Kars On Where!!!

By Joe Ingino For those who read my columns on a regular basis, you will note that I am critical of how the City promotes itself. The lack of respect for local small businesses and the level of collusion under which they operate is causing all kinds of events to come and go, and no one really knows about them. Organizers are under the deranged opinion that the handful of patrons who actually attend — excluding the regular half-dozen homeless people, drug addicts and hookers — somehow make events in downtown Oshawa a success. This time, Kars on King rolls into downtown Oshawa on August 21. Kars on King returns to downtown Oshawa on Friday, August 21, transforming King St. and the surrounding area in an attempt to showcase automotive history. This is an event that should attract hundreds of thousands of people. Well, you know the results... Year after year, the same results, and they keep doing it as if expecting change.I blame the City and its organizers for failing to work with the city newspaper, advertising agencies and promoters within the city. NO, instead, the City's attitude appears to be: We know what we are doing, and we do not support local small businesses. Or at least this appears to be the case. How else do you explain the lack of advertising and promotion for the event? PEOPLE, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTING DOES NOT WORK... WAKE UP. Look at the numbers. Four, 10, 100 or even 1,000 people reached — as if they ever reach that many — does not even equate to 1% of the population across the region. So why does the City not use the city newspaper that has been serving the city for over 30 years? Why? Bias? Prejudice toward your only in-print newspaper? Some inclusive city. More like hypocritical and biased.Kars on King is officially hosted and organized by the City of Oshawa in active partnership with key local organizations, including the Canadian Automotive Museum, the Tribute Communities Centre and Oshawa Tourism. Now, you would think that between the City of Oshawa and Oshawa Tourism, one of them would realize that they need to promote all events. Social media posts are not working... Look at the numbers. Kars on King should be a huge revenue generator for the city. A city that very much needs it. You know things are bad in your city when restaurants start closing. Yet, the City seems to be blind to the facts. Both downtown city councillors have proven that they have failed the downtown. Both Rick Kerr and Derek Giberson have failed the downtown.Now Kerr is attempting to be re-elected, and Giberson is running for Mayor. Here is a guy who persecuted downtown businesses using your tax dollars to the tune of up to $100,000. Numbers are yet to be released. A total waste of taxpayers' dollars. And this Giberson wants to be Mayor!!!God help us all. Since when do we reward failure? Then again, we voted in Carter for a second term.My heart aches for Oshawa.Kars on King should be a week-long event. The event should be advertised months ahead of time. The City and/or Oshawa Tourism should have enough marketing savvy to recognize this. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the City staff who put this together have no clue how to promote this event. And yes, I am qualified, with over 30 years of actual hands-on marketing experience. As for Oshawa Tourism... there is a division that needs to be disbanded. A total waste of taxpayers' dollars. I can't say that I have ever received a call from them at their city newspaper. Events come and go, and no one knows about them. Why? Oshawa Tourism has no clue what it is doing.I know that if I were in charge, I would have this department in constant contact with all local media, constantly sending out releases and constantly advertising all upcoming events. No. Instead, once in a while, they will send out an email, normally within weeks of an event. That is not promoting an event.It is as if they do not care. My dealings with these folks left me with the impression that they were only following protocol. The feeling I got was that they did not have a clue what they were doing.Some are overly opinionated, with no real understanding of technology, advertising or media.Could this be the reason why the population at large is so unaware of what is going on? We live in Durham Region. People travel. People are constantly looking for things to do.Why is Oshawa failing? Simple. We have to hire people who know what they are doing. We have to get rid of the corporate bias and prejudice. I am disgusted with how this city is operated. Failure after failure. I do hope that in 2026 we do not vote in any incumbents and instead get a fresh start.

