A Candid Conversation

A Candid Conversation By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist Without question, it is a very different world today than the one I grew up in. I remember being a child living in what was then called uptown, it was actually the Yonge and Eglinton area of Toronto. It was a very modest upbringing. My parents worked hard to give their three daughters what they could. We all helped around the house, took turns doing the dishes and things to help our mom. We were respectful and obeyed the rules set out by our parents. We had one bathroom, one television and therefore had to agree on what to watch. Our parents set out most of the viewing schedule and I remember the whole family sitting around the living room watching Carol Burnett, The Waltons and many other entertaining programs. We as children didn’t use the phone much,we waited for someone to come knocking on the door to see if we wanted to play or we went door knocking ourselves. It was simple, stay close, come home as soon as the streetlights came on. At the time, we could not have imagined it being any different than it was. Progress to us (and to our delight), was returning to school in September to find a new piece of equipment added to the playground. For the many that grew up as I did in the sixties and seventies it is very hard to fathom what is going on with our youth today. Years ago, we thought that older people were looking to recruit the younger ones for their crimes and misdemeanors by telling them that they could not get into any serious trouble due to the young offender’s act.It would often be the case that a couple or a few named young adults would be arrested and we would see on the news that there was a young offender involved who could not be named. It seems that that is not even the case anymore. We see on the news on a regular basis, children as young as eleven and twelveare involved in horrific crimes and there are no older adults involved. Which begs the question, what the hell is going on with our youth?Where are the parents is one of the biggest questions that I hear posed when these stories hit the news. What is going on in homes across our region that would make these children think that it is okay to go out and commit the crimes they do? The most recent that comes to mind is the smash and grab at the Oshawa Centre involving a group of boys aged from 13-19. Then there are the 8 kids involved in the armed robbery of another youth on William Lott Dr. in North Oshawa. Here we had12-, 13-, and 15-year-old girls and boys. Back in the summer there was the swarming of a Pizza worker in south Oshawa that involved an 11-year-old boy and 3 girls aged 13,14, and 15. Most heinous of recent youth criminal acts is the elderly woman killed in frontof her home in Pickering by a 14-year-old boy in an absolutely unprovoked attack. Something needs to change. Now. People need to speak up.

Tax Efficient RRSP Withdrawal Strategies

Tax Efficient RRSP Withdrawal Strategies By Bruno M. Scanga Deposit Broker, Insurance & Investment Advisor Many Canadians diligently contribute to their Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) throughout their working years, aiming for a comfortable retirement. However, when it comes to withdrawing these funds, the strategy isn’t always straightforward. For some, tapping into their RRSPs earlier than traditional retirement age can offer significant tax benefits and financial flexibility. Why Consider Early RRSP Withdrawals? The conventional wisdom suggests deferring RRSP withdrawals to delay taxes as long as possible. Yet, this approach might not be best for everyone. Withdrawing funds during years when you’re in a lower tax bracket can reduce your overall tax burden. This strategy, sometimes referred to as an “RRSP meltdown,” involves strategically drawing down your RRSP before mandatory withdrawals kick in at age 71. By accessing your RRSP funds between ages 60 and 70, you can decrease the account’s size before it’s converted into a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF). This proactive approach can lead to smaller mandatory withdrawals later, potentially keeping you in a lower tax bracket and preserving more of your retirement income. Early RRSP withdrawals can also influence government benefits. For instance, the Old Age Security (OAS) pension has a claw back mechanism for higher-income retirees. By reducing your RRSP balance earlier, you might avoid or lessen this claw back. Additionally, for lower-income individuals, early withdrawals could help in qualifying for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), which provides added support to those who need it most. Another advantage of accessing RRSP funds early is the opportunity to transfer them into a Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). While you’ll pay taxes upon withdrawal from the RRSP, once the funds are in a TFSA, they can grow tax-free. This setup offers greater flexibility for future expenses, such as medical costs or helping family members financially. For couples, early RRSP withdrawals can be particularly beneficial. Imagine both partners have large RRSPs. If one partner passes away, the surviving spouse inherits the RRSP funds, potentially resulting in a significant tax liability due to higher mandatory withdrawals from a larger RRIF. By each partner drawing down their RRSPs earlier, they can manage and possibly reduce the combined tax impact in the future. While there are clear benefits to early RRSP withdrawals, it’s essential to approach this strategy thoughtfully. Withdrawing funds means paying taxes sooner and potentially missing out on the tax-deferred growth those funds would have enjoyed. Therefore, it’s crucial to assess your current financial situation, future income expectations, and retirement goals.

October 7, Two Years On: Canada’s Place in a Conflict That Reverberates Here

October 7, Two Years On: Canada’s Place in a Conflict That Reverberates Here by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The world we live in continues to grow more dangerous by the day. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with rising conflicts across Asia, Africa, and South America, reflect an era of global instability that could easily spiral into a wider conflagration. Among these crises, the war that began in Israel and Gaza stands out for its intensity and moral complexity. It is a conflict that continues to haunt not only the Middle East but also countries like Canada, where its echoes have reshaped politics, culture, and community relations. On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants launched a massive and coordinated assault on southern Israel, killing over 1,200 people—mostly civilians—and abducting more than 200 hostages. The attack shattered Israel’s sense of security and triggered an all-out war with Hamas. The response devastated Gaza, displacing more than two million Palestinians and killing tens of thousands. The shockwaves spread around the world. In Canada, images of the carnage and the ensuing destruction in Gaza provoked strong emotions and deep divisions. What began as sympathy for Israel’s trauma soon evolved into a national debate over proportionality, morality, and responsibility in warfare. Two years later, the conversation is far from settled. Canada was quick to condemn Hamas’s assault. The federal government denounced the attacks as “heinous,” affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself, and called for civilian protection under international law. In the months that followed, Ottawa’s tone shifted as the humanitarian disaster in Gaza worsened. Canada joined calls for “safe and unimpeded humanitarian access” and greater restraint. The balancing act was unmistakable: support for Israel’s security on the one hand, and growing unease over civilian casualties on the other. By March 2024, this tension reached Parliament. The House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to halt future arms sales to Israel, signaling discomfort with the war’s civilian toll. A year later, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand reiterated Canada’s condemnation of Hamas, acknowledged that seven Canadians were killed on October 7, and urged the release of the remaining 48 hostages.Then, on September 21, 2025, Canada made a bold diplomatic move—recognizing the State of Palestine. The government framed it as a reaffirmation of the two-state solution and the right of both peoples to live in peace and security. Critics saw it as premature, but supporters hailed it as a moral stand in a moment of global paralysis. This double posture—condemning terror while advocating statehood—captures the essence of Canada’s approach: a cautious equilibrium between alliance and conscience. The October 7 attacks and their aftermath reverberated sharply within Canada’s borders. Jewish communities, already wary of rising antisemitism, faced a wave of threats, vandalism, and hate speech. Synagogues were defaced, Jewish schools received bomb threats, and in Toronto, the Bais Chaya Mushka girls’ school was struck by gunfire more than once. In response, Ottawa pledged to act. Minister Anand reaffirmed that Canada “unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms.” However, community leaders insist that rhetoric must be matched with protection. Many Jewish Canadians say they now feel vulnerable in public, particularly near large pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The war abroad, they argue, has turned into a psychological war at home. At the same time, Muslim and Palestinian-Canadian communities have endured anguish and frustration over Gaza’s devastation. Protests calling for a ceasefire have filled streets from Vancouver to Montreal. While most have been peaceful, some have turned confrontational, feeding polarization and mutual mistrust. This emotional divide—between grief for Israeli victims and outrage over Palestinian suffering—has tested the very idea of Canada as a pluralistic, tolerant society. The shock of October 7 also reached Canada’s cultural frontlines. A notable controversy erupted at the 2025 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) over Barry Avrich’s documentary The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, which recounts Israeli rescue efforts during the attacks. Initially withdrawn due to copyright concerns about Hamas-recorded footage, the film was reinstated after public pressure. The dispute revealed how volatile the subject has become. In Canada’s cultural institutions, even acts of commemoration can be politicized. How do we tell stories about trauma without being accused of bias? How do we remember without choosing sides? These questions haunt artists, journalists, and educators alike. As the Gaza war enters its third year, Canada’s foreign policy faces scrutiny at home and abroad. Human rights advocates argue that Ottawa has been too cautious in confronting Israel over civilian deaths. Others warn that distancing from Israel risks alienating key allies and diminishing Canada’s global credibility. The government insists that its approach is principled and balanced, emphasizing four core pillars: 1. Condemnation of terrorism and demand for the release of all hostages; 2. Humanitarian advocacy, pushing for UN-led aid corridors into Gaza; 3. Support for a two-state solution, including recognition of Palestine; and 4. Combatting hate at home, through strengthened anti-hate laws and community protection; Critics, however, describe these steps as symbolic, lacking meaningful leverage over the parties involved. Some see Canada’s recognition of Palestine as a courageous moral act; others view it as diplomatic naivety. Public opinion mirrors this divide. Surveys show that younger Canadians are more likely to sympathize with Palestinians and support recognition, while older Canadians tend to prioritize Israel’s security concerns. The generational split is shaping the future of Canada’s foreign policy debate. As the second anniversary of the attacks passed this October, Jewish communities across Canada held vigils, services, and educational events to remember those who perished—among them, seven Canadians. The government’s statement echoed their grief, calling October 7 “a day of horror and loss that must never be forgotten.” Yet even commemoration has become fraught. Organizers of memorials often take great care to keep ceremonies non-political, aware that expressions of solidarity can easily be misinterpreted. Many Jewish groups emphasize that remembering the victims does not preclude advocating for peace, justice, or humanitarian relief. Canadians are debating what it means to “remember responsibly.” Does commemoration mean reaffirming military alliances—or confronting moral blind spots? The question goes beyond geopolitics: it speaks to how Canadians define compassion, balance, and belonging in a fractured world. Two years after October 7, Canada faces its own test of conscience. First, remembrance must not be passive. Canada can contribute by supporting credible investigations, accountability for war crimes, and renewed diplomatic engagement through the United Nations. Second, protection of communities must be paramount. Combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hate is not just a moral duty—it is a measure of national resilience. Third, polarization must be resisted. The ability to disagree without dehumanizing is Canada’s greatest defence against extremism. Finally, Canada’s recognition of Palestine should be more than symbolic. It must be leveraged into constructive diplomacy—advancing civilian protection, humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and genuine peace negotiations—while never retreating from condemnation of terror or Israel’s right to exist in security October 7 is no longer a distant foreign tragedy for Canadians. It lives in our communities, our politics, and our collective conscience. Two years on, Canada stands both as witness and participant—challenged to transform grief into resolve, remembrance into responsibility, and principle into peace

