Ward 2 oshawa the forgotten people…

ward 2 oshawa the forgotten people... 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 For those that read my column on a regular basis. will know that I am a believer in the democratic process when it comes to electing government officials. In the same breath. You, also know where I stand with the quality of the candidates that we elect in office. The quality of living in the City of Oshawa keeps getting worst. Taxes keep going up. One would have thought that at the 2022 municipal election the electorate would have voted for change. Almost a reset button on Oshawa’s quality of life. NO - instead the electorate kept all the councillor and the incumbent Mayor and only changed one. I still can’t believe the results and the outcome. To vote back in a Mayor that has turned downtown Oshawa into Durham’s capital for the homeless, drug use, drug trade and prostitution. I am beyond words. Only to strengthen my position on how the electorate votes. Take for example the only change in the municipal roster. Ward 2, City Councillor, Jim Lee. At first I was excited. I thought finally someone with some credentials and a some what proven work history. I had hope for the ward with an under used airport. With a ward that has no representation. At the region, Regional and City councillor Tito-Dante Marimpietri has had numerous terms as the ward 2 rep. How has the ward benefitted? Anyone’s guess. As for Lee. He has shown respect and visited my office once since elected. I appreciated that.... as Tito in his God knows how many terms... maybe visited his local city newspaper once or twice out of the many years he has been elected. Lee, in my opinion. Has become institutionalized. The do nothing and say even less, gets you elected time and time again appears. Lee instead of taking this golden opportunity to make a name for himself. He has opted to cushion his pension and play by the municipal coalitions rules. Say nothing, support what the coalition supports and support corporate prejudice and political vindication against anyone that challenges the status quo at the City of Oshawa offices. If I am wrong. I will be the first to apologize. One question. What has Lee done for ward 2 in his half term. The City position on doing business with the 30 serving newspaper is ignored due to political vendetta. They claim they support local small businesses. We are living proof of their bias, prejudice and lack of support for local small businesses. This is in part why there are so many vacancies in our core. NO SUPPORT. The City of Oshawa is not inclusive but selective.

NEW DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ON ITS WAY -MERCHANTS CONCERNED OVER LOSS OF PARKING-

NEW DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ON ITS WAY -MERCHANTS CONCERNED OVER LOSS OF PARKING- By Dean Hickey THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GUIDE the approval of any new development within the city’s downtown core will, by necessity, demand a parallel review of the existing parking capacity upon which so many businesses and residents rely. With the future of Lot 4 now being debated by council, many among the various property owners, merchants, and those who frequent the area will doubtless be concerned as to the potential reduction in the number of available spots. The Economic and Development Services committee decided in early November to declare the surface parking lot at the north side of Athol Street, between Simcoe and Centre Streets, as ‘surplus’ in an effort to engage with those seeking to develop the property into something far beyond its current use. Due to the nature of the process which surrounds such negotiations and decision making, most of what has so-far been discussed has taken place in closed session, and the details have yet to be disclosed. It is known, however, that staff did recommend the approval of a specific proposal having been brought forward as a result of a targeted RFP (Request for Proposals) process, whereby consideration was given to a few select proponents. Committee members took a publicly recorded vote on the matter and, oddly enough, those who were opposed to the staff recommendation were Ward 4 councillors Rick Kerr and Derek Giberson. Both men represent the area that encompasses the downtown, and they are known as having competing visions for the city. Those differences will undoubtedly play a role in their responses to a recent petition that has been submitted to city hall on the issue of parking and the losses that may occur. A group of downtown merchants have signed the petition that reads as follows: “We hereby write, sign, and validate this document as a request…with regards to the acceptance of such project wherein consideration is given to the development of a Parking Lot in the area of Lot 4 in downtown Oshawa. The shortage of parking is NEGATIVELY affecting businesses and is resulting in loss of customers and loss of business revenue. Countless customers have expressed their frustration with the lack of parking, and after circling the downtown area and wasting over fifteen minutes, they give up and go somewhere else. If you want to see businesses grow and thrive in downtown Oshawa, you MUST provide parking. We NEED this parking lot to be built to accommodate customers driving from outside of the area and to generate more productivity in the neighbourhood and provide the potential of expansion for future projects. This is a basic necessity.” One property owner I spoke with, on condition of anonymity for the sake of his tenants, said “Anyone can see we have parking issues downtown. The City doesn’t have the money to do anything about it, so they’re relying on developers.” He went on to add, “Factor in the massive residential developments that are coming downtown and we are severely affected.” He expressed a high level of frustration over the City’s consultation process, telling me it’s quite simply insufficient. “They need better communications people, because we have a manager at city hall who is responsible for downtown business development, and nobody seems to know who she is or what she does.” That’s unfortunate, because the effects of an ever-shrinking supply of parking are being felt directly by those who are trying to make a living in the city’s core, and they need proper representation at the staff level. Supporting a blanket conversion of Lot 4 into other uses may be a recipe for advanced economic decline, if one also takes into account the proposal from the Provincial government for dedicated rapid bus lanes that will consume no less than 125 parking spaces when complete. If that wasn’t bad enough, consider the effect the widening of sidewalks along the north side of King Street has had on the number of spaces available, and the losses continue to mount. This is where the difference in vision between the two Ward 4 councillors may be considered. I was advised by one downtown merchant of a recent survey undertaken by councillor Kerr in an apparent effort to gauge just how troubling the whole parking issue has become. “Rick Kerr is all over this parking thing, and it’s like he’s on a mission” she told me as we discussed her most pressing concerns. Numerous factors have come together in recent years, causing a negative effect on her business. They include open drug use among the homeless, an increase in crime, and of course the slow but steady erosion of accessible parking for customers she says are uncomfortable walking any great distance, particularly as the daylight hours diminish at this time of year. I reached out to councillor Kerr for comment, and he suggested that “Our downtown businesses are stifled now by a lack of parking, for both customers and employees, and I can give you at least three examples. The first is the CIBC building, which has lots of available opportunities for future tenants, however they require reliable, available parking in order to successfully market their office space. Another example is the number of empty store-fronts where businesses have closed or relocated to other areas they see as more accessible. The third component is the lack of development potential for small-footprint buildings that cannot be converted or redeveloped due to their lack of anticipated parking requirements.” While I did not reach out directly to councillor Giberson, his public comments on the issue of mobility within cities, and downtowns in general, has been outwardly focused on the promotion of alternate forms of transportation. In one of his social media posts he offers the following, “It's great to see what Ottawa has been doing in substantially increasing their bike lanes, and they are proof that with time (decade+) and focused will (political, planning & engineering depts, community organizing, financial commitment), you can build up that network and make active transportation and public transportation…a viable alternative to car-centric mobility…” For many elected officials and urban planners, it has become fashionable to cast retailers and others who decry the absence of parking as being somehow biased in their perceptions and without proper appreciation for aspects such as bike lanes, which have certainly been in the news recently. Meanwhile, in the shops and offices downtown, those at ground zero can see for themselves exactly what the absence of a meaningful strategic parking initiative has cost them, and they’re tired of excuses from a bureaucratic and political establishment that lacks the necessary vision.

Canada –an independent nation

Canada –an independent nation by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East With the world in turmoil, Canada embroiled in political fights between the two parties which have traditionally ruled it, and our southern neighbor considering the imposition of a 25% tax on products from Canada under the new Trump administration, it is time to remember a little of our history and learn from our past leaders. Largely unknown and unrecognised by the vast majority of Canadians, the Statute of Westminster Day, celebrated on December 11th is nonetheless an extremelyimportant day in Canada’s history as a nation. The self-governing colonies of the British Empire, which included Canada, were known as the Dominions. Despite their right for self-government, the British parliament had considerable legislative authority over the Dominions. The situation was changed by the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which increased the sovereignty of the Dominions, giving them legal autonomy and making them essentially sovereign nations in their own right. However, at Canada’s request, the British parliament retained the power to amend the constitution of Canada for five more decades after the enactment of the Statute. The anniversary of the Statute of Westminster is celebrated in Canada every year, but it is not a public holiday, which means that government offices, educational establishments, banks, and businesses remain open unless December 11 falls on a weekend. To celebrate the day, the national flag of Canada and the Royal Union Flag, commonly referred to as the Union Jack, are flown side by side on federal buildings and establishments from sunrise to sunset. Please observe that this is the case in your community. In remembering the steps involved in the formation of the Canada of today, July 1, 1867, the day the Confederation of Canada came into being is generally considered the founding date of the country. However, at that rime the country still wasn’t an entirely “autonomous” nation. That came decades later, on December 11, 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster. The British law clarified that Canada and other Commonwealth countries have full legal freedom except in areas where those nations chose to remain subordinate to Britain. That Statute included the Dominion of Canada, the colony of Newfoundland (which would join Canada in 1949), the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State. Having garnered great respect internationally and a strong sense of Canada’s unique nationality as a result of the First World War, Canada signed the Treaty of Versailles ending that war as a separate nation from Britain, though this was not quite the case. During the following years, the government of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie-King sought the full rights of a sovereign country in creation of laws and foreign policy. The process had begun in the 1920’s when Canada signed a fishing treaty with the U.S without British participation, established an embassy in Washington, and decided not to assist a British occupation force in Turkey without the approval of Canada’s Parliament. However, the seeds for autonomy were sown in 1926 at the Imperial Conference when Britain’s foreign minister, Lord Balfour proposed that the Dominions be granted legislative autonomy. In 1929, Canada’s head of the Department of External Affairs, O.D. Skelton, attended the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation in London. Here the various resolutions proposed in 1926 were firmed up. In 1930 the various governments submitted terms of the future Statute to their Parliaments. Then on the date of December 11, 1931, the Statute was passed into law. While the Dominions accepted all resolutions, only Canada couldn’t determine a process to amend the Constitution. Thus, power to amend Canada’s Constitution remained under British authority until 1982 with the passing of Canada’s Constitution Act. In conclusion, the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster is a key date that celebrates Canada’s legal independence from Britain. This day is important because it marks Canada’s legislative autonomy, allowing it to make its own laws without British approval. The Statute of Westminster was a pivotal step in Canada’s journey towards becoming a fully sovereign nation. Celebrations on this day highlight Canada’s identity and achievements. The statute is celebrated because it acknowledges the hard work and determination of Canadian leaders who fought for the country’s independence. It also serves as a reminder of Canada’s evolution into a nation that stands on its own while still being part of the Commonwealth. Our current leaders need to remember the work of their forefathers who guided Canada’s evolution to becoming an independent nation, They need to learn from our history, and possibly be inspired by the achievements of their predecessors. Instead of bickering in their ivory towers in Ottawa, our leaders should concentrate on developing new and inspiring objectives for Canada as a nation, working to evolve Canada into a leading nation of the world. What do you think?

