Is a renter always a tenant?

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

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

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

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

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

A Canadian Federal Election to Remember

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

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

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

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

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

The Home Business

The Home Business By Theresa Grant Real Estate Columnist For the last few weeks, I have been writing about the redecorating and updating underway in my eighty-year-old house. At the moment, we are waiting on materials to be able to carry on, so I decided to take a break from that and talk about a question that was posed to me by an acquaintance a few weeks ago regarding running her small business from her home. My friend, Marsha, was hoping to open a home-based bakery type of business in Oshawa. She wondered if it would matter what type of home she lived in and if she could operate her home business form any area of the city. Although I am a realtor, I focus on residential real estate therefore my knowledge of commercial real estate is limited. I did have some experience of a personal nature though. The experience as it turned out was completely irrelevant in her case because it was too old. I recalled back in the early 80’s when I was living in Scarborough, I had just had my daughter, and I was home everyday with her while my husband was at work. I had always loved to bake, so I had thought to myself that I might like to operate a small baked goods business where I would make things throughout the day, and they could be picked up or delivered in the evenings. The first order of business was to call the health board to get a home inspection. The fellow came about a week after I made the appointment to have a look around. Although the house was impeccable, I was told that I could not get a license to operate because the was no separation from the rest of the house as far as the kitchen went. The business at that time had to be in a commercial space, a residential space was not permissible. Fast forward forty years. Now with the Dine Safe program and relaxed licensing criteria, many people are safely operating wonderful home-based bakeries. There definitely are rules and regulations to be followed. Licenses must be obtained, and premises are monitored and inspected on a regular basis to keep your green operating status. It seems much of how we operate today has changed to suit the need as is always the case. So, If you’re thinking about opening a home-based business of any kind, I would suggest calling the city. There are several different types of licenses you can apply for. The inspectors still come out to deem your space appropriate or not for whatever you intend to do. There are applications to fill out and fees to pay but for many, it’s a wonderful opportunity to work for themselves, and make a great contribution to the community by providing a service that many may want. If you have any questions that you would like answered please drop me a line here at the paper and I’ll be happy to address them.

Pickering’s Democracy Is Under Siege

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

ANTI-PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATS

By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Published Columns in Canada and The United States America is not about being Democratic or Republican. America is about doing what is best for the population at large. It is about sacrifice in the name of a greater good. This is what makes America the greatest nation on the planet. America strives to champion Democracy. A sacred vehicle that roots our rights and freedoms. What did Plato said about democracy? He claimed that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom. He also argues that, in a system in which everyone has a right to rule, all sorts of selfish people who care nothing for the people but are only motivated by their own personal desires are able to attain power. This was best shown in the recent display by Democrats during President Trump first public speech. The Democrats with a long standing history of disrespect for the democratic process. With a long standing show of open public defiance toward honoring the democratic process as seen during Trumps first Presidential bid. Where it made International news.... Trump giving his speech to the Nation and Polosi in the background ripping up his speech. Totally disgraceful and totally un-American. She had the right to do that but the poor taste to do it and in the process show her true colors when it comes to her patriotic alliance to no one but her own cause. Anti-patriotism is the ideology that opposes patriotism; it usually refers to those with cosmopolitan views and is usually of an internationalist and anti-nationalist nature as well. Normally, anti-patriotism stems from the belief that patriotism is wrong since people born in a country, whether they like it or not and regardless of their individuality, are encouraged to love the country or sacrifice themselves for it; consequently, people who oppose patriotism may oppose its perceived authoritarianism, while others may believe that patriotism may lead to war because of geopolitical disputes. Usually, this term is used in a pejorative way by those who defend patriotism or nationalism, and terms such as cosmopolitanism or world citizenship may be used to avoid the bias that comes from the typical usage of the words anti-nationalism or anti-nationalist. During the recent Trump speech. He hit various nerves in the reality in the Democratic body. You could feel the tension of ignorance by the number of signs that kept popping up like cowards during points of change. These are the same Democrats that are so pompous on their erroneous beliefs that they will not acknowledge the mistakes they have made that cost them the Presidency as well as any power. Personally, I think Trump made a historical speech that was inclusive of both Democrats interest as well as Republican. Time will tell, if Trump is a man of his word in ‘Making America Great Again’.