One of the most important responsibilities

One of the most important responsibilities By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering One of the most important responsibilities of municipal government is also one of the least glamorous: taking care of the infrastructure taxpayers have already paid for. Roads, sidewalks, culverts, storm sewers, catch basins, bridges and public facilities all have a lifecycle. We can maintain them while they are still in reasonable condition, rehabilitate them before they fail, or wait until deterioration becomes so serious that full replacement is required. Those choices do not cost taxpayers the same amount of money. Pickering's own 2025 Asset Management Plan makes the challenge clear. It reports that 51 per cent of the City's road-corridor assets, measured by replacement value, are rated poor or very poor. Collector roads have an average Pavement Condition Index of 54, while local roads average 48 — both classified as "Needs Improvement." Approximately 60 per cent of local roads are rated poor or worse. The financial consequences matter just as much as the condition ratings. The City's modelling estimates that proactively maintaining and rehabilitating roads could potentially avoid approximately $5.6 million annually compared with allowing those roads to deteriorate until replacement becomes necessary. That is an important lesson in fiscal responsibility. Maintenance is not simply an expense. It is a cost we either manage today or risk paying much more for tomorrow. Sometimes refusing to spend a dollar at the right time creates a much larger bill later. To be fair, Pickering is investing significant money in infrastructure renewal. The City's approved 2026 Capital Budget totals approximately $73.2 million, with nearly $48.7 million classified as infrastructure renewal. That includes $5.25 million for road rehabilitation, along with major investments in culverts, stormwater systems, erosion protection, municipal buildings and other aging infrastructure. So the argument should not be that Pickering has no infrastructure plan. It does. The more important question is whether the pace of investment matches the condition of the assets. Stormwater infrastructure is another example. Residents rarely think about catch basins, storm sewers, culverts, channels and stormwater ponds until something stops working. Yet failures can contribute to standing water, flooding, erosion, property damage and expensive emergency repairs. Pickering is funding stormwater projects, including pond cleanouts, culvert replacement and restoration work. At the same time, the City's Asset Management Plan acknowledges that budget limitations have contributed to deferred maintenance and delayed stormwater upgrades. That tension deserves serious attention. The Asset Management Plan estimates that Pickering requires approximately $61.7 million annually for sustainable capital renewal while sustainable funding going forward is estimated at roughly $28.8 million — leaving an annual infrastructure funding gap of approximately $32.8 million. We cannot simply pretend that gap does not exist. Pushing necessary work into the future is not fiscal conservatism. It can simply mean passing a larger invoice to the next taxpayer. My approach is straightforward: maintenance first. Council should use real condition data, prioritize infrastructure according to risk, extend the useful life of assets taxpayers already own, aggressively pursue available outside funding and ensure that growth pays its appropriate share of growth-related infrastructure. Residents should also be able to clearly see what is being repaired, why it is a priority, and what delaying that work could ultimately cost. Pickering is going to keep growing, and growth will require new infrastructure. But growth cannot come at the expense of properly maintaining what generations of taxpayers have already built. Responsible government is not always about announcing the next big project. Sometimes it is about having the discipline to protect what we already own.

