another platform willing to take on the beloved show. But even if it finds a new home, will it still be the same show? A Different Sesame Street for a Different Time Fans have noticed that Sesame Street has changed over the years. The original show, created in 1969, was built around short, engaging segments with colorful puppets, music, and real-life lessons. It featured diverse characters, catchy songs, and a sense of community that felt natural. Parents and kids could watch together, and both enjoyed the humor and lessons. In recent years, however, the show has shifted. Some say it has become more about pushing messages than simple, fun education. The storytelling has changed, and some beloved characters have been altered or even disappeared. Season 56 is expected to move further away from the traditional magazine-style segments and adopt a more narrative-driven format—which could mean fewer classic skits and more scripted episodes. The question many are asking is: why fix something that wasn’t broken? Is Sesame Street Going Woke? Critics argue that Sesame Street has become more focused on political and social agendas than just teaching kids the basics. The show now includes discussions about complex topics that many parents feel aren’t appropriate for young children. Some believe the show is trying too hard to cater to small groups instead of sticking to the broad, welcoming appeal that made it great. The show has always promoted kindness, diversity, and understanding, but today’s version feels more like a lesson in activism than in learning how to share cookies like Cookie Monster. Parents who grew up watching Bert and Ernie’s silly antics or Oscar the Grouch’s grumpy but loveable personality now feel that the show has lost its charm. This shift raises concerns: is there still room for the classic fun that made Sesame Street a success, or is it now just another platform for “modern” messaging? Where Will Sesame Street Go Next? With Max cutting ties, the big question remains—who will pick up Sesame Street? The show could move to another streaming service like Netflix, Disney+, or Amazon Prime. But those companies might demand even more changes, further shifting Sesame Street away from its original feel. The public broadcasting model that made Sesame Street famous has also faded. Once upon a time, PBS aired the show for free, reaching millions of kids across North America. But with its shift to paid platforms like HBO, access to Sesame Street has been harder for many families. If the show moves again, will it become even more exclusive? Some are hopeful that a new network will bring back the old charm. Others worry that no matter where it lands, the show will never be the same again. Can We Bring Back the Old Sesame Street? Many long-time fans would love to see Sesame Street return to its roots—where lessons were simple, fun, and relatable for all kids. But in today’s world, entertainment is no longer just about entertaining. Many shows, including Sesame Street, are trying to meet modern expectations instead of keeping things light and fun for everyone. Is there still a place for classic Sesame Street, where Big Bird and Grover go on silly adventures, and Oscar complains about everything but still has a heart of gold? Can Sesame Street go back to focusing on numbers, letters, and life lessons instead of deeper political themes? Some believe that if enough people speak up, Sesame Street could find a way to balance the old with the new. Others fear that those days are gone forever. A Future Full of Questions No matter what happens, Sesame Street has left an undeniable mark on pop culture and education. The question is: will it continue to be the beloved show for all, or just another program that only appeals to a select few? For now, all we can do is wait and see where Elmo, Cookie Monster, and the gang end up next. But one thing is certain—Sesame Street will never be forgotten, even if it doesn’t look the way we remember.