AI: The Equalizer of Art, Music, and Science

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

COVID ALL OVER AGAIN

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

Quick Fixes That Will Significantly Improve Your Job Search

Quick Fixes That Will Significantly Improve Your Job Search By Nick Kossovan "The devil is in the details" is an idiom highlighting how small details can significantly affect the outcome of something and that attention to detail is the difference between something good and something great. This phrase captures the essence of job search success. A misplaced decimal point on a financial spreadsheet will result in inaccurate reporting. It only takes a minor design flaw to cause a costly recall or safety issues. In personal interactions, eye contact and smiling shape perception. Colour scheme drastically influences the mood of a room or whether you make a fashion statement. Job seekers who meticulously craft their resume, LinkedIn profile, applications, and interview presence will have an edge over those they're competing against. If your resume and LinkedIn profile are full of typos or your voicemail isn't set up, you aren't doing yourself any favours. Misaddressing your interviewer or failing to turn on your camera during a Zoom interview can cost you the job opportunity. When competing against other job seekers just as qualified as you are, some more so, as you are in the current job market, not paying attention to details or your actions will hurt your job search. The most common details overlooked by job seekers: Title your resume file "First Name_Last Name_Resume_Year" [Nick_Kossovan_Resume_2025] This format ensures that your resume is easily recognizable by recruiters and easily searchable in the recruiter's or employer's database, which, I'd ballpark, contains something like 1,689,355 resumes. Save your resume as a PDF file. Saving your resume as a PDF preserves its formatting across all devices, ensuring it appears as you intended, with no changes to margins or layout. Include a link to your LinkedIn profile. Along with your resume prominently displaying your phone number and email address, include a link to your LinkedIn profile.(https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickkossovan/) Make it easy for hiring managers to contact you and to view your LinkedIn profile. The easier you make it for a hiring manager, the more likely they'll consider your candidacy. Proofread relentlessly! Ensure your resume, cover letter, and LinkedIn profile are free of typos and grammatical errors. These documents and your online footprint create your first impression; errors can diminish your credibility and chances of being selected for an interview. Adjust the privacy settings on your social media. Employers will Google you to determine if you're interview-worthy. If you're hired, your new colleagues will also Google you and look you up on Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc. To avoid having your social media activity being misconstrued, except for LinkedIn, your privacy settings so only your followers can see your activity. Always dress to impress. You never know who you might encounter when you're out and about, and you only get one chance to make a good first impression. Whether you like it or not, we live in a world where we judge a book by its cover—we assess visual cues—we always have and always will. I've missed out on many possible opportunities because I left my house not looking my best. One time, I was waiting in line at a coffee shop dressed "comfortably" when a friend sitting in a booth called out to introduce me to the COO of a national transportation company he was meeting with. Although the COO was friendly, the introduction didn't lead anywhere; I believe it was due to my lack of credible appearance. Dressing well not only boosts your confidence but also earns you respect. Always carry a pen, a small notebook, and copies of your resume. As I mentioned, you never know who you might meet or whether you'll want to share your contact information or take notes. Having a pen and paper on hand demonstrates that you're prepared (read: on top of your game) and professional. A further step to "being prepared" is always having a few copies of your resume. A few years ago, during an intermission at a community theatre production, I struck up a conversation with a man who, it turned out, was looking for a workforce manager position. Although I didn't have an opening, I knew someone who did. He went to his car, retrieved a copy of his resume, and handed it to me, which I passed along to the person I knew who was searching for a workforce manager. Yes, he got the job. Carefully consider the questions you ask. Voltaire said, "Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers." Your questions during an interview reveal a great deal about you. Steer clear of asking irrelevant or self-serving questions, such as, "How many sick days do you offer?" or, "When will my benefits start?" Instead, inquire about the specific responsibilities, challenges, and goals of the role. Ask questions that demonstrate genuine interest in how you can contribute to the team's success. Lastly, never ask for an expectation! Questions such as "I understand this position requires me to work in the office every day. Is it possible to work from home on Thursdays and Fridays?" will eliminate you from consideration. Succeeding in today's highly competitive job market requires paying close attention to details and your actions. ___________________________________________________________________ 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