Stop Asking Your Interviewer Cliché Questions

By Nick Kossovan Most job search advice is cookie-cutter. The advice you're following is almost certainly the same advice other job seekers follow, making you just another candidate following the same script. In today's hyper-competitive job market, standing out is critical, a challenge most job seekers struggle with. Instead of relying on generic questions recommended by self-proclaimed career coaches, which often lead to a forgettable interview, ask unique, thought-provoking questions that'll spark engaging conversations and leave a lasting impression. English philosopher Francis Bacon once said, "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." The questions you ask convey the following: · Your level of interest in the company and the role. · Contributing to your employer's success is essential. · You desire a cultural fit. Here are the top four questions experts recommend candidates ask; hence, they've become cliché questions you should avoid asking: · "What are the key responsibilities of this position?" Most likely, the job description answers this question. Therefore, asking this question indicates you didn't read the job description. If you require clarification, ask, "How many outbound calls will I be required to make daily?" "What will be my monthly revenue target?" · "What does a typical day look like?" Although it's important to understand day-to-day expectations, this question tends to elicit vague responses and rarely leads to a deeper conversation. Don't focus on what your day will look like; instead, focus on being clear on the results you need to deliver. Nobody I know has ever been fired for not following a "typical day." However, I know several people who were fired for failing to meet expectations. Before accepting a job offer, ensure you're capable of meeting the employer's expectations. · "How would you describe the company culture?" Asking this question screams, "I read somewhere to ask this question." There are much better ways to research a company's culture, such as speaking to current and former employees, reading online reviews and news articles. Furthermore, since your interviewer works for the company, they're presumably comfortable with the culture. Do you expect your interviewer to give you the brutal truth? "Be careful of Craig; get on his bad side, and he'll make your life miserable." "Bob is close to retirement. I give him lots of slack, which the rest of the team needs to pick up." Truism: No matter how much due diligence you do, only when you start working for the employer will you experience and, therefore, know their culture firsthand. · "What opportunities are there for professional development?" When asked this question, I immediately think the candidate cares more about gaining than contributing, a showstopper. Managing your career is your responsibility, not your employer's. Cliché questions don't impress hiring managers, nor will they differentiate you from your competition. To transform your interaction with your interviewer from a Q&A session into a dynamic discussion, ask unique, insightful questions. Here are my four go-to questions—I have many more—to accomplish this: · "Describe your management style. How will you manage me?" This question gives your interviewer the opportunity to talk about themselves, which we all love doing. As well, being in sync with my boss is extremely important to me. The management style of who'll be my boss is a determining factor in whether or not I'll accept the job. · "What is the one thing I should never do that'll piss you off and possibly damage our working relationship beyond repair?" This question also allows me to determine whether I and my to-be boss would be in sync. Sometimes I ask, "What are your pet peeves?" · "When I join the team, what would be the most important contribution you'd want to see from me in the first six months?" Setting myself up for failure is the last thing I want. As I mentioned, focus on the results you need to produce and timelines. How realistic are the expectations? It's never about the question; it's about what you want to know. It's important to know whether you'll be able to meet or even exceed your new boss's expectations. · "If I wanted to sell you on an idea or suggestion, what do you need to know?" Years ago, a candidate asked me this question. I was impressed he wasn't looking just to put in time; he was looking for how he could be a contributing employee. Every time I ask this question, it leads to an in-depth discussion. Other questions I've asked: · "What keeps you up at night?" · "If you were to leave this company, who would follow?" · "How do you handle an employee making a mistake?" · "If you were to give a Ted Talk, what topic would you talk about?" · "What are three highly valued skills at [company] that I should master to advance?" · "What are the informal expectations of the role?" · "What is one misconception people have about you [or the company]?" Your questions reveal a great deal about your motivations, drive to make a meaningful impact on the business, and a chance to morph the questioning into a conversation. Cliché questions don't lead to meaningful discussions, whereas unique, thought-provoking questions do and, in turn, make you memorable. _____________________________________________________________________ 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

The Right Choice

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 It is about time that the people win one. It is no secret that North American style politics is in severe need of repair. No matter where you look. Corruption, collusion prevail. Not to mention wealth. This past week we witness the pushing of a reset button by the people through what we deem to be a democratic process. Democracy much like the many other political systems are in danger of extinction and or severe change. With the recent win by Donald Trump. The world is watching to see him clean out the old and bring in the new. A new system that will punish those that take part in the rat race and reward those that are intellectually capable to work truly in the best interest of those that elected them to office. Kamala, was a poster child for all that is wrong in politics. A person that would tell you anything you wanted to hear. She would promise the world and deliver excuses. The question that will linger in her mind for years to come. ‘I SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM MY PLAN’. Something that until today no one knows what it was.... all we know is that she wanted to be elected to the highest office on a promise of turning some fictional page. She promised to do what she failed to for the past four years. She vowed to make changes after she got in and failed to do anything while she was in office. Well, the people have spoken and they have turned a page in the right direction. What are we to expect. As promised by Trump. World peace will be re-instated. No more Middle East conflicts. No more Ukraine war. Finally, peace will come to reign in all foreign conflict. Including the mess along the South Pacific rim. A silent cancer that has been beaten back time and time... Alone they are harmless. In unity they may pose a serious threat. The U.S. will soon boom economically. As always Canada will follow. Our Canadian dollar will once again start climbing up. Gas prices will start coming down. Food prices will come down and immigration put under control. No more open taps on immigration. No more wasting taxpayers dollars to subsidize refugees. Canada will soon go through similar political transformation. It is the natural law of Canadian politics. We go red for a while. Then blue and eventually back to red.... What North America needs is a new political system. Hopefully, Trump this time around will rise with the system to implement for generations to come. It is like that saying goes. Time will tell. Let’s hope Trump does not waste this golden opportunity for positive change.