PRESERVING OSHAWA’S PAST THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE CITY’S CULTURAL HERITAGE

PRESERVING OSHAWA’S PAST THE FIGHT TO SAVE THE CITY’S CULTURAL HERITAGE By Dean Hickey MANY OSHAWA RESIDENTS WERE SADDENED to see the demolition of Cowan House, one of the city’s oldest surviving examples of early Georgian architecture, in the summer of 2022. The property, across the street from city hall, has now been cleared and construction is set to begin on a 16-storey, 172 unit condominium. Heritage Oshawa is a municipal advisory committee that was formed for the purpose of advising City Council on all matters relating to preserving the city’s cultural heritage, including buildings and structures. Prior to the sale and demolition of Cowan House (circa 1858), the committee recommended that it be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Anglican Church which owned the building opposed such a designation, and was ultimately supported by a majority of city councillors. A similar loss of one of Oshawa’s last remaining pre-confederation homes occurred at a property on Thornton Rd. N. where no less than seven new dwellings have been built in place of what was a gothic-style residence built in 1840, and once the home of Edward French, an early Oshawa merchant, as well as Joseph Gould who, for many years was a Justice of the Peace and a Commissioner of the High Court of Justice. Such history within the community is worth preserving, not only in archival documents and photographs, but in the form of houses and other buildings that provide a visual guide as to our collective past. Presently, there are two properties that have been the subject of debate over whether re-development or what is now known as ‘adaptive re-use’ should take precedence over heritage preservation. City councillors decided early last year to designate the century-old former Harmony Public School and to pursue the matter all the way to the Ontario Land Tribunal if necessary, despite objections from the property owners who want to tear it down for a proposed development. A similar appeal process is currently under way for Robert McLaughlin House, located on Simcoe St. N. not far from the city’s downtown. This property fell victim to arson and a gaping hole has been visible in the roof for a number of years as the battle between city hall and the property owner drags on. Among my examples, we have two properties lost, one that may very well be saved from the wrecking ball, and one that will likely not survive the appeal process in its current state of disrepair. Mixed results to be sure, however the struggle to preserve future at-risk properties continues. I had occasion to chat with well-known Oshawa resident Robert Bell, who is also a member of the Heritage Oshawa committee, and we discussed all manner of ongoing preservation efforts within the city. His interest began many years ago when he represented his church as they were seeking to have their property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. That was in 2012, and since that time he has been an active participant in a process which at times has been rewarding, and at others certainly less so as demolitions occur in spite of the committee’s efforts. When asked about the highs and lows of trying to save Oshawa’s history, my friend was sanguine in his reply, “I’m an eternal optimist, always trying to see something good in everything, and I never take things personally.” He went on to add, “I give advice only, and it’s important to remember that I am not an ultimate decision maker when it comes to the fate of historic properties.” All the while telling me he wasn’t in a position to speak on behalf of Heritage Oshawa, Robert was able to identify one preservation effort that he felt illustrated both positive and negative elements; that being the renovations to the 1929 Genosha Hotel building located at 70 King St. E. “The building had long since been designated, and proposals to do something with the property came and went over the years, with many people in the community simply looking forward to the day such an ‘eyesore’ would be pulled down” he said. “I felt lucky to be on the Heritage Committee when the building was finally gutted and its exterior fully restored, as we were permitted access that enabled us to see the transformation close up.” My friend described this project as a perfect example of what he says should be done, meaning a successful adaptive re-use. However, along with the obvious enthusiasm at urban renewal, there are always detractors, which Robert says is unhelpful. “During the process, as I saw the interior of the Genosha taken down to its structural elements only, there were some who felt the need to comment on social media that the place was nothing more than a ‘fire trap’ and of little value to anyone” he said. We shared a laugh as to what could possibly burn in a structure that by that time had been reduced to brick and steel. Of course, the building is now an architecturally significant condominium with a major food court at street level, but that doesn’t take away the memories my friend has when it comes to the naysayers. “It was troubling, because comments were circulating on Facebook that effectively hurt the entire community, with some saying - there’s Oshawa spending money on a fire-trap, a piece of garbage - and that is such a negative outlook in the face of those who were trying to do some good.” Circling back to the issue of Cowan House and its unfortunate demise, we discussed what I suggested was a missed opportunity to create a sort of ‘heritage district’ by preserving the entire block bounded by Simcoe, Athol, Centre, and Bagot Sts. within the very heart of the city. As it happens, Oshawa has only one such designation, that being the collection of wartime buildings at the airport. My further concern was the loss of most buildings that stood prior to the year 1900, however my friend was quick to say “You must remember that 19th century Oshawa was not a big place, and most of that is in our downtown.” As to the city’s future and all that might be done to save its built heritage only time will tell, but as long as there are dedicated volunteers ready to do what is necessary, Oshawa residents can look forward to seeing much of their built history remain for generations to come.