Snowflakes

Snowflakes

By Wayne & Tamara This one is on behalf of my best friend. My friend feels her mother-in-law is a terrible grandmother who falls far short of her expectations. She adores dogs and shows them more love and affection than her own grandchildren. My friend often compares this woman to her own mother who dotes on the children. Sometimes my friend tells her mother-in-law directly what she thinks of her, and she cries. Her husband does not feel his mother is a loving grandmother, but he loves his mum and wants a peaceful life. Coincidentally I have a similar setup with my in-laws. They have more time for animals--dogs, cats, and goats--and show them more love and affection than their grandchildren. They are more inclined to help the needy, like handicapped and poor people. However, my husband and I accept it is their choice to live as they wish, and we are always polite and respectful to them. I've encouraged my children to accept them as they are, which they do. We made a lot of effort to fit in with my husband's family over the past decade, but now are less interested as it is only one way. We visit a few times a year, but that is not an issue as we live 100 miles away. We're expected to call from time to time, but conversations are restrained as we honestly don't have interest in each other's lives. I ask questions like, Have you been to a goat show lately? But they ask none in return, not even How are the children? That's just how they are. I feel my friend is competing with her mother-in-law, trying to prove she's bad and her mum's better. What do you suggest? Once again my friend is due to tell her mother-in-law how disappointed she is in her. Sybil Sybil, there is a translation of Lao Tzu by Witter Bynner which contains these words. "As the soft yield of water cleaves obstinate stone, so to yield with life solves the insoluble…. But this unworded lesson, this easy example, is lost upon men." You've learned to expect no more from your in-laws than they are prepared to offer, and that is the mark of a wise person. In addition, your children accept them on their own terms. This is a boat not to rock. Your friend is attempting the impossible. She has an idea of the ideal grandmother, and she is determined to make her mother-in-law conform to that ideal. It's like trying to hold back the tide or make the wind obey. She should be grateful her children have one grandmother who meets her expectations. Those children are going to spend their lives dealing with a variety of people in a real world. They need to accept reality and understand people for who they are. That is a far more valuable practice than expending energy trying to make people conform to our mental image. This is one area where supporting your friend does everyone a disservice. Wayne & Tamara A Zealot My husband's brother wrote a letter to my husband a few years ago. The letter stated that my husband was soon to die--he has heart problems--and should make his peace with the Lord. This brother-in-law is a religious fanatic, but I think he was out of place writing the letter. My husband laughed it off, but I cannot get over it. We will be seeing this brother-in-law at a wedding next month. How should I handle this? Wilma Wilma, Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." Your husband understands this, and that is why he laughed it off. If you confront your brother-in-law at the wedding, you will look ridiculous. People will excuse him because he doesn't know better, but they will wonder, what's your excuse? Wayne & Tamara Tamara SEND LETTERS TO: Directanswers@WayneAndTamara.com Wayne & Tamara are the authors of Cheating in a Nutshell and The Young Woman’s Guide to Older Men—available from Amazon, Apple, and booksellers everywhere.