Canada's Hidden Railway Crisis: The Rising Threat of Trespassing Accidents

By Dale Jodoin In recent years, Canada's railways have been at the center of a growing safety crisis, one that affects the lives of hundreds and remains severely underreported. Trespassing accidents—where individuals cross or walk along train tracks—have become a significant and deadly issue, yet they rarely make headlines. The statistics are alarming: in 2023 alone, 53 people lost their lives due to trespassing accidents on Canada's rail lines. This is not just a freak occurrence but part of an ongoing trend that demands urgent attention. The Growing Danger on the Tracks The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) recorded 913 rail accidents in 2023, slightly lower than the previous year but still troublingly high. Out of those incidents, 67 were fatal, with the majority caused by trespassing accidents. Trespassing now accounts for an overwhelming 79% of all rail fatalities, making it the number one cause of death on Canada's railways( The Safety Magazine These accidents don't just happen in isolated areas; they occur in communities across the country. Many victims are young people, homeless individuals, or those who may be unaware of the dangers of walking on or near tracks. The increasing population density in urban areas has also made it easier for individuals to access railway lines, whether for shortcuts or as part of their daily commute. A Persistent Problem While the overall number of railway accidents has slightly decreased, the death toll from trespassing accidents continues to rise. Experts have pointed out that one reason for this is a lack of public awareness about the severe risks of walking along train tracks. Many people see tracks as convenient shortcuts, unaware that trains often approach more quickly than they realize and cannot stop in time to avoid a collision. Trespassing fatalities have remained consistently high over the past five years. In 2022, 51 people were killed in trespassing accidents, and this number increased to 53 in 2023. The trend shows no signs of slowing down, despite efforts by railway companies and safety organizations to curb these incidents The Safety Magazine Understanding the Scale To truly understand the magnitude of the problem, it’s important to break down the statistics. In 2023, out of 913 total rail accidents, 87 involved dangerous goods such as chemicals, fuel, or other hazardous materials, but it’s trespassing that has captured the grim spotlight. On average, nearly five people die every month from trespassing accidents alone. Compare this to the 13 fatalities caused by crossing accidents (where vehicles or pedestrians attempt to cross the tracks at designated points), and it becomes clear that trespassing is far more dangerous. The Safety Magazine The loss of life is not just a statistic. These are real people, often from vulnerable communities, whose deaths have a ripple effect on their families, friends, and the broader community. Trespassing accidents leave behind shattered lives, and the emotional toll on train operators and first responders who witness these tragedies is immense. Why Is This Happening? There are several reasons for the rising number of trespassing fatalities. First, Canada's railway system spans vast areas, often running through densely populated cities and small, rural communities alike. Many people see train tracks as convenient shortcuts to get from one place to another, especially in areas where infrastructure like bridges or designated crossings is lacking. In some cases, people are unaware that they are even trespassing on private property. Homelessness has also been cited as a contributing factor. In urban areas, individuals without shelter often seek refuge near train tracks or use them as walking paths, unaware of the danger. Moreover, train speeds can vary, and depending on the weather conditions, trains can be especially quiet, making it hard for people to hear them approaching. Another major factor is insufficient fencing and barriers around railway tracks. While some urban areas have installed protective fences, many rural areas have little to no physical barriers to keep people from accessing the tracks. In regions where there are no fences or signs, people are more likely to wander onto the tracks without realizing the danger. What's Being Done to Stop This? Railway companies and organizations have taken steps to improve safety and raise awareness. Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) and Canadian National Railway (CN) have launched public safety campaigns to educate people about the risks of trespassing on railway tracks. These campaigns include advertisements, social media outreach, and partnerships with schools and community organizations. However, despite these efforts, the number of fatalities continues to rise. Operation Lifesaver, a national nonprofit dedicated to rail safety, has also worked to address this issue. They’ve launched the "Look, Listen, Live" campaign, which aims to teach Canadians the importance of being aware around train tracks and crossings. The campaign encourages people to "always expect a train" and highlights the irreversible consequences of not following railway safety rules. The TSB has also suggested that more needs to be done to prevent trespassing accidents, including better fencing, signage, and public awareness campaigns in high-risk areas. The Safety Magazine However, these measures come with a cost, and railway companies have been slow to implement them nationwide. In rural and remote areas, the lack of infrastructure and resources makes it difficult to protect the tracks fully. What Needs to Happen Next? The solution to this crisis is multifaceted. First and foremost, there needs to be a stronger commitment to public education. Schools and local governments must be more involved in spreading awareness about railway safety, especially in communities that are near train tracks. Parents should teach their children the dangers of playing near tracks, and adults need to be more conscious of the risks of trespassing. There also needs to be more investment in physical barriers like fences and warning signs in both urban and rural areas. Railway companies, local governments, and national safety organizations must work together to identify high-risk areas and take swift action to secure them. Finally, enforcement of trespassing laws needs to be strengthened. In many cases, trespassing on railway tracks is treated as a minor offense, but the consequences can be fatal. Increased patrols and fines may help deter people from walking on or near tracks. Canada's trespassing problem on its railway tracks is a deadly issue that deserves more attention. With 53 people killed in 2023, the dangers of walking along train tracks are clear. While efforts are being made to reduce these accidents, much more needs to be done to protect the public. By investing in education, infrastructure, and enforcement, Canada can work to prevent these senseless tragedies and save lives. The time to act is now.

The True Bullies of Pickering: How the Mayor and Council are Abusing Power, Silencing Dissent, and Wasting Your Tax Dollars

By Lisa Robinson For over a year now, the mayor and fellow councillor’s of Pickering have relentlessly attacked me—not because I’m failing the people who elected me, but because I refuse to bow down to their political games and pander to their special interest groups. I’ve been sanctioned, stripped of my pay yet again for daring to speak up for the people of Pickering, for exercising my right to free expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This latest sanction—another three months without pay—marks a total of six months of financial punishment. This isn’t about accountability; it’s about intimidation. They want me to fall in line, but I refuse. The truth is, they’ve weaponized the Integrity Commissioner as their personal attack dog, pushing a one-sided narrative designed to discredit me. They twist my words, manipulate my actions, and suppress the voices of my constituents. Let me be absolutely clear: There was no legitimate investigation. This is a political hit job—a calculated attempt to silence me, to paint me as the problem, when the real bullies are sitting in council chambers. Think about it: if I didn’t care, don’t you think I’d just shut up and fall in line? Why would I keep working for free while they drag my name through the mud? I have nothing to gain from this fight, but they have everything to lose. I’m standing up for common sense for common people, while they cling to power and their self-serving interests, while catering to developers and special interest groups. The mayor himself has abused his power, using city staff on your dime—paid by Pickering’s taxpayers—to craft his 75 page witch hunt of manufactured complaints against me. And his bias is no longer just behind closed doors. On September 3, he openly stated he is biased towards me and that he doesn’t want to hear anything I have to say. What does that tell you? He is not just dismissing me—he’s also dismissing every voter who believes I have the right to be heard on their behalf. While they’re busy orchestrating this smear campaign, I’m out there doing the job I was elected to do. The day after they voted to strip me of my pay, I was the only member of council to show up at the “Pickering Forward” meeting, an important forum to hear what the people had to say about our city’s future. And where were the rest of them? They didn’t show because they don’t care about what you, the voters, have to say, and it wasn’t a photo opportunity. They’re more interested in silencing dissent and consolidating power than in listening to the people. What kind of leadership sanctions a single mother’s pay, knowing full well I have bills to pay, a mortgage to cover, and a family to support? They don’t care. Just imagine someone taking away your ability to pay for the roof over your head or to feed your family because they don’t like what you have to say. They would rather see me suffer, hoping to break me down so I’ll finally cave to their demands. This is not just an abuse of power; it’s vindictive harassment. They are unfit to lead—not just for their bullying and intimidation, but for their brazen attempt to lobby the Provincial government to change the Municipal Act. They want the power to remove elected officials who disagree with them—an assault on democracy. Worse still, they want to ensure that anyone they oust is banned from running in future elections, silencing the people’s choice even further. Their actions are not just authoritarian; they’re downright dangerous. They don’t want a council of diverse voices; they want an echo chamber where only their views reign supreme. Each of their characters should be seriously questioned, not just for what they’re doing to me, but for what they’re doing to you—the people of Pickering. The draconian measures they are putting in place is to stifle public input and are designed to rig future elections, to ensure only those who agree with their power-hungry agenda get a seat at the table. They don’t care about democracy or free speech—they care about control. And let’s not forget the staggering misuse of taxpayer dollars in this vendetta. Instead of returning my rightful salary—just $15,000+ for three months of lost pay—they’ve decided to burn up to $200,000 of your money fighting me in a judicial review. $200,000 of your hard-earned tax dollars that could be better spent on the community is being flushed down the drain to prop up their lies. And if you think it stops there, think again. When I take them to court again for another judicial review, I bet they’ll be more than willing to waste another $200,000, bringing the total to a disgraceful $400,000 of your hard earned tax payers money just to silence one voice. Do they care? Of course not—it’s not their money. It’s yours. Through all of this, I have never stopped fighting for the people of Pickering. I show up. I listen. I push back against corruption and collusion, even when they come after me with everything they’ve got. The mayor and his council have shown that they are not fit to serve—they are power-hungry, vindictive, and have zero regard for the voices of the people. And let me be clear, this isn’t just happening in Pickering – it’s happening in Municipalities across the Country. So it needs to stop immediately. Personally, I won’t back down. I will continue to stand with you—because that’s what real leadership looks like. Even when they try to silence me, I will not be bullied. The people of Pickering deserve better, and I will fight to give them the representation they elected me for. It’s time to hold these bullies accountable.

What exactly is a Renoviction?

By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist What exactly is a Renoviction? A renoviction is a process that a landlord undertakes to evict a tenant from their unit by telling them that there needs to be work completed in the unit or on the property. Renovictions are perfectly legal in the province of Ontario, however they need to be carried out in the proper manor. This is a process that is governed by the Landlord and Tenant board. There are certain forms and procedures that must be followed. If these procedures are not followed to the letter, they are considered bad faith renovictions and that is illegal in Ontario. Renovictions can be carried out to ensure the viability and stability of older buildings. Sometimes renovictions need to be carried out to update buildings and bring in new services. If something catastrophic has happened in a building, there may be a period of time that is required for major repairs. An N13 notice is what needs to be given to the tenant to start the procedure. This notice is a notice to end tenancy because the landlord wants to demolish the rental unit, repair it, or convert it into another use. It is very important for tenants to realize and understand that they have the legal right to return to their unit once the renovations are complete, at the same rental rate that they paid prior to the renovation. It is so important for tenants to know and exercise their rights in this situation. There are steps that need to be taken and if the tenant does not take them, they could be out in the cold. Tenants have what is known as the first right of refusal. In order to reoccupy the unit when renovations are complete, the tenant must notify the landlord in writing that it is their intention to move back in when the unit is ready for occupancy and provide the landlord with an up-to-date mailing address. Units that are being demolished do not offer the option of returning. If the tenant decides not to reoccupy the unit, they are entitled to compensation from the landlord. Three months’ rent if they live in a complex with more than five units, and one months’ rent for buildings with less than five units, or the landlord can offer the tenant another acceptable unit. With the explosion of the housing market in the last few years, bad faith renovictions have become a real problem in Ontario and an absolute nightmare for some tenants. Some unscrupulous landlords try to evict tenants by saying they need to perform renovations for various reasons and need the tenant to vacate. Often after vacating the unit, it would come back on the rental market, updated, at a much higher rent than the previous tenant was paying. This practice prompted The City of Hamilton to pass the province’s first and only anti-renoviction Bylaw that would require a landlord that wants to renovict a tenant to obtain a license from the city ($715) and provide proof from an engineer that the property must be vacated in order to perform the renovations. Enforcement of this Bylaw starts in January of 2025. Here are a few indicators that may point to an upcoming renoviction. A change in ownership can often signal that a renoviction may be on the way. If your neighbourhood has changed, you notice more condos going up, store fronts changing to new businesses. Often your rent is much lower than market rents due to the fact that you’ve lived there for a long time. Sometimes, a landlord will simply ask a tenant to voluntarily pay more rent. If the tenant refuses to pay an increase, the landlord will take measures to get more money for the unit. If your landlord has informed you that you need to leave your home in order for him to perform renovations, call the Landlord and Tenant Board to get a copy of what your rights are in this situation. Always arm yourself with the facts in order to make an informed decision. Questions? Column ideas? You can email me at newspaper@ocentral.com

ANSWERS TO WHY ?