A Home Is More Than Four Walls

A Home Is More Than Four Walls By Margaret Eskins Executive Director DARS Dedicated Advocacy Resource Support When someone has experienced homelessness, the damage is rarely limited to not having a place to sleep. Homelessness can disrupt health, education, employment, relationships, confidence, routines and a person's sense of belonging. Every day can become about finding the next meal, the next safe place to sleep or the next way to survive. We cannot always solve homelessness with a key to an apartment. A person may need time to rebuild the foundations that make independent housing possible. That is what the DARS farmhouse model is designed to do. The farmhouse is not a shelter, and it is not intended to be a permanent destination. It is a place of transition where individuals can experience stability while working toward the next chapter of their lives. That distinction matters. The Agricultural Lens Changes the Conversation There is something powerful about waking up when the rooster crows — and waking up with a purpose. Agriculture creates natural opportunities for routine, responsibility and meaningful work. At our farmhouse, that includes caring for the land, gardening, food production, property maintenance and livestock care. Caring for animals is a responsibility that cannot simply be postponed. Livestock need food, water, clean spaces, observation and consistent care. They depend on people. For someone rebuilding their life, that responsibility can be incredibly meaningful. It creates routine, accountability and connection. It creates an opportunity to contribute to something outside oneself. But the agricultural component is about much more than learning how to grow vegetables or care for livestock. It is about rebuilding confidence, being trusted with responsibility and seeing the tangible result of your effort. Our residents learn that they can contribute. It reconnects people with the basic rhythms of life — waking up, having breakfast, caring for animals, working in the garden, maintaining the property, going to work or school, preparing a meal and being part of a community. Those things may sound ordinary, but for someone emerging from homelessness, they can be transformative. We Need to Rethink What Land Can Do If we are serious about addressing homelessness, we also need to rethink how we use land. The farmhouse is one model. It is definitely not the only model. Across Ontario, there are opportunities to explore the thoughtful conversion of underused or abandoned properties into transitional and supportive housing. These could include underutilized Greenbelt, agricultural and rural properties. Where appropriate and permitted, we should also consider expropriated airport lands, abandoned or vacant houses, surplus public properties, unused institutional lands and small parcels of land that are currently sitting vacant. There is also enormous potential in small-scale housing, including tiny homes placed on appropriately serviced plots of land that are not currently being used. We should be asking a different question about land. Instead of simply asking, “What is this property zoned for today?” we should also ask, “What community need could this land help us address?” Obviously, these ideas must be approached responsibly. Environmental protections, municipal planning requirements, servicing, transportation, accessibility, safety and community consultation all matter. But we should not allow the complexity of planning to become an excuse for doing nothing. If a vacant house can become a home, why shouldn't we explore it? If an abandoned property can be restored, why shouldn't we consider it? If a small unused parcel can appropriately accommodate several tiny homes with the right supports, why shouldn't we investigate it? If land that has already been disturbed or repurposed can provide an opportunity for transitional housing, why shouldn't we have that conversation? We need more options, not fewer. We need to think outside the box. Unconventional Land Options Are Part of the Solution We need to stop thinking about housing solutions only in terms of traditional urban buildings. Our communities need a continuum of housing options, and transitional housing should be one part of that continuum. A restored farmhouse provides something that conventional emergency accommodation often cannot: space, quiet, nature, privacy, responsibility and community. Agricultural, Greenbelt and rural properties should not simply be viewed as land surrounding our communities. With thoughtful planning and appropriate safeguards, suitable properties and existing structures can become part of a broader social infrastructure that helps people reconnect with themselves and their communities. We are not talking about abandoning people in a rural setting. Quite the opposite. This type of model must include transportation, case management, health supports, education, employment connections, life-skills development and strong relationships with community partners. In our case, the farmhouse is the environment. The wraparound supports and opportunities are what make the transition possible. Housing Comes First — But Housing Alone Is Not Enough At DARS, we believe safe and secure housing is fundamental. A person cannot easily focus on employment when they do not know where they will sleep at night. It is difficult to succeed in school when survival is consuming every waking hour. It is difficult to manage health when there is nowhere safe or hygienic to recover. It is nearly impossible to rebuild relationships when life is organized around crisis. However, once someone has a safe place to live, we have an opportunity to ask a different question: What comes next? That is where transitional housing must become more than a bed. It must become a bridge — to good health, education, employment, financial stability, family and community, and ultimately to permanent, safe and secure housing. We Need to Measure Success Differently Too often, homelessness programs are judged by how many people are served rather than how many people successfully transition out of homelessness. I believe we need to ask better questions. Did the person obtain permanent housing? Did their health improve? Did they reconnect with education? Did they find meaningful employment? Did they develop financial stability? Did they build relationships and community connections? Did they develop the skills and confidence to maintain their own housing? Those are the outcomes that matter. A successful transitional housing program should not create dependency on the program. It should create independence beyond the program. We Cannot Afford to Keep Doing Only What We Have Always Done The homelessness crisis is telling us that the old approaches are not enough. Emergency shelters are necessary. Warming centres are necessary. Food programs and outreach are necessary. Most importantly, we need to invest in what happens after survival. People need places where they can heal, learn, work, contribute and prepare for permanent housing. That is why the DARS farmhouse matters. It represents a different way of thinking about homelessness. Instead of asking, “Where can we put this person tonight?” we should also be asking, “What environment will give this person the best chance of succeeding tomorrow?” Sometimes the answer is a conventional apartment or supportive housing. Sometimes it may be a farmhouse in the Greenbelt where someone can wake up, step outside, care for livestock, work with their hands, participate in a community and begin to imagine a future again. We Should Replicate What Works I believe Ontario needs to invest in more innovative transitional housing models. Not every community will have a farmhouse. Not every community will use agriculture. But every community can look at its unused assets differently. Perhaps it is a vacant house, a neglected property or a surplus parcel of land. It could be an underused building or an appropriate tiny-home site. These should all be part of the conversation. We need municipalities, governments, housing providers, agricultural organizations, employers, educators, health providers, landowners and community organizations to work together We need to stop treating homelessness as an individual failure and start recognizing it as a community challenge that requires community solutions. Most importantly, we need to recognize that people who have experienced homelessness are not defined by homelessness. They are parents, workers, children, spouses and neighbours. Just like us, they are people with talents, dreams, skills and potential. Our job is not simply to give them a place to stay. Our job is to create the conditions where they can move forward. At DARS, we have seen what can happen when someone is given stability, responsibility, support and a genuine opportunity to participate in community. The farmhouse is not the finish line. It is the bridge. If we are serious about ending homelessness, we need to build more bridges — bridges that lead people toward health, education, employment, belonging and, most importantly, a safe and secure place they can finally call home. We should be willing to look at every piece of land, every abandoned building and every underused community asset through a new lens. Not simply, “What can we build here?” but, “Whose life could change if we put this land to work?” That is the conversation we need to have. And we need to have it now.