Pickering’s Democracy Is Under Siege

Pickering’s Democracy Is Under Siege By Lisa Robinson Pickering’s Democracy Is Under Siege—and I’m the Last Line of Defense By Councillor Lisa Robinson Pickering, Ontario, is no longer a democracy. Let’s stop pretending it is. Under Mayor Kevin Ashe’s iron grip, our city has slid into full-blown authoritarian rule, and I’ve been fighting tooth and nail to stop it. For nine months, I’ve stood alone against a 6-to-1 council majority hell-bent on silencing dissent, punishing the truth, and dismantling the very principles that hold a free society together. They’re trying to destroy my name, my livelihood, and my resolve—but I’m not backing down. This isn’t about me. It’s about you, the people of Pickering, and the democracy they’re stealing from us. What’s happening here isn’t just political mismanagement, it’s a calculated, communist-style power grab. Mayor Ashe isn’t acting like a leader; he’s acting like a dictator. He’s seized control of city government, sidelined the public, and turned City Hall into his personal kingdom. His latest move? Under Strong Mayor Power’s declared himself Chair of the Executive Committee—the most powerful decision-making body in the city. That gives him absolute control over which issues are discussed, how they’re framed, and how decisions are made. Translation? He controls everything. If by chance Ashe can’t be present, the powers to be have been assigned to Councillor Brenner as Vice Chair. He didn’t stop there. Ashe has appointed his loyal Deputy Mayor to chair the Planning Committee, and assigned Vice Chair to Councillor Butt, which means all major development decisions will now be rubber-stamped without meaningful debate or oversight. Statutory public meetings—your chance to be heard—have been shoved to separate evenings where only the Chair is required to show up. The rest of council can skip it, leaving your concerns ignored and your voice silenced. Don’t buy the “efficiency” or “burden” excuse – because I was never asked if I felt like chairing or attending meetings was ever a burden. In fact, I think the opposite, I would chair every meeting if I could and give every Pickering resident the chance to participate and have their voices heard. This is about cutting you out of the process. Fewer eyes, less pushback. That’s control, plain and simple. It gets worse. Ashe has also moved council meetings online—supposedly for “public safety”—yet Ashe’s wife, kids, and even his 8-year-old grandkids were allowed to attend in person. If it’s not safe for you, why is it safe for them? This isn’t about safety; it’s about silencing you. It’s easier to manipulate the narrative when you’re not in the room. Meanwhile, City Hall’s council chambers are being remodeled into a courtroom, with Ashe, the CAO, and the City Clerk front and center—while your elected Councillors are pushed to the sidelines. When you speak, you’ll face a wall of power, not the people you voted for. That’s not democracy—it’s intimidation. The public’s voice is being choked out. Delegation times have been slashed from 10 minutes to 5. No direct questions allowed. No recording meetings without a two-thirds council vote—good luck getting that. Residents can’t even discuss Integrity Commissioner reports meant to hold officials accountable. The CAO picks the media outlets for city ads, turning transparency into propaganda. Questions? Ask them behind closed doors—or not at all. This is a systematic shutdown of scrutiny, and it’s happening right in front of us. But Ashe’s authoritarian reach doesn’t stop at City Hall. He and his allies on council have also lobbied the provincial government to amend the Municipal Act—giving them the power to remove elected officials from office and ban them from running in future elections. Let’s be very clear: That’s not democracy. In a democracy, the voters decide who stays and who goes at the ballot box—not a handful of politicians behind closed doors. If Ashe and his council get their way, this would be nothing short of election interference. It would mean politicians—not the people—deciding who gets to participate in the democratic process. Challenge the establishment, and you’re gone—not by the will of the people, but by the whim of a political majority. That’s how authoritarian regimes operate—not democracies. This isn’t just about local control—it’s about fundamentally altering how democracy works in this province. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the voters, not each other. If an elected official crosses the line, the voters decide their fate at the next election—that’s the foundation of democracy. But Ashe wants to rewrite that rulebook, giving politicians the power to remove their opponents and eliminate competition. That’s not democracy—that’s tyranny. I’ve been on the front lines of this fight since day one, exposing corruption and demanding transparency. How did Ashe respond? By hitting me where it hurts. For nine months, I haven’t received a single paycheck—not one cent—because I refused to stay quiet about the backroom deals and abuses of power I’ve witnessed. They’ve frozen my council budget, blocking me from holding town halls or keeping you informed. They’ve weaponized city resources to cut me out of key decisions. This isn’t just retaliation—it’s a desperate attempt to break me. But here’s the thing: I didn’t run for office for a paycheck. I ran to fight for you. And I’m not going anywhere. Then there’s Ashe’s wife. This isn’t just about him—it’s about a political dynasty. Her influence has turned city decisions into a family affair, protecting their inner circle at Pickering’s expense. This isn’t government; it’s a business—and we’re not the customers. Decisions