ANSWERS TO WHY ? WHY, WAS THE QUESTION - ARE THESE THE ANSWERS ? 1. Could it be that we the people who elect these others into power have neglected our duty. We voted and then fail to follow what they do until it’s too late. Then we vote them back in. 2-5. Could it be that the happening across many municipalities of the reducing of car lanes, the creating of bus lanes which are unused the better part of the day, the increase of bike lanes, the set up of these rental stations for bike and scooters are part of the planned 15 minute cities also known as smart cities. 6. Babies are born with blank brains ready to learn. Babies first learn pain by means of hunger & gas. Discomfort is learned by wet and dirty diapers. Babies learn comfort and love by being fed, burped, cleaned, hugged, and comforting voices. As babies grow they absorb and copy everything, they investigate everything around them and we as parents watch over them, encouraging their learning while protecting them from potential dangers. 7. We are careful to only provide our children topics and objects that are age appropriate to learning. e.g. we would not give and expect a toddler to safely balance and ride a bicycle 8. Teaching a child, suggesting to that child that he or she is in the wrong body simply because of things they like, or like to do, is nothing more than manipulation and should be considered child abuse. Remember these are children, their young brains have not yet developed fully and they tend to believe what they are told as these children have not yet learned to question why or what they are being told. It’s no wonder there is a rise in children and teens are having mental problems and suicide attempts. 9. It is not okay to provide children puberty blockers and then when a teenager, mutilate that child? A teenager is still a child in the eyes of the law till the age of majority. When a child, who’s young brain has not fully developed, is encouraged and manipulated by teachers, doctors and other adults into making a life adulterating decision that could also mean a lifetime of medications, then those teachers, doctors etc should be criminally charged with bodily harm and indignity to an underage living person. 10. Governments did not give birth to our children. The government says, we the parents are responsible for our children until they reach adulthood. We, the parents, pay the government to educate our children, reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography and science, NEVER did we the parents, give the government the right to confuse our children about their gender, about their sex or the how to of various sexual activities. 11. People are either a male (boy, man, father, brother, he, him) or a female (girl, woman, lady, mother, sister, she, her). How a person feels internally is not to be confused with what they were born. 12. Death by drug overdoses has increased since so called “safe drug sites” were provided. What we should be providing is help to overcome addiction. 13. Common sense, we, or most of us, have it, common sense and need to get back to using it instead of standing by and letting these things happen. 14. When the opposition doesn’t have answers to your questions and can’t have a civil conversation with you they attack you as being racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. 15. When the your opposition doesn’t have an answer to your question they label it as hate? 16. Electricity is not sole salvation of this world, ask anyone who has been in a two or more day blackout and having no other means then electricity for cooking, heating, communicating & transportation 17.– 20. We seem to have lost our ability of critical thinking and have been conditioned to believe the media and government tells us the truth. When if fact if we had paid attention we would know that the world is and has been slowly governed by non-elected parties who have no part in Canada, the UN (united nations) the WHO (world health organizations) and the WEF (world economic forum) who want to control us. Check out Bill C-63, C-293 for starters. Remember, Silence Solves Nothing, you’re not alone, speak up and others will too. Stand Up, Speak Up For Your Rights, Keep Democracy Alive

SUPER MAYOR POWER

By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States “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 - An open plea to Mr. Ford. Dear Sir, please consider pulling the “Strong Mayor Powers”, from all these weak Mayors. I say this because, Strong Mayor Powers to some of these mayors is like giving a loaded gun to a child. In my opinion of 28 years serving Durham. I have seen all kinds of administrations come and go. From real good ones to what we have today. It appears that there is a viral type of attitude across the Region. One that works hard to exclude tax payers from the process. Municipal government traditionally worked due to the fact that those elected had something positive to contribute and had primary interest in the communities they lived. Well, don’t get me wrong. I do not blame those elected as they are just playing along. I blame society and the never ending population growth. With such, you have to prepare for change. For significant change. What I mean by this is... you can’t expect to have the local butcher, the town dentist and a few horse traders making multi million decisions. It just not working. Most of the Mayors across Durham region are careered politicians. Experts in municipal procedure but not intellectually able to retain the same level of responsibility in the private sector. Then, if this is to stand true. Why are we electing, technically incompetents. Insurance salesmen, realtors, retiree's, unemployable and so on. I think in order to run for office you should have a proven business success. You should have had previous similar decision making roles. You should have to pass a psychological assessment. Many today that sit in office and or are mayors have a clear mental deficiency as it is not about the public but more about assuring they maintain the status quo. Both as a politician and as a member of the “YES” internal team. And here is where ‘The Strong Mayors Powers’, stir thing to the point that we have mini men using powers to protect their interest and in the process fill their pockets with little or no accountability. Others, have free reign on fluffing retirement pensions. The so called POWERS - are a breeding ground for corruption and un-checked bribe taking. Like everything in society. The idea of Strong Mayors Powers is good for the good of the people in the hands of competent and balanced individuals. So far I question the integrity of the use and long term intent. Just recently it was brought to the attention of the media. That the Province is considering giving municipalities the right to get rid of elected officials on a vote of confidence. This would be so wrong from so many different sides. Collusion is alive and well at most Durham Region municipal governments. The general mentality is do as we do or else face the reality of coalition. Those that support the status quo are re-elected. Those that do not are deemed an outsider and their political life soon ends. We need to bring back fairness. We need to have standards for running for office. Academic as well as life experience that reflect the elected job position. We must stop making decision on staff recommendations and instead on what makes the most sense for our constituents. To think you know something, does not mean you anything. To know nothing means you know everything. We do not need thinkers. We need people that have the expertise and care to lead us and make all of our lives better not just theirs, through the opportunity of being elected to a position they are not qualified to be or ever held outside of politics.

The Rise of Cancel Culture: A Threat to Free Speech and Open Debate

By Dale Jodoin In recent years, the rise of "cancel culture" has sparked intense debate across the globe. While initially seen as a method for marginalized groups to call out harmful behavior or historical injustices, it has morphed into a movement that many critics argue stifles free speech, limits open debate, and threatens the very essence of democracy. Cancel culture finds its roots in the academic circles of universities, where ideas of social justice, identity politics, and progressive values began gaining traction. What initially started as a well-meaning push for equality and inclusion has, according to some critics, transformed into an extreme ideology that demands conformity and punishes those who dissent. Universities, once heralded as places of free thought and the exchange of ideas, are now seen by some as breeding grounds for the cancel culture movement. Professors and educators, who subscribe to progressive ideologies, are accused of brainwashing students into a one-sided worldview. They teach young minds to embrace a belief system that some argue prioritizes feelings over facts, and ideologies over open discussion. One of the most concerning aspects of cancel culture is its tendency to "cancel" historical figures, events, and ideologies without considering the context of the time. Statues of past leaders and historical figures are torn down, and names are scrubbed from buildings because they no longer align with the values of today. However, this approach to history is dangerous. By erasing or revising the past, we lose the opportunity to learn from it. Canceling the past, as some argue, is not about progress, but about control. If history is wiped clean, future generations have nothing to anchor their understanding of societal development. This erasure, according to critics, leaves a vacuum that can easily be filled by those in power with their own version of the truth. It’s as if the leaders of cancel culture believe that by eliminating the past, they can shape the future in their own image. The concern here is that this process destroys the essence of learning from history’s mistakes, which is vital for progress and growth. The most alarming consequence of this culture, according to detractors, is its impact on young minds. Critics argue that educators—those who should be teaching students to think critically and question everything—are instead indoctrinating them with narrow ideologies. In these environments, students are taught not to engage in meaningful debate but to "cancel" anything or anyone they disagree with. This trend creates a generation of young adults who lack the ability to think critically, who refuse to entertain opposing viewpoints, and who see disagreement as a personal attack rather than an opportunity for growth. Rather than fostering an environment of intellectual curiosity and diversity of thought, critics believe universities have become echo chambers for progressive ideologies, which in turn fuels cancel culture. One of the cornerstones of any democracy is free speech—the ability to express ideas and opinions without fear of retribution. However, cancel culture seems to threaten this fundamental right. In today’s climate, people fear speaking out on controversial issues, not because they are wrong, but because they might be "canceled." When individuals or groups are canceled, they are often shunned, boycotted, or ridiculed on social media and in public discourse. This has led to a chilling effect where people, particularly those in the public eye, are careful about what they say, often avoiding topics that could be seen as contentious or politically incorrect. This suppression of free speech is problematic for a functioning democracy. Without open debate, society cannot progress. Constructive disagreement allows us to challenge our ideas, reevaluate our beliefs, and come to more nuanced understandings of complex issues. When debate is stifled, society becomes stagnant, with one ideology dominating the narrative. Critics of cancel culture often point to the role of the elite—those in positions of power, wealth, and influence. They argue that these individuals use cancel culture as a tool to maintain their control over society. By manipulating public opinion and silencing dissenting voices, the elite ensure that their ideologies remain unchallenged. This has led to concerns that cancel culture is less about social justice and more about power. Politicians and influencers who align themselves with progressive causes are seen as gaining favor with these elites, while those who challenge the status quo are pushed to the margins. In this way, cancel culture serves as a method of social control, allowing the powerful to maintain their dominance over societal discourse. An ironic aspect of cancel culture is the contradiction within its ranks. Critics argue that the movement, which claims to fight for the rights of marginalized groups, often perpetuates the very forms of discrimination it seeks to eliminate. For example, many leaders of cancel culture movements are themselves from privileged backgrounds, and yet they claim to speak on behalf of minority groups. Additionally, while cancel culture condemns racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, it often engages in these very behaviors by demonizing and silencing those who hold differing opinions. Some argue that cancel culture is a form of reverse discrimination, where one group is canceled in favor of another. One of the most controversial areas where cancel culture rears its head is in the debate over immigration and cultural identity. Some argue that immigrants should adopt the culture and laws of the country they move to, while others believe that countries should adapt to the diverse cultures that immigrants bring with them. Critics of cancel culture argue that it often pushes for the erasure of native cultures in favor of a new, homogenized society. This, they argue, is akin to soft population replacement, where the dominant culture is slowly replaced by another. The result is a loss of cultural identity, a disconnection from history, and a society that is constantly in flux, with no clear sense of direction or purpose. In conclusion, cancel culture presents a significant threat to free speech, open debate, and societal progress. While it is important to call out harmful behavior and address historical injustices, it is equally important to engage in open dialogue, respect differing viewpoints, and learn from history rather than erase it. To move forward, we must reject the extremes of cancel culture and instead foster an environment where ideas can be debated, where history can be understood in its context, and where individuals are free to express their beliefs without fear of retribution. Only then can we build a society that values true progress—one built on the foundation of free speech, critical thinking, and mutual respect.