WHEN THEY CAN'T CONTROL YOU, THEY TRY TO CONTROL YOUR REPUTATION

WHEN THEY CAN'T CONTROL YOU, THEY TRY TO CONTROL YOUR REPUTATION Character assassination is not an accident. It is a strategy — and it only works on people who have stopped thinking for themselves. There is a pattern to how toxic people operate, and once you have seen it up close you can never unsee it. First, they try to manage you. They want your vote, your silence, your cooperation. When flattery does not work, they escalate to pressure. When pressure does not work, they escalate to procedure — the meeting, the complaint, the process, the finding. And when even that fails to bend you, they arrive at the last tool they have. If they cannot control what you do, they will try to control what everybody thinks of you. This is the point people miss. The smear is not the beginning of a conflict. The smear is the admission of defeat in the conflict. It arrives only after every other method has failed. Nobody bothers to destroy the reputation of someone they can already control. They only reach for your name when they have run out of ways to reach for you. And notice how it is done. Not with an argument. Never with an argument — because an argument can be answered, and an answer might persuade someone. Instead, they reach for the labels that cannot be argued with, the words designed to end the conversation rather than start one. Words that make people afraid to be seen standing near you, let alone standing with you. That is the whole point. It is not aimed at your record. It is aimed at everybody else's willingness to hear your record. THEN THERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE TRUTH Here is the harder part, and the part I had to make peace with. You can correct the record. You can produce the transcript, the minutes, the recording, the receipt. You can put the full quote next to the clipped one and let anyone with eyes compare them. And there will still be people who are absolutely determined to misunderstand you. Not unable. Determined. Because for some people, your guilt is useful. It justifies a vote they already cast, a friendship they do not want to re-examine, a comfortable arrangement they would rather not look at too closely. The truth would cost them something, so they decline it. No amount of evidence competes with an incentive. So stop auditioning for their approval. You cannot reason a person out of a conclusion their interests depend on, and every hour spent trying is an hour stolen from the people who actually are listening. Correct the record once, plainly, for the honest onlooker — then get back to work. The determined misunderstander is not your jury. Your neighbours are. THINK FOR YOURSELF — IT IS THE WHOLE BALLGAME Now let me say something hopeful, because I did not write this to complain. Every one of these tactics — the label, the whisper, the pile-on — depends on one thing, and one thing only: a crowd that will not stop and check. A rumour has no engine of its own. It runs entirely on borrowed judgment. It moves only as far as good people are willing to carry it without asking a single question. Which means the remedy is not complicated, and it does not require a lawyer, a committee, or a title. It requires a citizen who pauses long enough to say: who told me this, what exactly did she say, and who benefits if I believe it? That pause is one of the most powerful things in a free society. It is where mobs go to die and where self-government begins. There is nothing brave about agreeing with the room; the room does not need your help. But a person willing to say "wait a moment — I would like to see that for myself" is doing the actual work of citizenship, and doing it in the only place it can be done, which is between their own two ears. Group-think asks almost nothing of you, and that is exactly what makes it so expensive. Every time we go along to get along, we hand a little more oxygen to the very people who are counting on us not to look. And every time one of us checks, that flame gets a little smaller. So do not take my word for it. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Read the record. Watch the meeting. Ask the question you have been told is impolite to ask. Trust your own eyes over anybody's summary — including mine. Because a town full of people who think for themselves cannot be run by people who count on them not to. And that, in the end, is not a slogan. It is a safeguard — and it belongs to you.

Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem

Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem ’By Bruno Scanga Financial Columnist Longevity is a textbook ‘good problem’ for Canadian society, one that financial services professionals now must solve. Thanks to advances in health care and wide access to health care services, Canadian life expectancy continues to rise. Life expectancy at birth is now 82.16 and life expectancy at age 65 is now 86.15. That feat of longevity now creates a new slew of risks for retirees, namely that they will outlive their retirement savings, especially if they face high health care costs late in life. Those risks are compounded for the 52 per cent of Canadian workers who do not have access to any kind of employer-sponsored pension plan. Canadians now need to plan to live off their savings for decades, and many of them need to plan to do that alone. Retirees face as they live longer and highlighted how consistent retirement income and clear decumulation strategies can help manage those uncertainties. The importance of the advisor in this period, noting that decumulation can be far more complex and challenging than the accumulation phase that precedes retirement. “I think retirees are facing several key uncertainties. They don't know exactly how long they'll live, what future market returns are going to look like, or even how inflation will affect their purchasing power over time. And taken together, these risks can have a significant impact on retirement security, What we're seeing is that longevity risk has increasingly shifted from the institution to the individual. And retirement planning today requires a much greater focus on generating dependable income and managing risk while over what could be a very long time. Remember not all advisor offer the same services and solutions. Ask questions and find solutions that meet you needs.