are no longer being made for the good of Pickering—they’re being made to protect and benefit the Ashe political family and their friends. They want you to think this is over. They want you to believe Ashe will get away with it. But I’m still here, the lone voice against a stacked council, taking the hits so you don’t have to. They’ve tried to destroy my name, calling me a troublemaker, a radical—anything to discredit the truth. But I wear their attacks as a badge of honour. Every unpaid month, every blocked town hall, every 6-to-1 vote against me proves I’m striking a nerve. I’m fighting for free speech, for your right to be heard, for a Pickering where power answers to the people—not the other way around. This is our last stand. If Ashe gets his way, democracy in Pickering—and maybe beyond—dies. But I believe in us. I believe in the grit of this community. They can’t silence me, and they won’t silence you. It’s time to rise up, demand accountability, and take back our city. Because if we don’t stop this now, there may be no turning back. Here’s a list of the authoritarian measures Ashe, council, and the CAO have implemented to silence the public — though this may not be exhaustive: · Delegation times slashed — Reduced from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, making it almost impossible for residents to present their case. · No more Q&A — The public is no longer allowed to ask direct questions to council during meetings. · Recording meetings forbidden — The public can no longer record meetings · Media forbidden from recording meetings— Unless two-thirds of council votes in favour. · Restricted agenda control — Residents can’t speak about anything not already on the agenda unless two-thirds of council approves of topic. · Propaganda control — Council can now only advertise in media outlets hand-picked by the CAO. · Closed-door dealings — All questions must be asked behind closed doors, out of public view or they will cut off your mic. · Integrity Commissioner reports off-limits — Residents are forbidden from speaking about these reports at council meetings. · Banning public speakers — Residents from outside Pickering are banned from speaking at council meetings, unless approved by Mayor or City Clerk. · Virtual meetings — Moved under the guise of public safety. · Council chambers remodeled into a courtroom — You’ll now face Ashe, the CAO, and the City Clerk directly while councillors (Elected Officials) sit off to the side, stripping them of their authority. · Threatening political punishment — I’ve been denied my paycheck for nine months as retaliation for speaking up for constituents. · Weaponizing the budget — My council budget has been frozen, preventing me from holding town halls on City property. “Thoughtcrime” · Threats of loss of office — “Thoughtcrime” If I record any videos from my office — They don’t approve of the content or truth. · Notices of Motions — All notices of motions “shall” go through staff first before being presented · CAO Authority – I can no longer speak directly to Directors or Staff – all correspondence must go through the CAO · Staff Attendance – For the month of March, staff will not attend meetings in order to send a “strong message” because I called a staff member out for lying, and want to bring a notice of motion for strict penalties up to and including termination if employees are caught lying to public or council. · Trespass Orders — For speaking the truth, voicing your opinions, whether in person or over social media that the City feels threatening. They’re systematically silencing you. They’ve tried to crush me for exposing the truth. But I’m still here — and I’m not backing down. Pickering belongs to the people — and it’s time we take it back. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson “The People’s Councillor”

America’s $29 Trillion Crisis: The National Debt and What Comes Next

America’s $29 Trillion Crisis: The National Debt and What Comes Next By Dale Jodoin Do not be mad at the writer—these are real facts that you can look up. It is just a shame that the world media is ignoring this. If America falls, the world falls, because everybody wants to spend America’s money. The United States is facing a financial crisis that few people are talking about, but it affects every single American—and the entire world. The national debt has skyrocketed to over $29 trillion, and unless something changes, it could lead to serious consequences for the country’s future. The U.S. government has been spending more money than it takes in, running massive deficits year after year. If this trend continues, the nation risks financial instability, higher taxes, and a weaker economy. This crisis didn’t appear overnight—it has been building for decades. However, the situation has worsened under poor economic leadership, with reckless spending and policies that have failed to curb inflation or boost economic growth. Now, the United States must make tough choices: cut government spending, raise tariffs, or find new sources of revenue. The decisions made today will determine whether the country remains a global economic powerhouse or slides into deeper financial trouble. The U.S. national debt is like a giant credit card bill that keeps growing. Every year, the government spends more than it collects in taxes, borrowing money to cover the difference. This is known as the federal deficit. In 2024, the budget deficit reached $1.8 trillion—one of the highest ever recorded outside of wartime or crisis periods. The national debt is now equal to about 99% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), meaning the U.S. owes as much as its entire economy produces in a year. If this pattern continues, the debt could reach $52 trillion within the next decade. The government has been borrowing money from investors, including foreign countries like China and Japan, to fund spending on social programs, military expenses, healthcare, and interest on the debt itself. While some government spending is necessary, the failure to balance the budget has created a dangerous cycle. Instead of paying down the debt when the economy is strong, leaders have continued to borrow even in good times, making the problem worse. In recent years, economic mismanagement has made life harder for everyday Americans. High inflation, reckless spending, and poor policies have driven up the cost of living while weakening the dollar. 