Stop Killing the Kidneys with Garbage

By W. Gifford-Jones MD and Diana Gifford Multiple studies have shown that a diet of fruits and vegetables reduces blood pressure. Since hypertension kills millions of people each year, the message seems clear. But this is not the first time consumers have been told that a veggie diet is superior to one of meat. Now there’s another important message that millions of North Americans have not learned. It’s that people of all ages keep killing their kidneys by eating highly processed garbage day after day. Despite the evidence, they embrace this silent killer until the doctor says they need kidney dialysis or a renal transplant to save their life. First, know the basic facts. The kidneys, like the gastrointestinal system, remove waste. These two bean-shaped organs, each the size of your fist, are master chemists too. They regulate blood pressure, balance body fluids, produce hormones and red blood cells, and keep the blood from being too acidic or too alkaline. To accomplish all these tasks, the kidneys filter the blood in our body over and over every day. It’s a huge undertaking. Based on the research, one would think we would all be eating predominantly fruits and vegetables to help ensure healthy longevity to kidneys. Each kidney contains between 200,000 and one-or-more million nephrons. The number declines naturally with age or at an accelerated pace when asked to work overtime. Each nephron is an individual filter that removes urea from the blood while returning water and nutrients into circulation. Fruits and vegetables, including plant-based proteins, are easier on aging or compromised kidneys because they generally involve fewer toxins or other nutrients such as sodium, potassium, protein, or acid content that must be removed or balanced. Don’t be fooled by artificial foods that mimic meat and claim to be vegetables. If you can’t pronounce the ingredients on the label, think twice. What are other bad habits that are damaging so many kidneys? Shakespearean described the problem best with the line from Julius Ceasar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves”. We are the victims of our own stupidity. When you ask people to put all their pills in a paper bag, it’s amazing what you see. Look in that bag to get a clear picture of what’s been going on for years. North Americans have become victims of “Pillitis”. They rush to the pharmacy whenever they have simple ache and pain. Compared to our forebearers, we’ve become wimps about pain. Worse, they allow themselves to develop chronic conditions that doctors will treat with endless medication. What’s the result? Evolution did not prepare the kidneys to metabolize all this synthetic junk. The heavy workload causes them to start to fail, slowly and surely. Researchers in the UK report that 34% of adults over 75 have severe levels of kidney disease. Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve) is contributing to such shocking statistics. Researchers at the University of California also reported years ago this damning statistic, that the misuse of drugs resulted in a 19 percent increase every year in patients requiring renal dialysis machines. We could point to many more studies. But people do not heed the advice, and they die prematurely. What’s the message? A diet of fruits and vegetables helps improve blood pressure. It also lowers risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, macular degeneration of the eyes, arthritis and gastrointestinal troubles. But even if people adjust their diet, chronic kidney disease will continue to increase until people stop abusing their kidneys with garbage painkillers and endless other medications. Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive our weekly e-newsletter. For comments, contact-us@docgiff.com. Follow us Instagram @docgiff and @diana_gifford_jones

A NEW COLUMN THAT PUTS THE SPOTLIGHT ON COUNCIL

Welcome to my new column in The Central entitled News From City Hall, a weekly look at all that does and doesn’t make sense from the Oshawa Council chamber, a place where decisions are made, personalities collide, and uninspiring theatrics often dominate. I have watched and recorded all aspects of city hall for 40 years, spanning six mayors and an ever-revolving door of councillors too numerous to mention. I have witnessed true statesmen dominate local politics, all the while having to tolerate some who seemed destined to be remembered as nothing more than an opportunistic interference in an otherwise valuable institution. Heroes like Ed Kolodzie and his brother Joe, long-time statesmen like Brian Nicholson, Jim Potticary and John Aker, and of course one or two local embarrassments most people would like to forget, such as Amy England who undoubtedly tops the list. As council returns from their summer recess, some of the issues I hope to be highlighting in future columns include the challenges that surround the downtown such as the struggles being faced by businesses who, on the one hand have seen much of their on-street parking simply disappear, and on the other have witnessed recent violence that is turning the heart of the city into a veritable war zone. Affordable housing initiatives come a close second with major projects such as the Fittings land redevelopment and the Oshawa Clinic transformation into a massive residential complex. Added to the list is the homeless problem, the use of Strong Mayor Powers, and the never ending struggle of Oshawa taxpayers trying to meet the demands of inflation and a voracious city hall always looking for more of your money. The next 12 months will surely be significant for the city and the region as these and other issues play out. COUNCILLOR GIBERSON IN BREACH OF CODE OF CONDUCT Readers will recall last week’s exclusive front page story where The Central was the first news outlet to publish the results of an Integrity Commissioner’s report that found Ward 4 councillor Derek Giberson in breach of the municipal Code of Conduct. This was based on a complaint that I filed earlier this year. The I.C. report found that Giberson, by commenting publicly regarding an issue that will be before the courts, contravened the obligation of elected officials to refrain from remarking on such matters. As such, his post on social media was considered contrary to the Code of Conduct. The report will be made public once Oshawa councillors have had a chance to review it and take action. To that end, I would like to share the following open letter to council that I prepared. “To Mayor Carter and Members of Council – You will soon be giving consideration to a report by the Integrity Commissioner as to one of your members having been found in breach of the Code of Conduct. The decision by councillor Giberson to allow himself the liberty of bringing into question the reputation and character of a private citizen by seeking to cast doubt on that person’s past activities, without any supporting evidence, was an abuse of his office and a total disregard as to the damage it could cause the individual affected. Councillor Giberson assumed far too much in deciding what was or was not “newsworthy” in a matter that will be before the courts. Further, it was not within councillor Giberson’s scope of office to try to affect the public’s opinion of a private individual in the first place. Based on the Integrity Commissioner’s decision, it would seem paramount for council to, not only demand councillor Giberson write a letter of apology to the individual concerned, but to ensure he is sanctioned in such a way as to show the citizens of Oshawa that council, as a whole, does not associate itself with such reckless activity on the part of councillor Giberson. The people of this city will be watching closely as council makes its decisions on this issue.” THIS WEEK IN COUNCIL HISTORY 1988 The Oshawa Times reported on Sept 21 that 300 homeowners were planning to gather at city hall to protest a proposed plaza at the NW corner of King St. and Harmony Rd. 11 Aldermen took turns shooting down the proposal, which was ultimately denied. Ward 3 Alderman Ed Kolodzie suggested a new library be built instead, however a five story Co-op building was eventually erected on the property, now known as the Harmony King Co-op. 1992 The Oshawa Times reported on Sept 17 that Durham Region councillors voted themselves a 4% pay hike over four years. Councillor Margaret Shaw said she was “appalled by the increase” and would refuse it, while councillor Brian Nicholson said “Don’t you realize we have to pay bills and taxes?” The raise would mean an extra $840 per year for councillors. 2018 The Oshawa This Week reported on Sept 19 that 200 people attended an all-candidates meeting for the Durham Regional chair election to be held that year. Candidates included Tom Dingwall, Oshawa Mayor John Henry, John Mutton, Muhammad Ahsin Sahi, and Peter Neal. John Henry would eventually win the election with 55% of the vote.