When Standing Up Makes You Sick

When Standing Up Makes You Sick Common Sense Health – Diana Gifford-Jones It was like opening a time capsule when I met up with my college roommate after 35 years. We laughed about our good times together and recalled all the confidence we had about our futures at age twenty. Then the conversation turned to our children, and she told me about her daughter's long struggle to obtain a diagnosis of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS. Once that diagnosis became clear, it is easy to point to a distinguishing symptom. For people with POTS, standing upright triggers a debilitating racing of the heart. But for the 2-3 million people in North America estimated to have the condition, figuring it out is no easy job. Experts are not sure why, but it’s a condition that tends to strike young women, aged 15-35, most often from comfortable, and white, families. This fits my roommate’s situation. It may be that POTS could be found in other segments of society, but neither patients nor doctors are making the connection. The root cause of POTS lies in the body’s remarkable automatic control system – the autonomic nervous system – which manages heart rate, blood pressure, circulation, digestion, and temperature control. When we stand, gravity pulls blood toward our legs. A healthy nervous system immediately responds. Blood vessels tighten, the heart adjusts, and enough blood continues to reach the brain. In someone with POTS, that response does not work properly. The body struggles to maintain circulation when upright, and the heart often speeds up dramatically to compensate. The result can be dizziness, fatigue, weakness, exercise intolerance, difficulty concentrating, and a pounding heartbeat. Some sufferers feel better when they lie down – but not all. When the autonomic nervous system is out of whack, all bets are off. Historically, and to date, many patients have struggled to find an explanation. Because routine heart tests and blood work may appear normal, some are told their symptoms are due to stress or anxiety. During the American Civil War, physician Jacob Mendes Da Costa described soldiers who suffered from racing hearts, fatigue, chest discomfort, and poor exercise tolerance. The condition became known as “soldier’s heart.” Although it was not the same diagnosis as POTS, researchers believe these individuals may have had problems involving the autonomic nervous system. Over the decades, doctors continued to encounter patients who became ill when upright. But it was not until the 1990s that researchers formally described and named POTS. Scientists now understand that POTS is not one single disease. Different patients may have different underlying causes. In some, nerves that regulate blood vessels may not function properly. In others, there may be abnormalities involving the immune system, blood volume, or the body’s response to infection. The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented attention to POTS. Some people recovering from COVID developed persistent symptoms including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and exercise intolerance. Researchers began investigating whether viral infections could trigger autonomic disorders in susceptible individuals. Although POTS is often associated with younger people, it can occur at any age. In older adults, symptoms may be mistaken for medication effects, dehydration, heart problems, or the normal challenges of aging. For my roommate and her daughter, and similar to many other families, it was a long and frustrating journey to the diagnosis of POTS. Ultimately, it took a team of specialists at the Mayo Clinic to design and initiate a four-week intensive program of physical, mental, and behavioural changes to daily routines that enabled them to return to normal life. With better knowledge about what’s going on, there comes an appreciation for the extraordinary things the human body does, even when just standing up.

Hamster Wheel

Hamster Wheel By Wayne and Tamara I am 39, married for four years. I have no kids, but two stepchildren from my current wife. The problem is I may be in love with someone from my past, and when I say my past, I mean high school. I met this girl when I was a sophomore and she was a freshman. For me it was instant love. Not only was she the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen, she was wonderful. Unfortunately, she was in a popular clique, and well, I was not. We lived close by, so we rode the same bus to and from school. We were friendly and all, but nothing more. Looking back I can’t honestly say if I asked her out she would have said no, but at the time there was no way I was going to risk it. I wrote her love letters and sent roses on her birthday. She called to thank me, but since I had no idea how to talk to girls, I completely blew that opportunity. The years sped by as they tend to do, and I thought about her. I figured she was married with kids, and I should just let her go. Once or twice a month I have dreams about her, and no, none of them are sexual. But they usually make me sad. It sometimes takes me a day or two to get over the more vivid ones. Last year was my 20th high school reunion, and through the grapevine I found out she never married. She’s on my Facebook page. I was going to say hi to her just as a friend, but apparently she’s never on. I wrote this letter because last night I had another dream about her. I woke up nearly in tears because it was so emotional. I love my wife but not in the same way; it’s more like she’s my best friend. My greatest regret in life is that I never had a chance with this girl. I always felt she was the one I was meant to be with. I feel lost, my heart is breaking, and I have no idea what to do. Edgar Edgar, each year, not far from where we live, Civil War re-enactors gather to recreate a battle. They may think what they do is authentic, but parading on clean fields in pressed uniforms doesn’t capture the frontline realities of fleas, filth, and the fear of death. It’s more like a getaway weekend. The past is not a buffet where we can take what we want and move it into the present. In truth you are having night sweats over a woman you never dated and barely talked to. You don’t know her, and you can’t genuinely love someone you don’t know.There are three possible courses of action. First, you can sit around and wallow in this unmatured infatuation and let fantasy destroy your current life--which is exactly what you did as a teenager. Or you can go see this woman and almost surely be disappointed. But we don’t think you will do that. This daydream is about being able to sit on your hands through life, like the man who fantasizes about quitting his job but never does it. Or you can look at what has been so wrong in your life that you don’t want to live in it. What is going on is not about this woman. It’s about you. It has nothing to do with her. She doesn’t need to be talked to or chased or pursued. The tragedy is you are losing your life over a phantom. You are having highly charged emotional interactions with someone who exists only in the insubstantial, watery world of your imagination.We suggest sitting down and talking with a therapist about how to live in the here and now. Wayne & Tamara

Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?