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning

Canada’s Fall Budget 2025: Between Bold Promises and Fiscal Reckoning by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East On November 4, Prime Minister Mark Carney will table his government’s first budget since assuming office. Canadians should be aware that this will not be a routine fiscal update. This budget will be nothing less than a test of credibility; a balancing act between urgent promises and the cold arithmetic of national finances. For years, Ottawa has grown accustomed to deficit financing as a political safety valve. Every government since the pandemic has justified red ink with appeals to crisis. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has found that the federal budget deficit will grow beyond previous projections. The total of just over $132 billion between 2025 and 2028 projected in Budget 2024 has escalated to the nearly $255 billion now projected for those years. Moreover, the debt-to-GDP ratio — the Liberals’ so-called “fiscal anchor” — is no longer guaranteed to decline. Much of this is driven by a considerable decline in federal tax revenues due to the personal income tax cut and other measures, as well as even larger increases in federal program spending. Total operating spending alone (excluding many federal transfers) is projected to be more than $10 billion per year higher than previously anticipated. Adding unannounced measures back into the PBO estimates will make cumulative deficits over the next four years exceed $360 billion—almost three times the amount last year’s budget anticipated. Even more concerning is the fact that federal debt is set to grow at a faster rate than the economy. In recent testimony to a parliamentary committee, the PBO noted that this was the first time in 30 years he had seen a projection where this key measure of fiscal sustainability continued to rise over time. Simply put, federal finances are at a precipice. This should trouble Canadians. Debt is not abstract. It is a mortgage on future taxpayers; a quiet siphon on every program we prize. The more Ottawa borrows, the more billions they sink into debt servicing, leaving less for housing, health care, or pensions. To govern as if fiscal gravity does not exist is reckless, and Prime Minister Carney knows it. Nowhere are expectations higher than in housing. For years, governments of all stripes have promised affordability but delivered little relief. Prime Minister Carney has already unveiled the Build Canada Homes initiative, a sprawling plan to accelerate construction. In this budget, the Liberals are expected to sweeten the pot with tax credits, subsidies, and incentives to coax builders and pension funds into action. However, here lies the contradiction: pouring billions into subsidies without tackling municipal bottlenecks, zoning gridlock, or labour shortages risks throwing money into a void. Canadians want roofs, not rhetoric. Unless Ottawa coordinates with provinces and cities to streamline approvals and mobilize labour, the housing crisis will remain a slow-burn national scandal. Also, beyond our borders, allies are losing patience. NATO’s 2 % of GDP target is no longer aspirational; it is a demand. The liberal government is poised to announce significant defence spending increases — new equipment, recruitment campaigns, and modernization of our aging forces. Canadians seems to be split on this. Many resent the idea of billions for tanks and jets while mortgages crush families. Yet the reality of a turbulent world — Russia’s ambitions, China’s assertiveness, American unpredictability — leaves Ottawa with little choice. Defence spending is not charity; it is insurance. Ignoring it only postpones and increases the bill. Whispers of a GST hike hang over this budget like a storm cloud. No government relishes raising taxes, but arithmetic is unforgiving. With deficits swelling, revenue must come from somewhere. Closing corporate loopholes, trimming boutique tax credits, and modestly raising consumption taxes are all on the table. Opponents will howl, but consider this: Canadians already pay the price of deficits, not in taxes today but in higher borrowing costs. A transparent, modest tax increase coupled with serious spending reform would be more honest than endless borrowing masked as generosity. Pre-budget consultations have revealed widespread anxiety about affordability. Groceries, rents, and energy bills are draining households. The government will likely respond with targeted relief measures — perhaps expanded child benefits or new credits for low-income families. These are politically irresistible, but they raise uncomfortable questions: how many more patchwork programs can Canada afford? And do such measures solve the underlying problems — productivity stagnation, weak wages, and supply shortages — or merely mute the symptoms for another year? For decades, Canada has lagged in productivity growth. Our economy too often relies on debt-fuelled consumption rather than investment. Prime Minister Carney, a former central banker with global gravitas, knows this better than anyone does. Yet productivity is the unsexy word missing from political stump speeches. If this budget does not deliver bold measures — from R&D incentives to trade diversification beyond the United States — then Canada will continue its slide toward mediocrity. Housing relief may win headlines; productivity reform would win the future. All of this unfolds under the shadow of minority politics. The Liberals must craft a budget palatable not only to their base but also to opposition parties whose votes are essential for passage. That means sprinkling in enough social supports to appease the New Democrats, while avoiding measures so fiscally reckless that Conservatives can paint the government as irresponsible. Budgets in minority Parliaments are less about economics than about survival. Yet survivalism cannot be Canada’s economic plan. Ultimately, the Fall Budget 2025 is a referendum on credibility. Can the Liberals admit that fiscal resources are finite? Can they deliver tangible progress on housing without throwing money into bureaucratic black holes? Can they prepare Canada for geopolitical storms while safeguarding households at home? Prime Minister Mark Carney’s reputation as a disciplined, globally respected technocrat will be on the line. If he bends to the temptation of pleasing everyone, the result will be a document that satisfies no one and deepens the deficit hole. If he seizes the moment with a clear, tough-minded plan — pairing targeted investments with genuine spending reform and honest revenue measures — he could reset Canada’s trajectory. This upcoming budget is not simply about numbers. It is about the social contract between Canadians and their government. Do we believe Ottawa can make hard choices, or only easy promises? Do we measure success by the billions spent, or by results delivered? Come November 4, Canadians will hear more than a speech. They will hear whether their government has the courage to level with them, or whether it will continue the comfortable illusion that Ottawa can spend without consequence. The country deserves better than illusions.

WARD 4 COUNCILLOR GIBERSON STAYS ON A PATH OF SELF-DESTRUCTION, BUT WHO PAYS THE PRICE?