All Over The World

All Over The World By Patricia Conlin All over the world, a message of urgently needed health reform is being echoed. Robert Kennedy Jr., recently appointed as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, is making it a top priority to tackle the growing chronic disease epidemic and serious corruption within Public Health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and National Institutes of Health (NIH). In Canada, we hear of suicide, chronic illness, skyrocketing cancer rates and increases in all-cause mortality. Mental illness and drug addiction are rampant. Families are struggling to put healthy food on the table and are having fewer children due to the cost of living. Many feel overwhelmed and hopeless. We shake our heads and wonder what has happened to our beloved country. As a concerned citizen, Registered Holistic Nutritionist, and twice published author on improving health, I have a good understanding of some of the many health policies negatively impacting our communities and country. Let's start by examining fluoridation policies. Canada is the fourth most fluoridated country in the world. Regions decided to fluoridate drinking water decades ago for the purpose of preventing dental decay, based on public health authorities who claimed this treatment was “safe, effective and legal.” However, all three claims have been proven to be 100% false. The truth is clear that this incredibly harmful public health practice has been proven to reduce the IQ of children.1 Last fall, a US Federal Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where top experts there testified that fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reducing IQ in children.” In fact, the effect of fluoride could be similar to that of lead poisoning, which can cause neurological damage. We need a moratorium on fluoridation to protect our children. Another serious issue that farmers in my community have spoken to me about concerns “biosolids,” a toxic sewage sludge (think green bin contents and wastewater solids) being sold to unsuspecting farmers as an eco-friendly fertilizer. Public health officials claim that this sewage sludge is “safely and effectively” processed to remove contaminants using a method called anaerobic digestion. However, this is also completely false.2 One of many significant studies was published by the University of Guelph3 and has proven that anaerobic processes do not destroy harmful bacteria and other toxins, as claimed by our regions. Sadly, this sewage sludge created in anaerobic digestion processing facilities4 is being spread onto our farmlands. This is being done without proper testing, and many farmers don't realize their land can never be zoned organic after putting this on their fields. A third public health concern in our communities is the unregulated use of toxic chemicals. Recently, I did a presentation on creating healthier communities in my region and highlighted toxic chemicals that are destroying our health and environment. One of the worst is Round-Up (with the active ingredient glyphosate), which is still sold at local stores for residential use despite conclusive evidence of it killing bees and other pollinators as well as causing cancer. Why don’t public health officials educate residents on the harm of spraying their grass with toxic herbicides and suggest natural methods instead? This focus on the environment as the enemy is a distraction from the real poisoning of our air, soil, water, food and medicine. By far, the most destructive of all health policies that have been proposed during the past few years are the policies around Covid and Climate. Most municipalities seek to achieve “Net Zero” by 2050. This policy of “Zero Carbon,” just like “Zero Covid,” is unachievable and will only result in further financial and mental stress and decline within our communities. Carbon dioxide is a life-affirming molecule and makes up a minuscule portion of atmospheric gases. The same bureaucrats that locked down your small business while keeping Walmart and Costco open want you to willingly give up travel and meat and pay more for everything while you slowly go bankrupt and starve to protect you from the air you breathe. Farmers have had enough of this public health nonsense and are protesting in large numbers across Europe. Without farmers, we have no food, and given the increase in food bank usage and chronic health conditions, this public health policy is achieving the opposite in a very profound and disturbing way. With regards to Covid, it is overwhelmingly clear that health policies implemented at a regional level were dictated by unelected officials from foreign agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN). We now know with certainty that lockdowns and mandates did far more harm than good. Our public health officials made us lock down our seniors and let them die of loneliness. They forced our young kids to stay home from school and wear unsafe masks. They divided our towns and families over vaccine status and made people carry a so-called passport to get into a restaurant. None of this was necessary, and all of it was extremely harmful. Many States in the US, other countries, and recently, the Province of Alberta,7 have called for the experimental vaccines to be withdrawn due to the shocking number of injuries and lack of effectiveness. There is also clear evidence of DNA contamination, as identified by Canadian Scientist Dr. David Speicher. These “vaccines” that never stopped transmission or provided immunity were definitely not the “safe and effective” solution that our public health officials pushed on us using fear, guilt, and other forms of manipulation all while demonizing natural immunity and treatments. Will there be accountability for the massive damage done, or will the same public health officials just sweep the carnage under the rug? It is time for we, the people, to step up and stop following elected and unelected health officials who have no grounding in real health or real science. We need to seek alternative views on all health policies going forward and be loud at Council meetings and with our neighbours so we can restore healthy and prosperous communities.

NOW IT IS YOUR CHANCE

NOW IT IS YOUR CHANCE By Joe Ingino B.A. Psychology Editor/Publisher Central Newspapers ACCOMPLISHED WRITER/AUTHOR OF OVER 800,000 Articles Published Columns in Canada and The United States This week will hopefully bring some positive change. I have been doing this job for over 30 years. In such a role. I hear all the concerns from all kinds of readers. The main one for most is quality of life. People in general are tired of having to work and pay all kinds of taxes. Only to see their quality of life slowly erode. Politicians don’t care. Try contacting your local municipal elect. Good luck. Try to call your MPP. Good luck. French is notorious for not returning phone calls. Yet, there she is out on the campaign trail making all kinds of promises and making claim of achievements thatare few and petty at best. The question before us is not the person. Instead, its about her accomplishments and what has she done to improve your quality of life. I think she has had her two terms to improve the quality of life in Oshawa and she has failed. We have a never ending number of people living in the street. Open drug use is at an all time high. Where is our provincial MPP. Sitting in her office playing politician. WHAT HAS SHE DONE FOR YOU? I am running in this provincial election as your change. I am not a politician. I am a local business person. Someone like you. Working hard to feed my family. I am a local business person that know first hand the value of a dollar. I know what it means to want a good solid community life. I have been a member of every service group as per the banner to the left. I talked to you the people and live your pain. I want good quality of life. Clean Oshawa. An Oshawa that is inviting and full of life. I want to bring to Oshawa prosperity. I can tell you that I may not have all the answers. But I have a solid proven business track record for the past 30 years of service to Oshawa. I will bring you solutions to real Oshawa problems. No more going through the motions. Pretend and make excuses. No more spewing statistics and hope that they stick. I can promise you results. I can promise you the improvement of Oshawas quality of life. I can assure you that my interest will not be maintain my position for another term...nor that I have an income. As a matter of fact. I will donate my wages to programs in the city until Oshawa quality of life improves.. I will assure that my wages go directly to making Oshawa a safe and clean City. Can French say that? Can any of the candidates make such statement and commitment. All I am asking is for you to give me the opportunity to serve you and restore Oshawa to the jewel it has always been in the Durham crown. Thank you.