Questions Hiring Managers Ask Themselves When Assessing

By Nick Kossovan Readers often ask me for insight into the mysterious and confusing "how employers hire." While the recruitment process—keep in mind there's no universal recruitment process, as every employer assesses candidates differently—may seem shrouded in secrecy, there are common questions that hiring managers consider when evaluating job candidates. Your interviewer won't ask these common questions directly; they're in their mind. Hence, never take your interviewer's questions at face value; try to discern the underlying question. INTERVIEWER: "Do you live nearby?" QUESTION ACTUALLY BEING ASKED: Will this candidate be reliable? INTERVIEWER: "Tell me about a time you were in a conflict with a colleague and how you handled it. What was the outcome?" QUESTION ACTUALLY BEING ASKED: Will this candidate be easy to work with? Understanding, and therefore speaking to, the following four questions on every hiring manager's mind is a sure way to endear yourself to your interviewer. Will this person be a fit with the current team and company? The primary concern for a hiring manager is whether a candidate will seamlessly fit into the company's culture and existing team. Demonstrating how well you'll 'fit in,' you'll significantly increase your odds of getting hired. Employers are looking for more than just someone who can do the job. They're looking for candidates who'll be a natural fit and complement their current employees' work styles and personalities. A candidate who doesn't mesh well with the team will disrupt productivity, create interpersonal tensions, and drain morale. Therefore, understandably, hiring managers pay close attention to a candidate's communication style, emotional intelligence, and teamwork skills. Your interviewer is likely asking themselves: • How well is this [candidate's name] listening and responding to me? • Does [candidate's name] seem like someone who'd be comfortable working in a team? • Will [candidate's name] clash with [names of employees the candidate would be working closely with]? Ultimately, you want your interviewer to envision how you'll function in the existing workplace culture, that who'll be a natural fit, will hit the ground running and not be a square peg in a round hole. Contrary to entitlement-fueled belief, employers aren't responsible for you fitting into their workplace; that responsibility is entirely yours. Will they be easy to work with? (read: Will they be easy to manage?) With so much anti-employer rhetoric nowadays, hiring managers assess more than ever whether a candidate will be pleasant to work with and easy to manage. They want to avoid candidates who'll require handholding, are overly sensitive to feedback, or are simply difficult to work with. Skilled hiring managers recognize red flags such as: • Defensiveness or antagonism in response to questions • Rigid or inflexible thinking • Failure to take accountability for mistakes • Tendency to make excuses or blame others You want to come across as a candidate who's mature, resilient, and a proactive problem-solver with a growth mindset, not someone who'll be a high-maintenance employee. Will they be a liability? Employees are liabilities. Employers want to minimize their liabilities. A critical aspect of hiring is vetting candidates to ensure nothing in their background could adversely affect the company. (e.g., offensive online behaviour, having been let go for cause, exaggerating or lying about their experience and qualifications) Ultimately, hiring managers must be confident that a new hire won't bring any legal, ethical, or behavioural baggage that could expose the company to liability. The company must trust that the chosen candidate will be responsible, hardworking, ethical, and professional and that their outside activities, especially online, will not harm its brand and reputation. Will they stick around? I've yet to meet a hiring manager who doesn't gravitate toward a candidate they feel will be a loyal, engaged, committed long-term employee. After not deeming a candidate a fit, having a feeling or getting the impression that the candidate is only looking for a stepping stone is the second most likely reason I reject a candidate. Onboarding and recruiting are time-consuming and expensive; therefore, employers aim to avoid disruptions and costs associated with turnover. Your interviewer will look for signs that you're genuinely interested in the role and the company as opposed to just a paycheck. Hence, you'll be asked about your long-term career goals and, if you're currently employed, why you're looking for a new job. (Rare is the candidate who answers this convincingly.) Your work ethic, reliability, and ability to handle the role's demands are all qualities you want your interviewer to get a sense of. Provide evidence that you have stamina, the ability to adapt, and the commitment to succeed. Keep in mind employers want to reduce costly turnover as much as possible. Your interviewer will pass on your application if they feel you will be around only briefly. Finding the right candidate isn't about skills and experience; these are secondary. Someone who'll foremost be a loyal and engaged employee and has the right skills and experience is the right candidate. If you feel you're acing interviews ("I aced the interview! I answered every question on point.") but not getting offers, it's likely because you didn't answer the four aforementioned questions every hiring manager asks themselves when interviewing. __________________________________________________________________________ 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

Canada and the issue of productivity

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In the last quarter of century we have observed a slow but continuous deterioration of our living standards. There are many factors that have contributed to this, but one stands out as a major one, and that is the decline in productivity. Today, the majority of Canadians believe that Canada is broken after years of stagnant incomes, affordability challenges, rising crime rates, government failures on basic functions like healthcare and immigration, and a deepening cultural malaise. Productivity refers to how efficiently we use our resources to produce something of value. Productivity growth makes Canada richer, allowing us to access better healthcare, education, living standards, and even environmental outcomes. Decline in productivity is a choice, not a phenomenon that cannot be controlled. Canada can overcome productivity decline through better public policies and political leadership, which are missing in action. It is abundantly clear that Canada’s productivity growth is dismal, but no one in the current political establishment is considering it seriously. Without a drastic change in policy, the OECD forecasts that our productivity growth will rank last among its 38 member countries. Canada’s GDP per capita has advanced more slowly than leading economies in recent years. It has barely reached pre-COVID levels and the gap with the United States has widened. This is strongly linked to a relatively weak productivity growth. A slump in Canada’s resource-sector investment following the 2014 oil-price collapse has been particularly influential in this. Weakening productivity and investment performance echoes longstanding concerns that Canada is tapping less successfully than other economies, into opportunities to increase output through capital investment and innovation in products and processes. A wide range of policy actions can potentially increase business-sector productivity. There are proximate policy levers, such as tax breaks on investment and R&D that deepen capital and technological progress. In addition, there are less direct instruments, such as improvements to infrastructure and market efficiency, and reforms that strengthen vocational education and skills. Influences on market efficiency include competition policy, red tape in setting up businesses and bankruptcy processes. Barriers to foreign direct investment via foreign ownership restrictions continue to be high in Canada relative to those in other OECD countries, particularly in network sectors. For instance, in telecommunications rules state that both ownership and board composition must be at least 80% Canadian in operations with more than a 10% share of the market. Rules applying to the aviation sector also need reconsideration because they are essential to providing better mobility for the work force in a country whose territory is the second largest in the world. Though it has not yet created significant policy issues, teleworking should remain on watch for policymakers. According to Canada’s Labour Force Survey data, as of October 2022, 9% of workers reported that they usually worked both at home and at locations other than home (hybrid working) while 15.8% reported working exclusively from home. A priori, teleworking has widened labour markets and options on where to live. There may also be productivity gains; one survey of Canadian employees has found that 63% of respondents feel they are more productive working from home. The potential downside to teleworking may be losses in productivity from reduced in-person contact. A permanent shift to teleworking may need to be considered in some areas of policy, for instance in transport planning. Data continue to show that movement through transit stations in Canada remains below pre-COVID levels Lowering internal trade barriers remains one of the most effective ways policy can help boost Canada’s productivity and living standards. Canada appears unusual in her lack of universal regulations and technical standards across sub national jurisdictions. This hampers the flow of goods and services and compromises the labour market. Perhaps the best known example is the restriction on the movement of alcohol and tobacco products between provinces. Such barriers extend across many activities, including the dairy sector, engineering, healthcare professionals, legal and accounting services, and many others. The non-recognition of qualifications remains an issue notably in some areas of the healthcare sector and compulsory trades, where only members with the relevant official qualifications (or apprentices) can legally be employed. These include electricians, plumbers and crane operators. The Federal and Provincial governments seem bewildered or are intellectually blocked in dealing with this issue. Evidence continues to mount on the economic cost of internal trade barriers, yet nothing is done to eliminate them; nothing but lip-service.. Furthermore, federal government debt ballooned from $660 billion to $1.37 trillion between 2015 and 2024.. During the same period, the value of machinery and equipment in Canada decreased by 5 percent. Excessive government spending hinders economic growth by crowding out private investment and requiring higher taxes to support increased spending. It leads to a heavier regulatory burdens, which can stifle business activity. Government programs also adjust more slowly to changing economic conditions, reducing economic flexibility. Moreover, larger government expenditures encourage rent-seeking behaviour by businesses, diverting resources from otherwise productive activities. Collectively, these effects reduce productivity and economic growth. Another factor that influences productivity is qualified labour shortages, which cost small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) over $38 billion in lost sales annually. Meanwhile, between 2015 and 2024, federal public-sector employment has grown 43 percent, nearly three times faster than private-sector employment. m Had the federal public sector maintained the same growth rate as the nation’s population, there could potentially be up to 72,000 more workers available for private sector employment. m Assuming two out of three workers were employed by SMEs, and using an average of $450,000 revenue per employee, SMEs could have generated over $21 billion in additional annual revenue. Taxation policy is another tool that influences productivity. In 2016, the federal government raised the highest federal marginal tax rate by 4 percent. Combined with provincial rate increases, seven out of ten provinces now take over 50 percent of marginal earnings in taxes from high-income earners. This gives Canada the fifth-highest combined marginal tax rates among 38 OECD nations. Compared to the United States, our largest competitor for skilled workers, all provinces except Alberta and Saskatchewan have higher marginal tax rates than any U.S. state. These tax hikes have negative consequences besides spending taxpayers’ money on futuristic and useless projects. Every tax increase makes Canadian entrepreneurs think twice about starting companies in Canada. In conclusion, action on productivity is needed immediately. Let us see if the political class is up to the task. For now it is up to you to ask them. This is about our future. Help secure it!