WARD 4 COUNCILLOR GIBERSON STAYS ON A PATH OF SELF-DESTRUCTION, BUT WHO PAYS THE PRICE? IF A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION doesn’t somehow stop the progression of the human mind, it will certainly guide it in one direction over another. The effects of this were certainly laid bare at the September 29 meeting of Oshawa Council, and I encourage my readers to pause with me for a few moments as we consider some of what transpired. The title of this week’s column could have easily read, “Miracle on Centre Street” due to the rare occurrence whereby Ward 1 councillor Rosemary McConkey actually found favour among her colleagues – this time regarding a motion that seeks to address the problem of uninhibited drug use in our public spaces. The proposed initiative previously failed to gain support at the committee level, however Ward 3 councillor Bob Chapman came to the rescue by helping craft a new and more realistic version, one that was ultimately successful and supported by the Mayor and Council. To say the City needs to do something in an effort to encourage the Minister of Justice to take appropriate action on what has become a major breakdown in our society is a complete understatement. The motion makes reference to the open use of drugs in the community (A concern focused no doubt on the city’s downtown) and the effect this has had on young people as well as those who may be recovering from addictions. As noted in the motion, the possession of substances regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a criminal offence, and the open use of such substances has become flagrant in parts of the city of Oshawa, reducing the quality of life for law-abiding residents. The open-air use and availability of those substances in areas providing supports to people attempting to recover from addictions undoubtedly impedes their recovery efforts. It also attracts drug dealers associated with greater crimes to areas frequented by users of those drugs. As written and presented, the motion was filled with all the right intentions, and perhaps a little too much diplomacy, given the ongoing crisis in mental health and addictions our country is facing. Nevertheless, at least one elected official took it upon himself to stand on the very margins of critical thought - in almost complete opposition to the initiative being proposed. That person was Ward 4 councillor Derek Giberson. This should come as no surprise to anyone in the community who has taken at least five minutes to listen to anything the councillor from downtown Oshawa has had to say during this term of Council. In an age where municipalities across Canada are starting to enact zero-tolerance policies on open-air drug use, including efforts to redirect offenders to court-ordered diversion programs and addiction support, it would seem unfathomable for a member of Oshawa Council – in a city severely burdened by the effects of so much drug use – to actively oppose the initiative. The tide is finally turning toward an approach that balances compassion with accountability, and it’s no stretch to suggest those who live and work downtown would welcome such a move on the part of councillors to seek a degree of sanity in the area of public safety standards. During the debate on this issue, councillor Giberson lamented the very idea of incarceration as a partial means of dealing with these problems. His comments bore all the hallmarks of the failed ‘soft-on-crime’ social experiment taken up by the courts over the last decade. Reasonable people understand that enforcement is not the only solution, and that the crisis over addictions we now face is primarily a healthcare issue. However, the public sphere is not the place for intravenous drug use. Expanding access to detox beds, treatment centres and recovery programs – coupled with limits on public consumption, is the best formula. One has to ask oneself, at what point will the Ward 4 councillor actually start agreeing to anything whatsoever to make downtown Oshawa a better place? We must first recall his failed attempt to erase much of the city’s artistic history by promoting the removal and partial replacement of the downtown murals. We can then look to his refusal to support the redevelopment of the Athol Street parking lot nearest to City Hall – an initiative that will soon see a multi-story parking and residential structure occupy what is now a sea of asphalt. We can further look to his oft-repeated stance against planning policies that favour more opportunities for additional parking spaces throughout the downtown, and his fixation on somehow mandating a made-in-Europe model for North American transportation needs. Finally, there was councillor Giberson’s failed attempt to sway councillor’s opinions in the matter of the By-law which now requires an 800 metre distance between existing and proposed social service locations. Remember, this is the same councillor who was found by the Integrity Commissioner to be in breach of the Code of Conduct that governs how members of Council are expected to behave, both at City Hall and within the public realm. Do you see a pattern of political self-destruction in all of this? Meantime, downtown businesses and those who live in the areas that surround social services agencies like the Back Door Mission are all too aware of the effect that open-air drug use has had on their community. They also see the results of so-called harm reduction and safe supply programs whereby discarded needles are now as plentiful as dandelions in springtime. It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee the effect that an actual crackdown on open drug use would have on the mandate of the Mission and its collective determination to carry on for as long as possible, seemingly without concern for area residents or those trying to run a business downtown. Ward 4 is in desperate need of change. When residents are forced to endure so much uncertainty at the hands of one or more ideologues whose self-interest appears to be all encompassing, they necessarily become victims who must stand and watch as their rights to security of property and personal safety are literally snatched from them. As soon as someone begins to treat public affairs as something removed from actual public service, they become a menace to society. In that regard, residents can certainly make their concerns known at the ballot box. The next municipal election is scheduled for October 26, 2026.

PULLING TEETH…

PULLING TEETH... By Wayne and Tamara I am employed by a dentist who is a specialist. He has a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality. For the most part the staff has learned to deal with this, but not accept it. The rest of the staff has been with him for years, as have I. Our boss is generous in many ways, but his behavior often leaves us wondering if it is all worth it. We are told to take an unpaid hour off for lunch, yet we are expected to pick up the phone and deal with his interruptions. The company he hired to do payroll handed us an office manual with the intended rules, yet it states they can change the rules at any time because he is an “at will” employer. I checked with a state agency and they agree. Everyone in the office is grateful to be employed, but at the same time we are frustrated by the lack of respect we receive from him and by the overall standards that apply to “at will” employees. When we try to talk to him on issues, we are reminded of our place in this office with a you-can-move-on-if-you-want reply. He knows that is not possible for most of us. What I’m looking for is guidance from someone at how to approach an unequal situation. Tabitha Tabitha, the great unspoken topic in psychology is dominance. People resist even bringing up the subject. What people are more than willing to talk about is communication skills. There the core idea is: I believe this, you believe that, and I can get you to change your actions through some words. It is all misdirection. If there were a simple way to make your boss agree with what you are saying, then you could, for example, make anyone come to your religion. All you would have to do is figure out the right words to say, and they would accept your way of thinking. Words don’t determine behavior, power does. In most situations, one person or group has power. What they say goes. People love to explain behavior in ethical, economic or social terms, but behavior most often comes down to a simple matter of power. The easiest representation of power is dollars. I have so many dollars, so I can send my kids to the best schools. You cannot. I can buy lobbyists and influence. You cannot. Rightly or wrongly, your boss has a sense of entitlement in the workplace. His people are telling him the legal minimum requirements he has to meet, and that is where he is drawing the line. Someone like you, in a subordinate position, can make inroads only by being creative. In a weak position, you must act like a martial artist. You can step to one side or use your opponent’s leverage against him, but a direct counterattack will not work. As a staff, find ways to minimize the lunch interruptions. On Monday one person might handle the phones; on Tuesday someone else. If one of you is disturbed at lunchtime, then find ways to lessen that day’s burden on her. Supporting and caring for one another will lessen the stress of the job. Since your boss has a generous side, try assaulting him with kindness. That often defuses people who are carrying an emotional load they cannot discharge. Even small actions, like bringing a plant to the office or voting for candidates who support your view of employee rights, will make you feel better. Some people reading your letter would count you lucky to be working in an educated, safe, clean environment. Many people work in dangerous environments for little pay. But what it comes down to is this. You know where your boss sits, you know where the law sits, now look for the parries and countermoves which work for you and the rest of the staff. Wayne & Tamara