Pickering's Public Forum turns into a racist, pornographic nightmare!

Pickering's Public Forum turns into a racist, pornographic nightmare! By Lisa Robinson On Wednesday February 12, 2025, which was meant to be a transparent, inclusive discussion on our Climate Adaptation Plan for all ages degenerated into an unmitigated horror show. Instead of fostering meaningful community dialogue, the City of Pickering’s virtual Open House became a stage for racist slurs, repeated displays of swastikas, and graphic pornographic content—images that no one, especially an event for all ages, including children should ever be forced to endure. The flagrant failure of City staff is at the heart of this atrocity. With full control over the meeting, they did nothing to immediately shut down the broadcast. By neglecting to disable participants’ microphones and cameras, they provided a free rein for these perpetrators to spread hate, and explicit disgusting pornographic content, leaving our community exposed and traumatized. I can honestly say that I will never be the same after witnessing such a disturbing and deeply traumatizing event. As if this horrific incident were not enough, the hypocrisy of the City of Pickering has reached a new low by launching a calculated attack on my integrity. Recently, they have been trying to falsely accuse me of “aiding and abetting harassment” solely because I publicly condemned hateful remarks made on a podcast. Let me be absolutely clear: I denounced a hateful remark both in an email to my colleagues and live on his podcast, repeatedly stating that I do not condone what the host said or any form of violence. To further clarify, I never even heard the remark because I was taken off the podcast the time it was made, and the announcer explicitly declared that his words were entirely his own and not reflective of my views. Again, I want to be clear – I have never met this person before. I had no prior knowledge of them, no connection, no relationship of any kind before that podcast. I simply participated as a guest, unaware of what they would say or do. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is false. The absurdity of twisting my decisive, public denunciation into grounds for an investigation is a deliberate act of public mischief—a manufactured narrative designed solely to silence me and try to remove me from Council for consistently speaking the truth and calling out the corruption that I have witnessed during my tenure. If the City of Pickering is so quick to claim that I was aiding and abetting harassment—an act over which I had absolutely no control and one that I condemned publicly—then it is only logical that they should be thoroughly investigated for aiding and abetting racist slurs, hate symbols, and the distribution of pornography. Their failure to secure a safe space during the meeting, by not disabling participants’ cameras and microphones, allowed these heinous acts to occur. Yet, instead of acknowledging this gross negligence, the Corporation of the City of Pickering is busy fabricating false narratives and even pressured me into removing video evidence that serves the public interest. Not only have they not even issued an official apology to me or anyone else who witnessed this appalling incident, but they are also desperately trying to suppress the truth about what really happened. This is nothing short of a cover-up, a sham attempt to shift blame away from their own undeniable failures. I call for immediate answers. Who was responsible for moderating the meeting, and why was it not shut down the moment hate speech and explicit content erupted? Which members of leadership were aware of these events—and when did they finally act? Will the same unfounded legal standards now being used to target me be applied to those whose gross negligence allowed this atrocity to occur? I am not only traumatized by what I witnessed but I am also appalled by the lengths to which our City’s leadership will go to suppress the truth. Our community deserves a safe, respectful public forum and leaders who take responsibility, not ones who attempt to rewrite history to deflect their own failures. A police investigation is now underway, and I will not rest until every individual responsible for this disgrace is held accountable. The City of Pickering must stop shifting blame and begin addressing its own gross negligence for the sake of transparency, accountability, and the wellbeing of our community. I am Councillor Lisa Robinson, The People’s Councillor!