Bring Your Tax Dollars Home: A Call for Fairness in Canadian Tax Spending

By Dale Jodoin In today's world, Canada is known for its fairness and generosity. We pride ourselves on welcoming people from all corners of the globe, whether they come here legally or are seeking refuge. But with all the good that we do, it's important to take a closer look at how we spend our tax dollars, especially when billions of those dollars are leaving the country each year. Could we be doing more with that money right here at home? This article explores the idea of keeping more of our tax dollars in Canada, making them work harder for everyone, including the newcomers who arrive on our shores. The Outflow of Canadian Tax Dollars Every year, Canada sends billions of dollars abroad in the form of foreign aid, international development projects, and contributions to global organizations. In 2023, Canada's official development assistance (ODA) alone amounted to approximately $6.6 billion. This money is intended to help developing countries with things like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It’s part of our commitment to being a responsible global citizen. But while we're sending all this money overseas, we're also seeing a growing number of people coming to Canada from many of these same countries. Some come seeking better opportunities, while others are fleeing conflict and persecution. According to the 2023 immigration statistics, over 400,000 people immigrated to Canada legally, and thousands more arrived as refugees or claimed asylum. These new Canadians contribute to our economy and enrich our communities, but they also need support—housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. The Case for Keeping More Money in Canada Given these numbers, one has to wonder: would it not be better if we kept more of our tax dollars here at home? Couldn’t we use that money to improve the services that Canadians rely on every day? Imagine if a portion of the billions we send abroad were invested in affordable housing, healthcare, and education right here in Canada. These investments would benefit all Canadians, including the newcomers who come here seeking a better life. For instance, consider the issue of affordable housing. According to the Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation (CMHC), over 1.6 million Canadian households are in "core housing need," meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing that may not even meet basic standards of adequacy or suitability. If we redirected just a fraction of our foreign aid budget to building affordable housing, we could significantly reduce this number and ensure that everyone, including new immigrants and refugees, has a safe and affordable place to live. Similarly, our healthcare system is under strain. With an aging population and increasing demands on services, many Canadians are facing longer wait times for surgeries and other medical procedures. In 2023, the average wait time for medically necessary treatment was over 22 weeks, according to the Fraser Institute. If more of our tax dollars were kept in Canada, we could invest in reducing these wait times, ensuring that everyone gets the care they need when they need it. Balancing Global Responsibility with National Needs Now, it's important to be clear: this isn't about turning our backs on the rest of the world. Canada has a long history of helping those in need, and that shouldn't change. But there is a balance to be struck between our global responsibilities and the needs of our own citizens. We need to ask ourselves if our current spending priorities are the best way to achieve that balance. Are we doing enough to ensure that our tax dollars are being used efficiently and effectively? Could we achieve the same humanitarian goals by focusing more on domestic projects that also benefit our global commitments? For example, instead of sending money abroad to build schools in other countries, why not focus on improving education here at home, and then offering scholarships or exchange programs to students from those countries? This way, we’re still contributing to global education while also strengthening our own educational institutions. Supporting Newcomers with Canadian Tax Dollars It's also worth considering how these changes could benefit the very people we aim to help with our foreign aid. Many immigrants and refugees come from countries that receive Canadian aid, but once they arrive here, they face the same challenges as other Canadians—finding affordable housing, accessing healthcare, and securing good jobs. By keeping more of our tax dollars in Canada, we could provide better support for these newcomers. We could ensure that they have access to the services they need to thrive in their new home. This, in turn, would help them contribute more fully to our economy and society. For instance, the government could use the money to expand programs that help newcomers integrate into Canadian society, such as language classes, job training, and settlement services. These programs are essential for helping immigrants and refugees become self-sufficient and successful members of our community. A Fair Deal for Canadians In conclusion, the idea of keeping more of our tax dollars at home isn't about being selfish or turning away from the world. It's about making sure that our tax dollars are used in the most effective and efficient way possible. It's about ensuring that all Canadians—whether they were born here or came here seeking a better life—have access to the services and opportunities they need to succeed. Canada will always be a country that cares about the world. But we also need to care about our own citizens and ensure that we're getting the best value for our tax dollars. By rethinking how we spend our money, we can build a stronger, fairer Canada for everyone.