A LOOK AT THE “ELECT RESPECT’ MOVEMENT BEING ADOPTED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCILS

A LOOK AT THE “ELECT RESPECT’ MOVEMENT BEING ADOPTED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCILS IN AN EFFORT TO END BAD BEHAVIOUR, Clarington Council recently voted in favour of a motion to hold its councillors to the tenets of the Elect Respect pledge, which calls for an end to abusive and potentially threatening conduct towards public officials. In doing so, Clarington councillors are encouraging colleagues and residents to put an end to ever-increasing abuse of elected officials. “The threats that are going on, it has caused a number of individuals to choose not to run for office because of threats,” said Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster, noting the aggression aimed at elected officials was a key topic of conversation at recent conferences, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Big City Mayors Association. So why exactly is the "Elect Respect" concept gaining so much traction among Canadian municipalities? First and foremost, it is seen as an effective and meaningful response to the growing toxicity, harassment, and abuse directed at public officials. It is a grassroots campaign that aims to address what many see as the deteriorating state of political discourse and the resulting harm to democracy, including discouraging qualified individuals from running for office. It’s no secret that the amount of harassment, personal attacks, and yes – threats – especially online via social media, has significantly increased in recent years. Municipal officials report experiencing constant abuse, intimidation, and even physical intimidation. The toxic political climate that is the result of all of this appears to disproportionately affect women and individuals from diverse backgrounds, discouraging them from seeking or remaining in public office. Clarington Councillor Lloyd Rang has called on residents in the community to join the movement. “I know there are more good people out there than those willing to cause dissent and division for no good reason,” he said, noting the behaviour is not only hurtful, it can be dangerous. “If this continues, if people continue to make racist comments, misogynistic comments, comments vilifying people on staff, whatever it is, somebody is going to get hurt,” he said. “Because when rage spreads, when anger spreads, people take matters into their own hands and that is dangerous. We have to nip this in the bud, Clarington – the good people of this community need to stand up and this is a good start.” There can be no doubt such an antagonistic atmosphere will ultimately push good people out of politics, and weaken the democratic representation we often take for granted at the municipal level. Civic engagement has been the bedrock for citizens of Durham Region over the many decades that I have followed municipal councils, and to see that slowly erode is, quite frankly, upsetting. Administrative staff also need to know they have a safe, inclusive, and respectful work environment, although there have been recent examples of what one may reasonably describe as a form of retaliation against a sitting councillor – meaning what goes around comes around, and no-one within the public realm is immune to aggression. The concept behind the Elect Respect approach originated with the Halton Elected Representatives (HER), a coalition of female leaders in Halton Region, Ontario, who shared stories of abuse. What started as a local initiative has grown into a movement gaining support across the Region and the entire country. Organizations like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) are supporting and promoting the campaign. This institutional backing gives the concept more legitimacy and reach. Following the campaign's launch by Halton elected officials, the Halton Regional Council unanimously endorsed a resolution supporting the initiative. Municipalities like Clarington, St. Catharines, Thorold, and Niagara Regional Council have officially adopted the pledge through council resolutions. In addition to municipal associations, bodies like the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus and the Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus have expressed their joint support for the pledge. Some municipalities are going further, by reviewing and strengthening their public codes of conduct to explicitly forbid verbal abuse during meetings and empower chairs to remove disruptive individuals. Pickering’s Ward 1 City Councillor Lisa Robinson, herself having been the subject of a harassment complaint initiated on behalf of the city's council by Mayor Kevin Ashe, recently appeared as a delegation before Durham Regional Council to speak in support of the Elect Respect initiative, which she says “…is not about silencing disagreement but about ensuring healthy debate.” The Pickering councillor also remarked on social media that “Disagreement is natural in politics, but personal attacks, threats, and abuse cross a line. This campaign calls for respectful engagement between residents, staff, and elected officials, no matter our differences.” Of course, this leads us to consider the impending provincial legislation known as Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act that some municipal leaders hope will empower councils to “act decisively” when governance is threatened. After a year marked by misinformation and Code of Conduct violations on Whitby Council, Mayor Elizabeth Roy said she welcomes the Ontario government’s reintroduction of legislation that would allow municipal council members to be removed from office for serious violations of the Code. Mayor Roy, in an op-ed offered to newspapers across Ontario, said municipal leaders are being tested, “…not just by the growing demands of our communities, but by toxic political behaviour that is becoming far too common around local council tables.” From stopping the spread of what the mayor considered “factually incorrect” information surrounding a summer recess, to ethics violations that required the Town’s Integrity Commissioner to get involved, Mayor Roy said she has experienced bad behaviour by councillors “first-hand”, calling it “some of the worst I’ve seen” in her 30 years in municipal politics. “Toxic behaviour and repeated ethics violations are threatening the function of local democracy, deterring new voices from seeking office and, in some cases, driving dedicated public servants out of government altogether.” Strong words, no doubt. Over in Halton Region, Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and other municipal leaders are supporting the Elect Respect campaign as well, with Milton Regional Councillor Sameera Ali saying there have been “many instances” where she felt unsafe, “to the point where I had to move,” while Meed Ward recounted having being told she should be “hung in Civic Square for treason.” As of the date of publication of this column, Ontario's Bill 9 – the Municipal Accountability Act – has passed its second reading and is in the committee stage, with the government aiming to pass it into law at some point this autumn. Back in the summer of 2025, public hearings on Bill 9 were held across the province by the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy. The government intends for the bill to be in place before the 2026 municipal elections.

The Gift of Rejection - How Failure Grows Into Success

The Gift of Rejection How Failure Grows into Success, Opportunities, and Life Lessons By Camryn Bland Youth Columnist Every individual has unique strengths, and with them, unique weaknesses. Perfection is a goal impossible to reach, a concept strengthened through every failure. However, it can be extremely difficult to accept our mistakes and appreciate the life lessons they are. Too often, we choose agitation, disappointment, or self doubt when faced with rejection, something which only intensifies the negative experience. Each mistake strengthens the fear of failure, paralyzing every goal. Like many others, I struggle with accepting rejection and failure. I have never let a busy schedule, difficult assignment, or personal stress stand in the way of my goals, which is why rejection feels so devastating. When I put in all my effort and fall short, I am left feeling incompetent. Although I have had many successes, I have also been weighed down by my share of rejection. One of my most prominent failures was during an eighth grade speech competition, when I did not place first, second, or even third out of the five contestants. As an anxious perfectionist, even at fourteen, the loss broke my heart. This competition was where my fear of failure originated, however, many other experiences have since grown it. Early in high school, I was rejected from student council, an extracurricular which I had my eye set on for years. In the past year, I was rejected from my school board's Presidents Council for two roles. I have auditioned for leads in drama productions, only to be given narrators or understudies instead. I have studied for hours on end, to sometimes end up with a mediocre grade or an underwhelming assignment. Each one of these failures left me feeling hollow and confused, and even now, these memories sting. Each experience made me feel unworthy of prior confidence, and uncertain about my future. In the wake of all my disappointments, I have also found many successes. Though I lost a speech competition, I was awarded Valedictorian a few months later. I wasoriginally rejected from student council, however I earned a spot the following year. I have been part of a first-place debate team, acted in multiple drama productions, and received many academic honors. Despite these victories, I felt incomplete. To me, every mistake was worth five victories, leaving me in a hopeless decline of confidence. Until recently, I have let simple errors overshadow every success. Each failure felt like a stab at my confidence, my abilities, and my goals. In reality, my issue with failure wasn’t simply what I was being denied, it was the self-doubt it sparked within me. For as long as I can remember, I have chased perfection in everything I do, which results in the highest highs and the lowest lows. Every success filled me with confidence and joy, which could easily be destroyed by one mistake. Every failure forced me to ask the question, am I not enough? After countless disappointments, I’ve begun to understand I am enough. My fear of failure stemmed from my own pride, which I have slowly begun to recover. It takes time to accept my failures, and understand they do not take away from my successes. My victories far outnumber my failures, proving that I am worth more than my worst moments. I am made of more than rejection, and this is something I have begun to learn in my day-to-day life. Rejection is an inevitable aspect of the human experience. It may sound cliche, but each failure is an opportunity to learn perseverance, humility, and self-awareness. I believe everything happens for a reason, and that what is meant to happen will happen; if an opportunity passes me by, it is not right for me. This belief helps me fight perfectionism and keeps me striving towards my passions. Failure will always be a part of life, whether that be in school, employment, or our personal lives. What matters is not the setback and disappointment, but how we respond to them. Regardless of the risks, it is crucial to pursue your passions. No matter what, it is worth it to shoot your shot; you will either reach your goals, or be granted the gift of rejection.