1. Inflation and Rising Costs Inflation has eroded the value of Americans’ paychecks. Food, housing, and energy prices have all surged. Instead of making responsible cuts to unnecessary spending, the government has printed more money, fueling inflation even further. 2. High Interest Rates To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates, making it more expensive for people to buy homes, start businesses, or pay off debt. While higher interest rates help slow down inflation, they also make borrowing more difficult for both consumers and the government. 3. Weak Job Growth and Business Closures Small businesses have struggled under high costs, and major industries have suffered under new regulations and taxes that have hurt growth. Instead of encouraging business expansion, weak economic leadership has stifled innovation and investment. The United States has options to fix the national debt crisis, but they require strong leadership and difficult decisions. Here’s what must happen: 1. Cut Government Spending. The government must reduce unnecessary expenses and find ways to operate more efficiently. This doesn’t mean cutting vital programs, but eliminating waste, fraud, and excessive bureaucracy. Examples include: Reforming entitlement programs to ensure Social Security and Medicare remain sustainable. Reducing government agencies that duplicate efforts and waste taxpayer money. Stopping reckless spending on programs that don’t provide economic benefits. 2. Raise Tariffs to Protect American Industry. One way to boost revenue without excessive taxation is by raising tariffs on foreign goods, especially from countries that take advantage of the U.S. economy. By imposing higher tariffs on cheap imports, America can: Encourage domestic manufacturing, creating more American jobs. Reduce the trade deficit, which has been draining U.S. resources. Generate billions in revenue to help pay off the debt. 3. Grow the Economy Through Pro-Business Policies. Instead of overregulating industries, the U.S. should focus on making it easier for businesses to grow and create jobs. Policies that can help include: Reducing red tape and regulations that prevent small businesses from succeeding. Encouraging energy independence so the U.S. doesn’t have to rely on foreign oil. 4. Balance the Budget Setting strict spending limits. Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to prevent reckless deficits. Ensuring every dollar spent is accounted for and justified. 5. Reform the Federal Reserve’s Role. The Federal Reserve has played a major role in fueling inflation and economic instability by printing too much money and keeping interest rates too low for too long. The government must: Ensure the Fed prioritizes stable economic growth over political interests. End policies that artificially inflate the economy without real value creation. If the U.S. government fails to act, the consequences will be severe: Even Higher Inflation – Prices will continue to rise, making it harder for people to afford basic necessities. More National Debt – The interest payments on the debt alone will grow, forcing the government to borrow even more. Economic Collapse Risks – If confidence in the U.S. dollar declines, the economy could face a major crisis, leading to job losses and financial instability. Tax Hikes on Everyday Americans – To cover growing costs, the government may be forced to raise taxes on workers and businesses. Global Weakness – If the U.S. can’t manage its economy, other nations (like China) may take advantage of the situation, weakening America’s global influence. The United States is the world’s largest economy and financial powerhouse. The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, meaning that most countries rely on it for trade and economic stability. If the U.S. economy collapses, global markets will crash. If the dollar weakens, currencies around the world will lose value. If the U.S. can’t pay its debts, other countries will suffer financially. This is why America’s financial crisis is not just a domestic issue—it’s a global emergency. Everyone wants to spend America’s money, but if the U.S. government doesn’t act now, there won’t be any left to spend. The national debt crisis is not just a problem for politicians—it affects every American. If leaders don’t take responsibility, the burden will fall on future generations. It’s time for the U.S. to cut wasteful spending, protect its industries, and focus on sustainable economic growth. The country has faced financial challenges before and emerged stronger, but only when decisive action was taken. If the right steps are not taken today, the United States—and the entire world—risks losing its economic power, its financial stability, and its future prosperity. The time to act is now. Again, do not be mad at the writer—these are real facts that you can look up. It is just a shame that the world media is ignoring this. If America falls, the world falls, because everybody wants to spend America’s money.