Around the Coffee Table with Dale Jodoin Are Canadians Paying More to Build a Stronger Canada?   By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               Around more than a few coffee tables lately, the conversation has started to change. People are no longer asking why everything became so expensive. They already know the answer isn't simple. The question now is this. Are we about to go through another round of rising prices? I'd like to know what you think. Do you think another wave of inflation is coming, or is the worst behind us? This question is significant because Canada is not isolated from global events. We may have our economy, but we are connected to almost every major event taking place around the world. A drought in Europe. Flooding in Asia. Wildfires in North America. Conflict in the Middle East. Shipping delays across the oceans. On their own they sound like separate news stories. Together they could affect every Canadian family. We cannot stop those events. But we certainly feel them. When fuel prices rise, trucking companies pay more to move goods. Farmers pay more to run equipment. Manufacturers pay more to produce products. Grocery stores pay more to stock their shelves. Those extra costs don't simply disappear. Eventually they land in one place. Our shopping carts. That is why inflation is more than an economic headline. It becomes a kitchen table issue. It affects seniors living on fixed incomes, young families trying to stretch every dollar, small businesses watching every expense, and anyone hoping to save for retirement. Another aspect of this discussion warrants further examination. Over the past while, many Canadians have made a conscious decision to buy Canadian whenever they can. Some have done it out of pride. Others want to support local farmers, manufacturers and small businesses. Many simply believe that spending their money should contribute to job creation at home. I understand that thinking. In many ways, I share it. But it also raises a fair question. Does buying Canadian always save us money? The honest answer is no. Some Canadian-made products cost about the same as imported ones. Others cost more. Higher wages, smaller production runs, transportation costs, regulations, and production expenses can all influence the final price. This does not mean that purchasing Canadian products is the cause of inflation. The evidence simply does not support that conclusion. What it does mean is that some Canadians are choosing to spend slightly more because they believe there is value beyond the price tag. Maybe they are helping to keep a neighbour employed. Maybe they are supporting a local farmer. Maybe they are investing in a Canadian company that will still be here years from now. That is not inflation. That is a personal choice about where our dollars go. The bigger question is whether those choices, repeated by millions of Canadians over many years, help build a stronger economy with more jobs, better wages, and businesses that are less dependent on foreign suppliers. If they do, perhaps paying slightly more today becomes an investment instead of just another expense. At the same time, inflation itself At the same time, larger forces, beyond the control of any individual shopper, largely drive inflation itself. by forces much bigger than any one shopper. World energy prices, poor harvests, global supply chains, international conflicts, and interest rates all play major roles. Canada is not immune. What happens on another continent often reaches our grocery stores, gas stations and family budgets within weeks or months. That is the world we live in. So perhaps the real conversation isn't simply about why prices keep rising. Maybe it is about what kind of country we want to build. Do we always chase the lowest price, even if it means buying products made somewhere else? Or are we willing, when we can afford it, to support Canadian workers, Canadian farmers, and Canadian businesses, knowing that sometimes it may cost slightly more? There is no single answer. A senior living on a pension may have no choice but to buy the least expensive item on the shelf. A young family raising children may be in the same position. Another Canadian may decide the extra dollar is worth it because they believe it strengthens the country. Every one of those choices deserves respect. So I'll leave you with one question this week. If buying Canadian means paying a little more today but helps create jobs, strengthen communities, and build a more self-reliant Canada tomorrow, is that an investment worth making? I'd like to hear what you think. Because this isn't just a conversation about inflation. It's a conversation about the kind of Canada we want to leave to the next generation.