Calling Yourself 'Talent' Does Not Mean You Can Offer Value to Employers

Calling Yourself 'Talent' Does Not Mean You Can Offer Value to Employers By Nick Kossovan The job market is crowded with applicants claiming to be "talented." What's lacking are job seekers who provide concrete evidence of their skills and how their supposed "talent" has benefited their previous employers, rather than just making grandiose statements. Claiming you're talented is egotistical boasting, as if you’re a God-given prodigy. The word "talent" used to be reserved for artists. Today, many job seekers have adopted the feel-good trend of calling themselves "talent," conveniently ignoring the fact that employers don't hire based on self-proclaimed talent; they hire candidates with a proven track record of delivering results that positively impacted their previous employer's bottom line. Although believing, even imagining, that you're talented feels good, it can undermine your job search. · It's subjective: Calling yourself "talent" is engaging in an ego-boosting self-assessment that holds no real value for employers. Employers look for objective evidence of abilities, which few job seekers effectively showcase in their resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and interviews. · You sound conceited: Using pompous adjectives makes you seem arrogant and out of touch with what employers look for in a candidate. · There's no substance: Abstract labels don't convey the specific skills, experience, and dedication you bring to a role. When's the last time someone told you you're talented? In that moment, you felt good about yourself—maybe you're better than you thought. You've got something. Your ego eats it up. Believing you have talent is all about ego. An ego-driven, linear view of talent assumes that if I possess talent, then I'm "above you." Our assumptions about talent are often mistaken, and therefore, our assumptions about talent are frequently flawed, contributing to the disconnect between employers and job seekers occurring in the job market, which is counterproductive. In his 2020 book The Practice: Shipping Creative Work, Seth Godin writes, "It's insulting to call a professional talented. Skill is rarer than talent. Skill is earned." Acquiring skills requires effort and disciplined focus; hence, explaining the shortage of skilled individuals. Skills development involves repeatedly practising and failing. Unless you embrace this cycle until you master the skill and apply it (key) to produce results that employers need and want consistently, then no one, especially employers, will care about your "talent." Leon Uris, the author of Exodus (1958) and Trinity (1976), understood that calling yourself "talent" without working hard to develop that talent is just fooling yourself: "Talent isn't enough. You need motivation—and persistence, too: what Steinbeck called a blend of faith and arrogance. When you're young, plain old poverty can be enough, along with an insatiable hunger for recognition. You have to have that feeling of "I'll show them." If you don't have it, don't become a writer.” Talent alone is meaningless (read: of no value) without continuous effort to master it. I've met, as I'm sure you have, many people who claim to be talented, some even occasionally show their talent—like the numerous paintings I have hanging in my home from artistic friends—but they never find success. Why is that? Because they think that their "gift" is enough. Exhibit A: All the job seekers who say they are talented but can't convince employers how their talent would benefit their business. Achieving success, in any endeavour, including job searching, has never been, nor will it ever be, about talent. The key to success, for the most part, is strategic hustle and resilience to create what those who don't put in the work call "sheer luck." Was it Tiger Woods' supposed talent, gift, inclination, propensity, or aptitude for golf that created his extraordinary career, or his determination, which drove his intense practice habits, averaging more than 10 hours per day on the driving range? Wayne Gretzky, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Eddie Van Halen, Ernest Hemingway, Robin Williams, Philip Seymour Hoffman, a fully actualized actor-artist, and Serena Williams are just a few examples of people who transformed their innate abilities into huge success by working hard and making sacrifices most people aren't willing to make. If you've jumped on the "Let's call employees' talent' to boost their ego" bandwagon—talent still means employee, talent acquisition still means recruiting—ponder this humbling thought: no company has ever gone out of business because self-proclaimed talented employees left, thus why employers dismiss the veiled threat they'll lose "talent" over their return-to-office mandate or refusal to give in to specific demands. Employers also rightfully dismiss the unsubstantiated claim that their hiring process overlooks "talent." No job seeker, regardless of how talented or skilled they think they are, is an employer's 'must-have.' I'm a case in point; no employer has ever ceased to exist because they didn't hire me. The gap between job seekers and employers, that's causing much of the frustration and anger on both sides of the hiring desk, stems from job seekers believing they should be hired based on unsubstantiated talent. Your skills are your superpower! Demonstrating, through your resume, LinkedIn profile, and interviews, that you have the skills and experience to deliver the results employers need and want is how you speed up your job search. Leave the word "talent" to the artists. ___________________________________________________________________________ Nick Kossovan, a well-seasoned corporate veteran, offers “unsweetened” job search advice. Send Nick your job search questions to artoffindingwork@gmail.com.

Time for Government Workers to Get Back to the Office

Time for Government Workers to Get Back to the Office By Dale Jodoin Across Canada there is a new push for government workers to return to the office full-time. Both federal and provincial governments are moving toward requiring five days of in-person work. For many taxpayers, this is long overdue. People are asking why so many important public services are still hard to reach, and why employees who are paid with public money are still working from home when most other Canadians returned years ago. The Public Is Frustrated One of the main complaints from Canadians has been the difficulty of reaching government offices. For example, people who try to call the Canada Revenue Agency about their taxes often wait for hours on the phone, only to be cut off or transferred again. Others write emails or letters and never get a reply. In a country where taxes are high and the government plays a large role in daily life, waiting weeks or months for answers is not acceptable. These delays are not just annoying. They cause real problems for families and businesses. People waiting for tax refunds, benefits, or important documents often find their lives put on hold. They cannot move forward because there is no one available to help them. For many Canadians, the lack of staff in offices has made them feel abandoned by the very system they pay for. The Return to Work Order Provincial governments have started telling employees they must now return to the office full-time. Five days a week, in person. Some employees are pushing back. They say it will be hard to adjust. They argue that working from home has been easier, less stressful, and better for their mental health. At the federal level, there are similar complaints. Some workers argue that they are just as productive from home. Others say they cannot handle the return because they have built their lives around remote work. They worry about traffic, commuting time, or even the idea of being in a crowded office again. But for ordinary Canadians, these complaints often sound selfish. Construction workers, nurses, truck drivers, factory staff, and grocery clerks did not have the choice to stay home. They worked through the pandemic, often in dangerous conditions. They faced long hours, exposure to illness, and heavy stress. They did this without the luxury of working from their kitchen tables. Now, years later, government employees with secure, high-paying jobs are still fighting against returning to normal. For taxpayers who never had that option, it feels unfair. What Government Workers Gained During the years of remote work, government employees enjoyed benefits that many others could only dream of. They saved on gas and transit costs. They avoided traffic jams and long commutes. Some even claimed home office expenses on their taxes, which meant a financial benefit paid for by the public. Many worked in casual clothes or even pajamas, without the normal costs of office wear. In short, they were paid the same salaries while cutting their own expenses. Meanwhile, regular Canadians were driving to work, paying higher gas prices, and dealing with inflation. The gap in experience has not gone unnoticed. It has made many people resentful of the complaints coming from government unions and workers now being told to return. Why It Matters Government jobs are not like private jobs. They exist to serve the public. That means showing up for the public, not just answering emails from a distance. While technology can help with some tasks, many services require people in offices. Whether it is issuing passports, helping with taxes, or processing legal documents, face-to-face work is often necessary. When offices are half-empty, services suffer. This has been clear over the last few years. Passport offices faced long delays, with people lining up overnight. Taxpayers could not reach the Canada Revenue Agency during tax season. Immigration backlogs grew worse. These failures were not just bad luck. They were tied to a workforce that was not fully present. The Cost to Taxpayers Canadians are already paying high taxes to support these government jobs. Salaries, benefits, and pensions for public workers are generous compared to many private-sector jobs. Yet the return on that investment feels weak when offices cannot function. Taxpayers see less service for the same cost, which is not acceptable. At a time when Canadians are struggling with food prices, housing costs, and energy bills, hearing government employees complain about returning to work feels tone-deaf. The new attitude from the public is simple: we don’t care. Get back to work. If you do not want the job, there are plenty of people who would take it. A Shift in Attitude This may be the biggest change of all. Before the pandemic, Canadians often gave government workers the benefit of the doubt. They trusted that delays were due to red tape, not laziness. But after years of poor service, patience is gone. The average Canadian worker who shows up every day does not want to hear excuses. When public employees say they will have a “mental breakdown” if they must return to the office, Canadians roll their eyes. Mental health is important, but most Canadians deal with stress every day at work without that option. Truck drivers cannot quit because highways are stressful. Nurses cannot refuse to show up because hospitals are intense. Factory workers cannot call in from home because machines are noisy. Everyone faces challenges. Government workers should not be the exception. Teachers and Professors The same debate is happening in schools and universities. Many teachers returned to classrooms, but there are still professors and college staff teaching from home. Parents and students are frustrated. After years of disruption in education, people want stability. They want their children to have proper, in-person learning again. Universities especially have relied on remote teaching long after other parts of society reopened. Students paying high tuition fees often feel cheated when their classes are just online lectures. Once again, the pattern repeats: public or publicly funded workers avoiding the return to normal while ordinary people carry the load. Looking Forward The return-to-office movement is not just about discipline. It is about fairness. Canadians deserve a government that works for them, not one that hides behind remote screens. Offices must be staffed, phones must be answered, and services must function. That is what taxpayers are paying for. The government is right to order a return to full-time work. It is time to stop negotiating and start enforcing. If employees refuse, their jobs should be offered to others who are willing. Canada has no shortage of educated people looking for work. Positions in government are still considered desirable because of pay, benefits, and pensions. There will be no shortage of applicants. Canada is at a turning point. The pandemic is long over, yet many government workers are still clinging to pandemic rules. Ordinary Canadians are tired of excuses. They want service, they want value for their tax dollars, and they want fairness. The new public attitude is blunt: we do not care about the complaints anymore. Get back to the office. Do your jobs. If you do not want to, step aside and let someone else serve. For a country built on fairness and hard work, that is not too much to ask.