Employers Are Not in the 'Give a Chance Business'

Employers Are Not in the 'Give a Chance Business' By Nick Kossovan Many job seekers become frustrated and angry because they believe employers should take a chance on hiring them. Most job seekers fail, or refuse, to grasp that hiring is a critical business decision involving an investment of their time, money, and trust—the stakes are high. Great hires can propel a team forward, while bad hires can create setbacks, disrupt a company's culture, and waste resources. When a hiring manager assesses a candidate, they're not just asking, "Can this person do the job?" they're also asking: · Will this person stick around? · Will they be manageable? · Will they fit into the current team and culture? · Will I regret hiring this person six months from now? A common phrase among job seekers is "Give people a chance." Expecting employers to take a chance on you and blaming them when they don't displays a sense of entitlement. Employers aren't in the business of giving chances. Business survival requires being risk-averse. Minimizing hiring risks is in a business's best interest. In this respect, it's the job seeker's responsibility to demonstrate why the reward of hiring them outweighs the risk. The job market is a battlefield where there are many job seekers who, admittedly, out of desperation, are, to put it mildly, "not playing fair." An employer's hiring decision isn't merely about filling a vacancy. The person hired will, to some extent, affect their bottom line, team chemistry, and long-term goals. I've seen, as you likely have, how hiring the wrong person can lead to productivity losses, decreased morale, and budget wasting. You can't fault employers for selecting employees cautiously; you would, too, if you owned the business. On the other hand, employers can be regarded as 'givers of low-risk chances.' No matter how much due diligence an employer does to mitigate hiring risks, they're still taking a chance—a risk—on the candidate who they deemed to be the most qualified, will deliver the results the business needs, and will fit their culture. Despite employers designing their hiring process in ways they believe will mitigate hiring risks, hiring people doesn't come with any guarantees. The best an employer can do is hire the candidate they believe poses the lowest hiring risk. Most job seekers focus on demonstrating their skills and experience but fail to consider how they might appear as a hiring risk, such as: · Being underqualified or overqualified · Posting negative comments on social media · Exhibiting a sense of entitlement · Having a lengthy employment gap · Holding several short-term jobs Applying for a job involves being compared to everyone else who applied. Put yourself in the employer's shoes. If you received over 500 applications for a Sales Director role, whom would you find "less risky"? Candidate A: Has had four jobs in seven years. Candidate B: Has been at their current job for 14 years. Candidate A: Has a complete LinkedIn profile (profile picture, banner, completed sections) showing the measurable value they've brought to previous employers. Candidate B: Has an incomplete LinkedIn profile. Candidate A: Was referred by an employee. Candidate B: Applied online. Candidate A: Includes a compelling cover letter. Candidate B: Doesn't include a cover letter. It's the job seeker's responsibility to prove that they're worth taking a hiring risk on. You should approach your job search strategically, showing that you are not just another candidate, but one who can add measurable value to the business, such as increasing revenue, reducing costs, or solving problems. With so many qualified job seekers in the job market, why would an employer opt for a candidate with perceived risks? If you believe employers should "give you a chance," you're setting yourself up for disappointment, leading to frustration and anger. Instead, flip the script and show employers that you're a low-risk hire who will add value to their business. Here's how: Build a Strong Resume and LinkedIn Profile: Numbers are the language of business; speak it! Use numbers to demonstrate your past successes and value. Employers hire results, not unsubstantiated opinions. Leverage Networking: A warm introduction will significantly reduce the perceived risks of hiring you. Contact people in your professional network who are connected to the employer you're applying to or may know someone connected to your targeted employer. (It's a small world.) Prepare for Interviews: Don't just respond to questions; prepare thoughtful questions for your interviewer, thus showing enthusiasm and engagement. Follow-Up: Few job seekers send thank-you notes after interviews; therefore, doing so sets you apart. A thank-you note shows initiative, reiterates your interest, and, most importantly, gives you an opportunity to address any concerns raised during the interview. As for cultural fit, I believe in being yourself and letting the chips fall where they fall. Don't contort yourself, as self-proclaimed career coaches advise job seekers to try to "fit in"; if the employer doesn't see you as a fit, why would you want to join? Employers don't owe you a chance; they owe their business and existing employees the lowest hiring risk they can find. It's on you to show employers that hiring you is a low-risk decision they won't regret making. _____________________________________________________________________ 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