ANTI-PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATS

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 America is not about being Democratic or Republican. America is about doing what is best for the population at large. It is about sacrifice in the name of a greater good. This is what makes America the greatest nation on the planet. America strives to champion Democracy. A sacred vehicle that roots our rights and freedoms. What did Plato said about democracy? He claimed that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom. He also argues that, in a system in which everyone has a right to rule, all sorts of selfish people who care nothing for the people but are only motivated by their own personal desires are able to attain power. This was best shown in the recent display by Democrats during President Trump first public speech. The Democrats with a long standing history of disrespect for the democratic process. With a long standing show of open public defiance toward honoring the democratic process as seen during Trumps first Presidential bid. Where it made International news.... Trump giving his speech to the Nation and Polosi in the background ripping up his speech. Totally disgraceful and totally un-American. She had the right to do that but the poor taste to do it and in the process show her true colors when it comes to her patriotic alliance to no one but her own cause. Anti-patriotism is the ideology that opposes patriotism; it usually refers to those with cosmopolitan views and is usually of an internationalist and anti-nationalist nature as well. Normally, anti-patriotism stems from the belief that patriotism is wrong since people born in a country, whether they like it or not and regardless of their individuality, are encouraged to love the country or sacrifice themselves for it; consequently, people who oppose patriotism may oppose its perceived authoritarianism, while others may believe that patriotism may lead to war because of geopolitical disputes. Usually, this term is used in a pejorative way by those who defend patriotism or nationalism, and terms such as cosmopolitanism or world citizenship may be used to avoid the bias that comes from the typical usage of the words anti-nationalism or anti-nationalist. During the recent Trump speech. He hit various nerves in the reality in the Democratic body. You could feel the tension of ignorance by the number of signs that kept popping up like cowards during points of change. These are the same Democrats that are so pompous on their erroneous beliefs that they will not acknowledge the mistakes they have made that cost them the Presidency as well as any power. Personally, I think Trump made a historical speech that was inclusive of both Democrats interest as well as Republican. Time will tell, if Trump is a man of his word in ‘Making America Great Again’.

AI: The Equalizer of Art, Music, and Science

AI: The Equalizer of Art, Music, and Science Why the Elite Fear It By Dale Jodoin AI: The Equalizer of Art, Music, and Science—Why the Elite Fear It Artificial Intelligence has already become an inseparable part of modern life, and yet, people are terrified of it. Much of this fear doesn’t come from the everyday person, but from those in power—the elite in the music industry, the art world, and even the government. Why? Because AI is changing the game, putting creativity and knowledge back in the hands of the people. The Music Industry: AI as the Great Equalizer For years, the music industry has been accused of exploiting artists and churning out mass-produced songs designed for profit, not passion. With AI stepping in, the industry is panicking, claiming that AI is "stealing music." But the real question is: what music is left to steal? The industry has long abandoned authenticity. Today, a rapper can win a Country Album of the Year award, even if there’s nothing country about it. Rappers have also been inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, despite not being rock artists. While rap has its own legends who deserve recognition, the industry has blurred genres to the point where awards no longer mean anything. Then there's Auto-Tune. In the past, great musicians had to actually sing, play instruments, and hone their craft. Now, artists who can’t hold a note get their voices "enhanced" by AI-driven software, run through a computer a hundred times to sound perfect. Albums are no longer made for the love of music but are factory-produced to sell as fast as possible. Real musicians—the ones grinding city after city, playing small venues—are left struggling to make ends meet. Yet AI is giving power back to these independent artists. AI-generated music tools allow musicians to create complex compositions without million-dollar studios. Old-school country and rock fans are now using AI to create music they love, not what the industry tells them to listen to. AI is removing the corporate middleman and allowing people to take back control of music. Shouldn’t an artist who uses AI to create something original have the right to copyright it? If the industry can use AI to enhance bad singers, why shouldn’t regular people use AI to make music better? And let's not forget the hypocrisy of aging rock stars and pop legends who made fortunes decades ago. Now that AI is giving new musicians a shot, they complain about their music being "stolen." But are these artists, who charge anywhere from $200 to $1,000 per ticket, really suffering? Or are they just afraid of losing their monopoly? AI and Art: Who Gets to Decide What’s "Real"? The art world has a similar problem. Critics scoff at AI-generated art, calling it fake or soulless. But what is art if not the expression of an idea? If an artist describes a vision and an AI tool helps bring it to life, does that make it any less meaningful? AI-generated artwork has already proven to be breathtaking. Yet, the elite gatekeepers of the art world, who dictate what is "valuable," are