Health Is the Good Fortune You Make

Health Is the Good Fortune You Make By Diana Gifford When it comes to health, my father always told me that good luck is as important, if not more so, than good genes. Like genes, luck is allocated at life’s outset. Watching nightly news on wars, famine, and other disasters has always made me grateful to have been born in Canada. Yet, there’s something to be said for manufacturing your luck too. Sometimes the greatest good fortune comes not from happenstance, but from the choices you make. And among the most consequential of choices is the selection of a life partner. People commonly equate getting married with happiness. But it is every bit as important to health. Research shows that being teamed up doesn’t only add years to life, which on average it does. It also means quicker recognition of symptoms of a health problem, a supportive push to see the doctor and assistance in getting there, and caring advocacy for best interests. Former President Jimmy Carter, who lived to 100, credited his 77-year union with Rosalynn as “the best thing I ever did”. Comedian Rita Rudner said: “I love being married. It’s so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life.” Herein, two commonly unrecognized elements of how marriage generates health: love and laughter. If you are lucky, you get both. In addition to the benefit of living longer, people in committed partnerships recover more quickly from illness, and face lower risks of depression, dementia, heart disease, and even cancer. But the quality of the union matters. Stress-filled, resentful partnerships are like slow-acting poisons, raising blood pressure and weakening the immune system. The healthiest marriages, in fact, are not fairy tales. They are long experiments in teamwork, patience, forgiveness, and stamina. Healthy unions generate happiness. But they also test the ability to recover after inevitable ruptures – little ones or big ones. In finding good health, resilience is more important than avoiding every risk. The healthiest people are not those who never fall ill, but those who rebound well. The same is true in relationships. A marriage that can heal after conflict, adapt through change, and find laughter in the middle of the mess is often the strongest of all. Think of it like inflammation. In the body, chronic inflammation erodes health, quietly damaging arteries, joints, even the brain. In a marriage, unresolved resentment does the same. Forgiveness, like an anti-inflammatory, doesn’t erase the injury, but it allows healing to begin. How do shared struggles strengthen your bond and lead to better health? Couples who weather illness, financial strain, or any kind of trouble with children often emerge closer than before. A new kind of bond develops from hardships. Much like bones that sometimes heal stronger at the fracture site, marriages can become most resilient at their breaking points. Unfortunately, too few people know this. It’s not taught. People give up, and therein lose a great deal. It seems wrong to be overly calculating about marriage. Falling in love is so much more romantic than arranged marriages. But there does come a time in any partnership when it’s useful to develop skills of appreciation. Both individuals in a couple need to know that arguing about the thermostat can be an opportunity for expressing care for each other. Whatever the issue, when tempers flare, you’ll be wise to remember how much stronger the team is than the sole player. Years on, you won’t recall who ‘won’ the thermostat battle, only that you fought it together. Don’t aim for a perfect partnership. Aim for a resilient one. Done well together, this is its own form of health. _________________________________________________________________________ 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

POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I.

POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE MANIFESTO BEHIND D.E.I. NO GREAT DISTINCTION must be made between events here at home and those from faraway places that have the capacity to touch our lives. Some issues are so large as to create contradictory opinions on matters of morality, separating us into different factions within our communities, our families, and among those we trust the most. We live in an age where one must decide – willingly or not – where one stands in a society increasingly divided in all things. While it is reasonable to entertain different opinions upon subjects that affect entire countries alike, such as, for instance, the recent assassination of a social and political activist south of the border, it isn’t long before a feeling of moral oppression takes hold. There are unsupportable evils that become the foundation for cross debate, where individuals can exercise a degree of callousness that is all too often hard to reconcile. Locally, we can expect elected members of local councils to ultimately share their thoughts on the killing of Charlie Kirk, the activist to whom I refer, and what that means for the future of public debate within City Hall or on social media. Not unrelated to this is the recent drive towards the “Elect Respect” campaign, which sees our democracy as being under great pressure due to rising public distrust with seemingly unrelenting personal attacks in political spaces. Clarington Council voted recently in favour of a motion to hold their members to the tenets of the Elect Respect mandate, which includes rejecting and calling out harassment, abuse, and personal attacks while focusing their debates on policies rather than personalities. At issue is the need to build a supportive culture where people of all backgrounds feel safe to run for and hold elected office. Expect all municipalities to eventually jump on board in a similar fashion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Another potentially divisive issue has taken root within the corridors of power over at Regional Council, as seen in their recently released report entitled “Diversity Equity and Inclusion Strategy 2025 – 2029”. Before any of my readers come to an immediate conclusion on this topic, consider the following aspects of the report. The introductory statement tells us the Region’s DEI strategy offers “…a stronger, more unified path forward: one that not only connects the important work now underway, but also sets goals, a shared vision and a long-term commitment to meaningful change.” It goes on to say, “This document is more than a plan; it is a framework for transformative action…” There’s a great deal one could unpack from that text, however; my focus for now is directed towards the report’s “Glossary of Key Terms”. ALLYSHIP, which is basically the active support for the rights of a minority or marginalized group without being a member of it. Sounds reasonable – but a look at the description reveals the following: “An active and consistent practice in which a person in a position of privilege…seeks to operate in solidarity with a marginalized group”. EQUITY, a principle based on advocating ‘fairness’ for all individuals. The Glossary offers this interpretation: “Achieving equality does not necessarily mean treating individuals or groups in the same way, but may require the use of specific measures…” EQUITY DESERVING GROUPS, being those who are seen as having faced barriers to receiving equal opportunities. The Glossary offers a very aggressive interpretation of the term, “Communities that…actively seek social justice and reparations.” HATE ACTIVITY, which includes an assessment of the comments and actions by one individual towards another. Among the interpretations offered on this aspect, the report states, “Examples are: hate crime, hate propaganda, advocating genocide…” There are far too many aspects of the DEI report to analyze within this column, however, it is clear the Region’s views on the equitable treatment of individuals within the community go much further than employment policies and the delivery of social services. The report is nothing less than a political manifesto designed to cast aspersions on Canada and a particular demographic that has lived here for generations – as though they themselves had just disembarked from a sailing ship onto North American soil. This columnist has never been in a position of privilege, and my country is not a so-called colony, but rather a proud nation – Canada. The assertion by the report’s authors that it is somehow wrong to treat all citizens of this country in an equal manner is quite frankly, monstrous, and it demonstrates a repugnance towards what should be seen as true equity – based on universal freedoms, opportunities and merit. In addition, the word “genocide” has become a modern-day political weapon based on one of those unsupportable evils that are now used as the foundation for debate among the more radical in our society. Finally, it is not and never has been the mandate of staff or councillors at the Region of Durham to include references to social justice and most of all, reparations among groups or individuals. The massive bureaucracy that is Regional government bears the responsibility to provide efficient and equitable services to its residents, and only that. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To close out this week’s column, I’d like to comment on the issue of automated speed cameras, which have been in the news lately. During an event in Toronto, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked about speed cameras in Toronto that have been repeatedly vandalized or cut down, and he responded by saying there are other ways to slow drivers down. "If you want to slow down traffic at a school, you put the big signs, big flashing lights at a crossing area, and people will slow down," he said. "I've driven by speed traps that aren't even close to school areas. It's nothing but a tax grab." The Premier is absolutely correct in his assertion, which comes at a time when many municipalities have become reliant on the cash windfall that has resulted in what many see as automated ATM installations on roads designed for a certain traffic flow. I wrote a previous column on the issue of speed cameras and the fact there is no data whatsoever to support their proliferation – and yet, there are those among us who still line up like sheep to advocate for more and increasingly invasive monitoring by Big Government. Among this week’s topics, that last aspect is probably the saddest.

Multiculturalism at a Crossroads: How Much Is Too Much?