Truths Job Seekers Conveniently Ignore

Truths Job Seekers Conveniently Ignore By Nick Kossovan "You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality," - Ayn Rand, Russian-born American writer, Atlas Shrugged (1957) Acknowledging current job market realities is imperative for job search success. Clinging to comforting narratives while ignoring hard truths will not change how employers operate, especially regarding their respective hiring process. Most job seekers conveniently ignore the following seven uncomfortable truths, which, if they accepted, would expedite their job search. 1. There's always someone younger and hungrier than you. When it comes to "job search truisms that suck," this is at the top. Job searching is a competition against other candidates, AI, automation, low-cost overseas labour, and the advantages of using contractors and freelancers. Achieving success in this competitive landscape requires being hungrier than your competition, as winning typically demands a strong desire to prevail. I view "someone younger and hungrier" (and more skilled) as a call to action. While you can't "youth appeal," you can lessen its influence on hiring decisions by: · Assuring employers you're relevant—not "dated"—that you keep up with technology, social media's ebbs and flows, and ever-shifting social norms. · Demonstrating you can work autonomously. (read: you'll be easy to manage) · Cultivating professional relationships that can vouch for your value to an employer. · Establishing you don't have a sense of entitlement—the Achilles heel of most job seekers. 2. You don't own your job; your employer does. The phrase "my job" is an oxymoron. Layoffs illustrate that the job belongs to the employer, yet many job seekers chase the illusion of job security. My take is an employee is renting their job until they no longer want the job or their employer requires their services. Job seekers would shorten their job search by adopting a renter's mindset. In other words, don't look for what doesn't exist—a permanent employment situation. Renting is primarily about having a roof over your head; therefore, we tend to accept, within reason, "less than ideal" (e.g., neighbourhood, kitchen layout, bathroom size). The motivation to buy a home is to build equity, which, as you know, is more challenging, expensive, and requires a long-term commitment. When job searching, think of yourself looking for a rental situation; looking for a job that meets your immediate income needs is a quicker route to landing a job than looking for your "ideal work situation." 3. What you show is what an employer will know. Employers hire results, not opinions. Most resumes and LinkedIn profiles are merely lists of opinions; hence, they fail to attract opportunities. Vague claims like "I'm a team player" lack substance. You must quantify: "I was part of a 12-member sales team with a $6.5 million quota." Numbers, the language of business, illustrate your impact and make you a more attractive candidate. 4. You don't define your worth; employers do. A sense of entitlement fuels the obsession with being paid what you're worth. Basic economics: A product or service's worth is largely determined by how well it solves a customer's problem, meets their needs, and compares with competing products. As I mentioned, when job searching, you're competing against candidates who are younger and hungrier than you. Thus, they're willing to work for a lower wage to get their foot in the door, gain experience, and prove themselves. The reason many job seekers experience a lengthy job search is because they possess an inflated sense of their value to employers and overlook their competition. 5. Employers are moving away from remote jobs. Their company, their rules. It's no secret that many companies, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Meta, Walmart, and Trump mandating federal workers return to the office full-time, are ending the remote work setup during COVID, which gave white-collar workers a taste of the privilege of working from home. From what I'm observing and hearing, abuse of working from home is prevalent; hence, I agree with employers having their employees RTO and employees having to manage their workdays as they did pre-COVID. For a faster job search, be open to working onsite. If WFH is a non-negotiable 'must-have,' be prepared for a lengthy job search as the number of WFH opportunities is rapidly shrinking. 6. Your LinkedIn profile and activity on LinkedIn matter more than your resume. What has more visibility, your resume, which is only seen by those you give it to, or your LinkedIn profile, which anyone can view 24/7/365? Given how influential your LinkedIn profile can be to your job search and career, I find it surprising that I still see profiles that scream, "I'm not serious about my job search or career!" With all the information and guides available it's inexcusable not to create a fully optimized LinkedIn profile that'll attract opportunities. 7. Your likability supersedes your skills and experience. Hiring managers don't hire candidates they don't like; hence, likability is a job seeker's biggest asset. While your resume, cover letter and LinkedIn profile job will get you interviews, the success of your interview will be primarily determined by how likable you are; therefore, being likable is a trait (read: skill) worth fostering.cover letter that may (but is not guaranteed) encourage the hiring manager to contact you, then how badly you want the job becomes questionable. _____________________________________________________________________ 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