afraid. Why? Because AI allows anyone to create something beautiful. You no longer need an art degree or expensive supplies. The tools are in the hands of the everyday person, not just the wealthy collectors or high-end galleries. Ironically, the same people criticizing AI art have no problem enhancing their own work with digital tools. Almost every photograph is retouched by software, every painting scanned and shared online, yet AI is somehow the villain? The truth is, the art industry doesn’t want the average person to have power. AI takes away their control, and that terrifies them. AI in Science and Medicine: A Force for Good Beyond art and music, AI is transforming medicine. Every day, AI helps design new drugs, diagnose diseases, and develop treatments faster than human doctors alone. AI doesn’t have human bias, doesn’t need sleep, and can process information at speeds no scientist ever could. Consider this: AI has already helped create groundbreaking drugs that are changing lives. Just search for the top five AI-developed drugs today. The results speak for themselves. In a world where medical advancements can take decades, AI is accelerating the process, offering hope to people who would otherwise wait years for a cure. And AI isn’t just helping with physical health—it’s revolutionizing mental health as well. AI-driven programs are assisting people with disabilities, providing therapy, and even giving non-verbal individuals a way to communicate. These aren’t dystopian nightmares; these are real, tangible improvements in human lives. The War Against AI: Who Really Wants to Stop It? So if AI is helping musicians, artists, and scientists, why do some people want to stop it? The answer is simple: power. It’s not the everyday worker or the struggling artist who fears AI—it’s the ones who have controlled everything for decades. Governments and corporations are deliberately limiting AI’s potential, dumbing it down to keep people from accessing its full power. They want AI to be a tool they control, not one that gives power to the people. They spread fear about AI, telling us it will destroy jobs or make humanity obsolete, but they’re only afraid because they know AI will expose their lies and inefficiencies. This fear isn’t new. When the first computers were invented, people said they would ruin society. Now, computers are a part of our everyday lives. When digital art became popular, traditional artists said it would destroy "real" art—yet today, digital and traditional art thrive side by side. AI is just the next step in human evolution. The Future: AI as an Extension of Human Creativity AI is not replacing human creativity—it’s enhancing it. Every song you hear on the radio has already been touched by AI, whether through Auto-Tune or digital production. Every photo you see online has been enhanced by computer algorithms. AI is already here. The only difference is that now, it’s giving power to regular people, not just the industry elite. The real question isn’t whether AI should be part of our lives—it already is. The question is: will we let the rich and powerful control AI, or will we embrace it as the equalizer it was meant to be? Like every other technological revolution, AI is only as dangerous as the hands that control it. In the right hands—the hands of the people—it has the power to bring back real music, real art, and real scientific progress. We shouldn’t fear AI. We should fear those trying to limit it.

COVID ALL OVER AGAIN

COVID ALL OVER AGAIN By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Articles Published Columns in Canada and The United States Not even a day had passed, since the announcement of tariffs on imported goods from the United States...and the vultures hit center stage. Can we as a people be that stupid? Is the system so corrupt that they can treat us like such fools?. I guess Trump sees more than he tells when he addresses the 51st state governor Justin Trudeau. This 25% tariff in my opinion is nothing but a brilliant business move by Trump. He is doing it to Mexico, Canada, Ukraine, Panama, Greenland and most of the European Countries. It makes business sense. A way to even out the playing field and force Nations to become part of the world’s most advanced civilization. Here in Canada we are blinded by our own ignorance of the facts all around us. We are becoming a country that has allowed to become invaded from within. From the eat dog eat dog mentality shown in all political parties to the play on national pride. Something long lost and nothing more than a mere historical illusion being played in a society that has lost it’s direction and values. Now, we are at the mercy of a proposition that may make sense. That roots out our most intimate of nationalistic romance. That challenges us to think outside the box and consider becoming and evolving into something much bigger. As Canadians we do not have a clear National conscious. We are confused people that are desperately looking for direction and out of this fogged social mirage. Made up of misconception, forced compliance and never ending fear mongering. Look at the current fiasco. Politicians not knowing how to response to Trump creative business move. Canadian politicians are calling for Canadians to buy Canadian. That the new 25% tariff will create hardships. The question that lingers is? Why have Canadians not been buying Canadian all along. Answer is simple. Many Canadian companies charge much higher prices for the same American counter part. Now that we are being forced to buy Canadian. Do you think prices will go down? With the excuse of the tariff. Prices will continue to escalate. Why is it that the government not putting in place from the 5 Billion seized from Russian business a program to freeze Canadian made goods to the same as those that were brought in from the U.S. No but wait. Our 51 governor rather send that money to fund a loosing war in the Ukraine and force us to pay our way to our economic graves.