Multiculturalism at a Crossroads: How Much Is Too Much? By Dale Jodoin Immigration has always been a difficult subject. In recent weeks, news stories from Great Britain, France, and other countries have been filled with arguments over one simple but heavy question: how many immigrants is too many? At what point does a country reach a tipping point where new arrivals no longer blend into the culture but start to reshape it in ways people didn’t ask for? Canada is often held up as the shining example of multiculturalism. For decades, we’ve called ourselves a multicultural country. The meaning of that has usually been clear: Canada has its own culture, but we welcome newcomers to share parts of theirs with us. It’s why you can eat Indian curry one night, Jamaican jerk chicken the next, and pierogis the night after. It’s why Toronto is famous for being one of the most diverse cities on earth. But lately, the question has become sharper: what happens when multiculturalism starts to mean not “sharing” but “replacing”? Accepting Some, Not All When we talk about multiculturalism, most Canadians think of food, music, art, and language. Those are parts of culture we gladly accept. They enrich us. But culture is more than food and music. Culture also includes traditions, laws, and beliefs about family and honour. And here lies the problem. Some cultural practices don’t fit with Canadian values. Take the tragic issue of so-called “honour killings.” These happen when a daughter refuses to follow family orders, such as marrying a man chosen for her in the old country. There have been cases where young women in Canada have been murdered by their own families for disobeying. The excuse given is that it’s part of “their culture.” But Canadians look at this with horror. Murder is murder. India offers another example. For centuries, some groups were labelled “untouchables,” a caste so low that others wouldn’t go near them. That practice was based on tradition, but it created a society divided by hate. Should a country like Canada, which believes in equality, ever accept that? Multiculturalism should never mean importing systems of hate, class division, or violence. It should mean sharing the best parts of cultures, while leaving the worst behind. When Old Conflicts Travel One of the biggest worries people have is that immigrants don’t just bring food, festivals, or hard work. Sometimes, they bring old hatreds from their homelands. Civil wars, religious feuds, and tribal rivalries don’t always stay in the past. When large groups of people from the same background arrive, they can recreate the same divisions here. Instead of adopting Canada, they demand Canada adopt them. We see this in Europe right now. In France, large protests have broken out because of tension between immigrant groups and the native population. In Britain, debates over grooming gangs groups of men targeting young girls have shaken communities. The problem is not with all immigrants, but with certain networks that bring cultural practices which clash directly with Western laws and values. This raises a hard question for Canadians: are we prepared for the same thing? Why Canada, Not Their Neighbours? There’s another twist. Many of the people who come to Canada are not welcome in other countries near their homeland. Across much of the Middle East, for example, certain religious minorities are persecuted. In some cases, they are even killed. They flee to the West because it is safe. Canada gives them a new start. But then, instead of fully embracing Canadian life, some demand Canada reshape itself around their old ways. This frustrates Canadians who feel they are being forced to change the very culture that gave these newcomers safety in the first place. Drawing the Line So where should Canada draw the line? That’s the heart of the debate. It’s not about rejecting all immigration. Most Canadians support newcomers who come to work hard, follow the law, and contribute to society. Our economy needs immigration. But Canadians are also saying clearly that some parts of other cultures don’t belong here. No country should allow practices like forced marriage, grooming gangs, caste divisions, or honour killings. Those are not “cultural differences.” They are crimes. If a person insists that their “culture” gives them the right to do these things, Canada has every right to deport them. Multiculturalism doesn’t mean tolerating the intolerable. Becoming Tribal The risk, if we ignore this, is that Canada becomes tribal. Instead of one country with many backgrounds, we end up with many countries inside one border. Each group follows its own rules. Each group defends its own grievances. That isn’t unity, it's division. And division can turn violent. Already, words are heating up. Groups accuse each other of hate. Immigrant activists sometimes claim to be victims, even when they are the ones importing practices Canadians find hateful. Native Canadians, meanwhile, feel silenced, afraid of being called racist for pointing out real problems. The truth is that multiculturalism has limits. It works when people bring their best, not their worst. The Canadian Way Canada’s strength has always been its ability to blend. Italians brought pizza, and it became Canadian. Jamaicans brought reggae, and it’s played on Canadian radios. Indians brought samosas, and they’re sold in corner stores everywhere. But none of these groups demanded that Canada abandon its own laws or values. They added, they didn’t replace. That’s the Canadian way. So the debate isn’t about whether immigration is good or bad. It’s about what kind of immigration strengthens Canada and what kind weakens it. It’s about recognizing that some parts of “culture” are actually cult-like practices of control, violence, and hate. Those must never be excused in the name of diversity. Canada is at a crossroads. If we accept multiculturalism as “everything goes,” then we risk importing the very divisions and hatreds people fled from in the first place. But if we say multiculturalism means sharing the best of each culture while keeping Canada’s own identity strong, then we can continue to thrive. No one wants to see honour killings, forced marriages, caste systems, or grooming gangs on Canadian soil. No one wants tribal conflict to replace Canadian unity. Most Canadians are ready to welcome newcomers. But they also want to know those newcomers are ready to be Canadian too. That’s the tipping point. And it’s a debate Canada cannot afford to avoid.

Canada–China Relations: Current Challenges

Canada–China Relations: Current Challenges by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East In a rapidly changing geopolitical world, Canada’s international relations need drastic improvement. The former Trudeau government’s actions contrived to sink Canada to the lowest ebb in international relations, particularly with emerging economic powers such as India and China. In light of the current, challenging United States-Canada trade relations, Canada needs to diversify its international trade relations intelligently with emerging economic powers such as China. Canada–China relations, at the lowest points in decades, have entered one of their most difficult and unsettled phases in recent memory. . What was once framed as a pragmatic partnership anchored in commerce and cautious diplomacy has shifted toward suspicion, retaliation, and hardened positions on both sides. Human rights, trade wars, political interference, and security disputes dominate the agenda, leaving little room for constructive engagement. For Canada, the challenge lies in balancing its economic interests with the defense of democratic values and sovereignty. For China, relations with Ottawa are often viewed through the broader prism of its rivalry with the United States and Western allies. The result is a bilateral relationship characterized less by partnership than by friction; an uneasy dynamic with global implications. Few issues have inflamed Canadian public opinion more than human rights disputes with Beijing. In early 2025, China executed four individuals who held Canadian citizenship, all convicted of drug offenses. Although they were dual nationals, Beijing does not recognize dual nationality and dismissed Canada’s repeated appeals for clemency. Ottawa condemned the executions as a violation of basic human dignity, while Beijing defended the move as consistent with domestic law. This event revived memories of one of the darkest chapters in bilateral ties: the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Arrested in 2018 shortly after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on a U.S. extradition request, the two Canadians spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons. Their ordeal was seen internationally as retaliation—so-called “hostage diplomacy.” Though they were released in 2021 when Meng returned to China, the episode permanently scarred Canadian perceptions of Beijing. Canada has also taken firm positions on China’s treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Falun Gong practitioners. Since 2021, Ottawa has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials and entities tied to human rights abuses, most recently expanding its sanctions framework in late 2024 and early 2025. Beijing consistently rejects these accusations, calling them interference in its internal affairs, but the measures reflect a growing willingness in Canada to adopt values-based foreign policy tools against China. Trade once served as the ballast stabilizing Canada–China relations. For years, Canadian agricultural products, energy exports, and natural resources flowed to Chinese markets, while manufactured goods and electronics arrived in Canada. In the last five years, however, trade has become a battleground. In 2024, Ottawa imposed steep tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles, citing unfair subsidies and risks to domestic industries. China retaliated swiftly, targeting Canadian agricultural exports. Canola, a C$5 billion industry, has been hit hardest: in August 2025, Beijing levied a punitive anti-dumping duty of 75.8% on Canadian canola imports. Farmers across the Prairies, already battered by fluctuating markets, warned of devastating losses. The clash has expanded into other sectors. China has restricted imports of peas, oilcakes, pork, and aquatic products, while Canada has pursued cases at the World Trade Organization. Beijing, in turn, has filed its own WTO complaint against Ottawa’s steel import restrictions, calling them protectionist. What began as a series of tit-for-tat measures has escalated into a broader trade war, with no resolution in sight. At the same time, Canada is working with allies to reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains for critical minerals—lithium, cobalt, and rare earths essential for clean technology and defense industries. Ottawa has pledged funding for domestic mining projects and secured agreements with partners in the G7 and NATO. For Beijing, these moves signal an attempt to exclude China from future supply chains; for Canada, they are seen as insurance against strategic vulnerability. Security disputes add another layer of complexity. In June 2025, Canada ordered the closure of Hikvision’s operations, citing evidence that the Chinese surveillance giant was linked to rights abuses and posed risks to national security. The decision followed earlier restrictions on Huawei’s participation in Canada’s 5G networks, part of a coordinated stance with the United States, the UK, and Australia. Chinese officials condemned these moves, accusing Canada of undermining fair competition and politicizing technology. Yet Canadian policymakers point to rising concerns over espionage, cyberattacks, and the use of surveillance technology for repression abroad. The closure of Hikvision reflects not only human rights concerns but also a broader shift: Canada is aligning its technology policies with Western security alliances, even at the cost of losing Chinese investment and market access. Perhaps the most sensitive issue domestically has been allegations of Chinese interference in Canada’s democratic processes. Investigations by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and testimony before the Parliamentary Foreign Interference Commission revealed evidence of Chinese activities during the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The tactics included undisclosed financial support for certain candidates, disinformation campaigns on social media, and efforts to influence diaspora communities. While inquiries concluded that the overall outcomes of the elections were not altered, they noted that interference likely affected specific ridings. For Canadians, the findings struck at the heart of democratic integrity. Public pressure has forced successive governments to act more decisively. Ottawa has introduced new transparency requirements for foreign funding, strengthened CSIS oversight, and pledged closer cooperation with allies to counter disinformation. Beijing denies all allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated, but the revelations have fueled mistrust at both the political and public levels. The political context in Canada adds further uncertainty. When Mark Carney became prime minister in March 2025, analysts speculated about a possible recalibration. Carney, with his global economic expertise and reputation as a pragmatist, signaled openness to selective engagement with China, particularly in clean energy and climate policy. Yet domestic politics constrain his options. Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre is pushing for an even tougher line against Beijing, echoing public sentiment hardened by years of disputes. In this environment, any government will find it politically difficult to pursue rapprochement. In conclusion, Canada–China relations are now defined by confrontation rather than cooperation. Human rights disputes, escalating trade wars, security restrictions, and allegations of political interference have left little common ground. Economic ties, once the glue binding the relationship, are fraying under the weight of tariffs and retaliation. For Canada, China represents both an economic opportunity and a strategic risk. For China, Canada is a middle power closely aligned with the United States, making it both a convenient target for retaliation and a test case for how Western allies respond to Beijing’s policies. The future remains uncertain. China’s global ambitions and Canada’s alliance commitments mean that structural tensions will persist. Cooperation may still be possible in limited areas but the Canada–China relationship has entered a new era; one where suspicion overshadows trust, retaliation replaces compromise, and the path forward is defined by challenge rather than opportunity.