Friends, Neighbours, and fellow Canadians

By Lisa Robinson I stand before you today, not just as an elected official but as a deeply concerned citizen who believes that our beloved city—and municipalities across Ontario and Canada—are heading in a dangerously wrong direction. It is with a heavy heart and a clear sense of duty that I address the serious concerns and allegations I must make against my Council, the Corporation of the City of Pickering, and other levels of government. Some of our city leaders have strayed far from the principles they were elected to uphold. They have shown a blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of our citizens—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press are being trampled upon in pursuit of ideological and personal agendas. Our bylaws are being broken repeatedly, catering to special interest groups and developers while the voices of ordinary citizens are being silenced. In recent months, Pickering council has introduced draconian, undemocratic policies that limit public participation and transparency within our beloved chambers. Delegation time limits have been slashed from 10 minutes to 5, the public is no longer allowed to record public meetings, and the media too is barred from recording unless given a two-thirds majority of the council's approval. And already council has shown their true colours by voting against a media outlet who holds opposing views. Residents from outside of Pickering, including Durham residents, are prohibited from participating in our meetings unless the topic is approved by a two-thirds majority—this, despite we contract with their government and the fact that four of our council members sit on Durham Region Council. Even Pickering residents are now silenced from speaking openly, freely in our chambers unless their topic has been scrutinized under a microscope and approval given by a mover and seconder and a 2/3rds vote. Let's be clear: if the council doesn’t want to hear what you have to say, or if they don’t like your opinions, they will silence you. They are effectively forbidding you from having a voice. This is not just a disregard for free speech—it's an outright attack on your right to be heard. Let’s talk about the new, nebulous trespass policies—what I call the “hurt feelings bylaw.” These draconian rules give the council the power to banish anyone based on flimsy excuses like social media posts, language, tone of voice, or even what someone is wearing if it offends someone. This isn’t just a policy; it’s a blatant attempt to silence dissent, crush opposing views, and manipulate the narrative to fit their agenda,views, and control the narrative. We’ve seen what looks like outrageous manipulation in the city's YouTube feeds of our council and committee meetings—time jumps, white noise, and possible signs of audio tampering. When I pushed for an independent third party to record our meetings to ensure moving forward that these recordings were accurate and transparent, since the public is no longer allowed to record, the City of Pickering flatly refused. This isn’t just poor governance—it’s outright tyranny. Our councils and governments are intoxicated with power. It seems to give them a perverse pleasure to divide us, to make us feel helpless, to instill fear in those who dare to hold opposing opinions. This toxic culture is ruining relationships, tearing families apart, and forcing people to live in constant fear of speaking their minds, their truths. This nightmare needs to end, and it will only end if we, the people, rise above the nonsensical nonsense they are trying to impose. It’s absolutely scandalous how taxpayer dollars are being squandered on frivolous spending at every level of government, while critical needs like providing clean drinking water to our First Nations communities are callously ignored. Despite countless failed promises of keeping our duty to consult, as of this past July, 31 First Nations communities remain under long-term drinking water advisories. This is not just a failure—it's a betrayal. We hear endless land acknowledgments, but these are nothing more than empty words, lip service, when not backed by real action. Our First Nations people deserve access to clean, safe drinking water, and it is our solemn duty to push and deliver on that promise no matter what level of government. But the disgrace doesn't stop there. Our homeless population is increasing and our food banks are struggling to keep food on the shelves while our governments and city officials, who are supposed to protect and serve us, are instead taxing us deeper into poverty. Yet, their wages and benefits continue to increase, while they sit idly by, letting our most vulnerable citizens suffer in silence. Our government continues to waste taxpayer dollars on lavish perks for elected officials and city staff, sending funds abroad to other Countries without addressing the suffering of our own people. Millions of dollars are being funneled into consultants and reports that are hidden from the public, and thousands are spent on politicians to attend events that serve only to benefit the politicians and the vendors who wine and dine them for future business. Maybe the Premiere could put legislation in place that would disallow any elected official and city staff from receiving gifts and benefits from developers, vendors, special interest groups or anyone lobbying the governments for business. Maybe Politicians should wear these lobbyist logos on their jackets to show transparency of who supports them, so the people can keep track of how they vote and see where their loyalty lies. Rob Ford was a true champion of fiscal responsibility, unafraid to call out the wasteful perks enjoyed by city employees. He was determined to keep politicians and public servants in line, ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money was spent wisely. This corruption must end. The City of Pickering on top of all of their wasteful spending is also vindictive, hateful and voted to spend $200,000 of tax payers dollars to fight me in a judicial review, instead of paying me $15,000 plus in lost salary that I was financially sanctioned on the recommendation by Principles Integrity for doing my job on behalf of my constituents. It's deeply troubling that Integrity Commissioners, who hold significant power over elected officials, are themselves unelected and paid by the very municipalities they oversee. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, where their loyalty may lie more with those who sign their paychecks than with the principles of fairness and accountability. I ask, do we really need them, They have only been implemented in the last few years, yet they wield immense influence over our democratic processes. Council and the Corporation of the City of Pickering and all levels of government need to remember that it is your money, meant to be used judiciously for the common good, not for self-serving agendas. This is not just mismanagement—it’s a criminal neglect of duty. In Pickering, the Integrity Commissioner has audaciously pushed for and was granted changes to our policies and procedures to ensure their Integrity reports cannot be questioned. This is nothing short of a blatant effort to shield their actions from scrutiny and undermine transparency and public trust. When you realize that Principles Integrity, the firm the Corporation of the City pays and relies on, is serving 65 other municipalities, it’s evident that their impartiality is severely compromised. In my personal experience, the Integrity Commissioner has proven to be untrustworthy and biased. They have repeatedly lied, failed to investigate complaints thoroughly, and refused to answer any questions from those they accuse, effectively preventing individuals from clearing their names. Let me be absolutely clear: this is a rigged system. The integrity of a process where those responsible for upholding fairness are instead serving the corporation's interests, not ours, is fundamentally flawed. It’s high time our Premier steps in and enacts legislation to protect the public’s interest and prevent officials from manipulating the system to shield their misconduct. We need reforms that ensure accountability and transparency, not a façade of integrity designed to protect the corrupt. In Pickering and throughout Canada we are also witnessing a disturbing trend where the right to personal dignity is being stripped away from men, women, boys, and girls in spaces that should be safe bathrooms, change rooms. People are being forced to share these spaces with members of the opposite sex, leading to widespread discomfort and real psychological harm to some. What’s even more troubling is that only members 18 years and older at our Recreation Complex are protected to use spaces aligned with their biological sex, leaving children and those who can’t afford memberships vulnerable and unprotected from these same rights. This is not just unfair; in my opinion it’s disgusting. We are discriminating against the most vulnerable among us—our children and those who lack the means to protect themselves are having to beg to use a biological changeroom. This is inhumane It’s absolutely absurd that these changes have only emerged since COVID. For as long as we’ve existed, nobody has ever had to beg for the basic right to use their biological washroom. It’s disturbing beyond belief that anyone ever thought this was a good idea. What we’re witnessing is a catastrophic lapse in common sense, leading to dangerous consequences. Globally, there have been too many tragic incidents in these spaces - these aren’t isolated events, and they can’t be ignored. This isn’t about politics; it’s about the safety and well-being of our citizens. We must safeguard their right to personal dignity and stop sacrificing them on the altar under the guise of political correctness. I urge Premier Ford and all members of parliament to implement common-sense legislation before it’s too late. I am certain that neither Premier Ford nor any other parliamentarian want to change in spaces with children, let alone children of the opposite sex, and if you do then your values will become questionable. Our citizens absolutely deserve to be safe and our children protected, and we cannot allow this misguided policy to continue With all of the bullying, intimidation, threats, attacks on my character, sexual harassment, and psychological harassment that I have had to endure, and the corruption, collusion, and what I consider bribery that I have witnessed, I have suggested that all members of the council be investigated for wrongdoing. Yet not a single member—not even the mayor—would second that motion. What does that tell you? It’s very telling when those who cry the loudest about integrity refuse to have their own actions scrutinized. If they have nothing to hide, why didn’t they support an investigation? The silence from council speaks volumes. We are also witnessing a troubling trend of our city catering to special interest groups at the expense of our own procedures and bylaws, principles of fairness, and equality. Time and again, procedures and bylaws have been selectively enforced or outright ignored to serve the agendas of a few, rather than the common good. Rules for me, but not for thee. This selective enforcement has not only broken the trust between the government and the people but has also erode the rule of law in our city. Over the past few months, my mayor and fellow councillors have been participating in a downright dangerous game to lobby the provincial government to change the Municipal Act so they can remove a sitting elected member. This is a direct attack on democracy, where the people—not politicians—should have the power to decide who represents them. If this change is allowed, it opens the door to unchecked abuse of power, where dissenting voices can be silenced at will. It’s a blatant attempt to consolidate control and eliminate opposition, turning our councils into echo chambers for those in power. It's not only happening in Pickering but in other municipalities, and any elected official pushing for this should step down immediately for betraying the very democratic process they were elected to protect. This move isn’t just undemocratic; it’s authoritarian. We must fiercely oppose any effort to strip the people of their right to have a voice and to choose their leaders. Our duty is to serve, not to rule. It is also disgraceful to see politicians at all levels of government using name-calling and shameful rhetoric to silence and intimidate those who dare to speak up. These tactics are designed to stop people from expressing their concerns and to create an environment of fear. Let me be absolutely clear—this disgraceful behavior starts at the top with Trudeau and you, Premier Ford. You've set the tone, and now my mayor and fellow councillors think it’s perfectly acceptable to stoop to your level and It’s no wonder that this garbage has trickled down to fake Facebook accounts and keyboard warriors who think they can hide behind screens and hurl insults without consequence to those with opposing views within our communities. You’ve all set a shameful example. It is absolutely appalling to see my fellow politicians behave this way spreading vile rhetoric to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to oppose them and speak their truth. These pathetic tactics are nothing but a coward's way to stifle free speech and breed fear. Only spineless cowards hide behind such childish nonsense. Real leaders engage in real conversations, they listen, and they address issues with respect and integrity. Those who stoop to name-calling and character assassination have no place in leadership. If Politicians can’t uphold thedignity of their office, then step down. Because this kind of toxic behavior is a stain on our democracy, and we are better than that. I have personally faced relentless bullying, intimidation, and threats from my mayor and fellow councilors, including financial sanctions, name-calling, and persistent lies attacking my character—all because I am standing up for what is right – just like I am here today. But these are not just attacks on me; they are attacks on the very principles of integrity, honesty, and accountability that should guide all Politicians actions. In my opinion, our municipality, like many others, needs to be torn down and rebuilt, giving power back to the people, where it rightfully belongs. And The rot doesn’t stop at our city councils, provincial, federal government, or other institutions. Historically, Canada had defamation laws and journalistic standards that aimed to prevent the spread of false information. However, with the rise of digital media and the push for sensationalism, these standards have eroded, allowing biased and misleading reports to flourish. The CBC and other journalists have become a disgrace, promoting rumors using clickbait titles instead of investigating the truth. They have become another group paid to report certain narratives that fit their agenda, rather than the facts. This is not journalism—it is sensationalism, or if I may be so crude to say BS, and it’s nothing other than a betrayal of the public’s trust. I call on Premier Ford to bring back Legislation that demands accurate reporting by all journalists based on facts and hold media accountable for their role in spreading misinformation. I would also like to ask Premier Ford, to have a serious conversation with Prime Minister Trudeau about the millions of dollars being funneled into the CBC. This government funding looks more like bribery than support for unbiased journalism. If we're truly committed to media transparency and integrity, we need to stop propping up an organization that increasingly serves as a mouthpiece rather than a check on power. Let's put an end to this questionable financial relationship and restore faith in our public institutions. It is also disheartening to see how DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, which were intended to foster inclusivity, have instead become sources of division and exclusion. Globally, DEI policies are being banned as they are increasingly recognized for their counterproductive effects—fostering division rather than unity and indoctrinating individuals to adhere to a specific narrative. In Pickering, DEI is being enforced across all areas of the corporation, including the hiring process, which is deeply troubling. Such policies should not lead to discrimination based on skin color, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences. I was the only one who voted against its implementation because, as a leader, I recognize the importance of seeing what everyone else can see but I can think differently and question if what is being presented is universally beneficial or not. Our approach must reflect true inclusivity, promoting equality and respect for all individuals. The solution is straightforward: treat everyone equally and fairly based on merit and character, united under the red and white flag of our country—the Canadian flag. We should not be segregating people into groups by the colour of their skin, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences which are only designed to divide us. This approach will ensure that our policies genuinely serve the common good rather than creating new forms of exclusion. It’s our duty as politicians to remain in a state of neutrality and not cause division by a hierarchy of beliefs and chaos. This is not about being left or right—it is about what is right and what is wrong. It is about common sense for common people. The name-calling we see from politicians at all levels of government used to silence and shame those who dare to speak up, is disgusting. Only cowards hide behind such childish rhetoric, not leaders. And those who engage in it should apologize or step down, for they are not fit to lead. Our municipalities need to be torn down and rebuilt with integrity, transparency, and respect for the people they serve. We must return power to where it belongs—in the hands of the people Our children deserve to grow up free from political agendas that impose adult issues on them, especially when it comes to making life-altering decisions about their bodies. We cannot allow children to be pressured into choices that involve irreversible hormone blockers or surgeries that remove healthy body parts. These are decisions with lifelong consequences that no child should be forced to make. Let our children be children. Let them learn and grow in an environment of respect, dignity, and safety, where their innocence is preserved and their well-being is prioritized. It's our duty to protect their future, ensuring they have the time and freedom to discover who they are without the weight of adult controversies on their young shoulders. We should be teaching our children that no safe adult will ask them to keep secrets. As for our government claiming transparency and accountability these have become mere buzzwords, not practices. We were not elected to cater to developers, special interest groups or make friends with those with deep pockets following along with the status quo. Yet, we see our leaders doing exactly that, pushing through agendas that benefit the few at the expense of the many. We need to be a government that serves the people, not one that serves itself. We need to be leaders who listen, who act with integrity, and who put the public good above all else. We need to restore transparency, accountability, and trust in our institutions. And we need to stand up to the bullies, the corrupt officials, and the special interest groups who are trying to take away our rights and freedoms This is not a fight I take on lightly, but it is one that must be fought. For the sake of our city, our province, and our country, its people, and future generations to come. We must stand up against this abuse of power, this corruption, and this betrayal of public trust. We must restore integrity and trust in our government, and I am committed to leading that charge. Together, we can bring about the change that is so desperately needed. Serving the people, not ruling them. Strength does not lie in the absence of fear but in the courage to face it head on and rise above it "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"