No Mr. Darcy

No Mr. Darcy By Wayne and Tamara I will try to make this brief as I can. My husband and I separated over a lot of issues, the main one being I thought he was cheating. Well, I think he may have been, because we were not even apart a month when I found out he is seeing his mother’s chore worker. I was devastated. I loved him and wanted this marriage to work. I called near divorce time to tell him where to send the papers. We had nothing but angry words to one another before that call. He was sweet. I told him I was so sorry our marriage ended, but thought of him often and still loved him. I just wanted to cleanse old wounds. One hour later he called back asking to come to my home to clear the air. We both cried and talked about where we went wrong in the marriage. He asked me to give him time. He said this other woman did not want him; he barely ever saw her. But then he revealed her daughter and her daughter’s husband are living with him. Just give him time to clean up this mess, he said. When he told the other woman I called, she came running back into his life. He still leads me on and tells me he wants to try. I am getting played the fool, but I am having the worst time letting him go. I try but I can’t. He is the love of my life. He sees me wanting out, then he spews out words to hook me again. I feel like a fish getting thrown in and tossed back time and again. I know she is not living with him, but she sees him two or three times a week. Then he gets cool and distant toward me. But if she stays away, he leads me down this cruel path. I have prayed, remained faithful to him, and now I am at my wits’ end. How could anyone do this to another for a second time? Help me let him go, please. I have always been a strong woman, but this time I find no strength to be that woman. Beatrice Beatrice, how could he do this to you for the second time? The same way he could do it to you for the first time. This mess is a mess made by him. It was his mess to make, and it was his mess to clean up. But he has made another choice. He is not willing to do without a body in his bed. If she’s not there warming his bed, he wants you to be there warming his bed, with not a care about how either of you is affected by this. There is enough of the charmer, or the serpent, about this man that he can receive the benefit of having two of what he should only have one of, at a time. Someone you can spend your life with, share your bed with, share your deepest thoughts with—someone like that is someone not like this man. In Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice” there is a clergyman named Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins is a bootlicker and dense as a board. But in the novel he says one wise thing. After Lizzy Bennet rejects his offer of marriage, Mr. Collins says, “I have often observed that resignation is never so perfect as when the blessing denied begins to lose somewhat of its value in our estimation.” This man is not the love of your life, though you want him to be. You wanted one wedding and one lifetime marriage. You cannot have that with him. You can never rest with an easy head or an easy heart. He won’t stand by you. To free yourself, he has to lose some of his value in your estimation. Wayne & Tamara

When Classrooms Turn Dark

When Classrooms Turn Dark By Dale Jodoin A federal report reveals one in six antisemitic incidents in Ontario schools involve teachers. What happens when blame becomes part of the lesson plan? Most people want to believe schools are safe spaces. Teachers are trusted to guide young people toward knowledge and fairness. And for the majority, that trust is well-earned. But a new government study has exposed a dangerous minority. In February 2025, Canadian Heritage released The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools. It tracked more than 780 reports of antisemitic incidents across the province between October 2023 and January 2025. The number that stood out: nearly one in six of those cases 17 percent involved teachers or school-sanctioned activities. That’s not playground gossip. It’s government data. And it forces us to ask: what happens when the people meant to protect kids are the ones planting harm? “Nearly one in six antisemitic incidents in Ontario schools were linked to teachers themselves.” The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools, Canadian Heritage, 2025 The report tells of Jewish students mocked or shamed in class, made to feel responsible for wars half a world away. One girl recalled that whenever the Middle East came up, classmates turned to stare at her while the teacher stayed silent. Others described slurs that went unchallenged, or comments that made their very identity feel like a crime. And it’s not just Jewish children. Caucasian boys white boys in general are often singled out, not for behavior, but for skin and gender. The message they hear sometimes openly, sometimes between the lines is that their identity makes them guilty. By high school, many have learned silence is safer than speaking. The danger is obvious: once schools normalize blaming one group, that same habit can swing toward others. Words from peers sting. Words from a teacher's scar. Authority has weight. When an adult suggests a child “is the problem,” the message lodges deep. Psychologists call this internalized blame. It starts in middle school, turns to silence in high school, and hardens into conformity by university. By then, questioning the script is treated not as curiosity but as harm. Students are rewarded for slogans, not reasoning. We’ve seen this before. Every society that forgets, every system that lets anger turn into targeting, begins with the young. Children are the first to carry the burden of collective blame. Ontario’s numbers are a warning. One in six isn’t small. It’s a signal. The Numbers 781 antisemitic incidents reported in Ontario schools (2023–2025) 1 in 6 involved teachers or school-sanctioned events Nearly 17% of cases were authority-driven, not peer-driven Report commissioned by Canadian Heritage, published February 2025 Most teachers are not part of this. The majority guide with fairness, challenge respectfully, and protect their students. But a dangerous minority, exposed in the government’s own data, cannot be ignored. Seventeen percent means this isn’t rare enough to dismiss. It means real children Jewish kids, Caucasian boys, and others are being shaped by shame instead of learning. If classrooms want to heal, the rules must be simple: Criticize actions, not identities. Teach history with multiple perspectives, not slogans. Protect debate, but punish harassment even when it comes from a teacher. The Report on Antisemitism in Ontario Schools isn’t just a tally of incidents. It’s a warning flare. When blame enters the classroom, children pay the price first. Today it’s Jewish students. Yesterday it was Caucasian boys. Tomorrow, it could be someone else entirely. The saddest part is that we don’t seem to learn. We tell ourselves schools are safer, kinder, more aware and yet kids still sit at their desks feeling ashamed for who they are. Authority, the very thing that should lift them up, is sometimes what pushes them down. Most teachers are good. They care deeply, and they carry a heavy load. But when even a minority trade education for blame, the echo doesn’t end with one lesson. It stretches for years, shaping how young people see themselves and each other. We can’t allow that echo to become the new normal.