Yes, It's Possible to Recover From a Bad Interview (Example of a Recovery Letter Included)

Yes, It's Possible to Recover From a Bad Interview (Example of a Recovery Letter Included) By Nick Kossovan All of us have been there. The heavy silence in the elevator on the way down, the sudden, agonizing clarity about what you wish you had said, and the burning realization that you just blew a job opportunity. A bad interview feels final, like a door slammed shut and deadbolted. Most job seekers throw in the towel. They chalk it up to nerves, decide it wasn't meant to be, or blame their interviewer for not knowing how to conduct an interview, all while convinced they won't get the job. The corporate world is filled with flawed human beings—me included—who, having also been in the hot seat, understand that interview pressure can make even the most seasoned professional lose their composure. The good news, and I speak from experience, is that you can recover from a bad interview. Most people view an interview as an objective test of what you can do and whether you'll be a cultural fit. For most job seekers, an interview is a high-stress conversation where nerves can make a brilliant career look amateurish in five minutes. When you freeze, ramble, or blow a simple question, the hiring manager isn't just concerned about your skills; they're concerned you're a risky hire. Course-correcting requires shifting their focus before they send you a generic rejection email. This is where a well-crafted recovery letter— not to be confused with a thank-you note—comes in. It isn’t about begging for a do-over; it’s about demonstrating professionalism by owning up to a bad interview, controlling the narrative, and reminding the employer why you belonged on their shortlist. Begin by acknowledging the elephant in the room. Trying to gaslight an interviewer into believing a subpar performance was a success is amateurish. Experienced hiring managers have a keen radar for double-talk; when an interview goes off the rails, they know it. Owning up to the fact that nerves got the better of you isn't a weakness; it’s self-awareness. It shifts the focus from a temporary emotional hijack back to why you'd be a great hire. Strategic execution requires the grit to assess your performance without sugarcoating. Did you ramble when asked about operational metrics? Did you fail to connect your past achievements to their current financial pain points? Once you identify where you stumbled, the recovery letter becomes your ultimate tool for damage control. It gives you a second chance to make the case you didn't make in the interview and to explain why you'd be a great hire. Your recovery letter must be sent quickly—ideally the same day, or no later than 9:00 AM the next day—before the hiring team finalizes their decision to move on. Keep it short and professional. Most importantly, no self-pity! Employers don't hire sob stories, nor are they in the business of handing out chances. They hire people who get results. Admit you blew it because of nerves, then pivot quickly to why you're the person for the job. It isn't over until you give up or get a firm "No." Here's how to write a recovery letter without grovelling or compromising your self-respect: Subject: Following up on the Operations Manager role – [Your Name] Dear [Interviewer Name], Thank you for your time yesterday. I enjoyed discussing [Company]’s immediate priorities, particularly your focus on tightening project delivery timelines and reducing vendor overruns from Q4 2026 onward. Reflecting on our conversation, I realize my answers didn't fully convey the depth of my track record or what I bring to the role. Quite frankly, I let my nerves get the better of me, and as a result, I didn't frame my experience as clearly as I should have. When you raised the issue of budget slippage during complex deployments, I didn’t mention that at [Previous Company], I overhauled our vendor management protocols—slashing project delay costs by 22% in less than eight months. That is the operational control I intend to bring to [Company] to protect—and grow—your margins. My interest in the Operations Manager position remains strong. I am confident I have what it takes to address the operational bottlenecks we discussed. Thank you again for the conversation. Regards, (Your Name] [Phone Number] [LinkedIn Profile URL] Keep in mind that a recovery letter isn't a silver bullet; it's an attempt to stay in the game. You're competing against candidates who may have seemed more polished and more confident. However, the letter's power lies in treating the interviewer as a peer, not a judge. It skips the laundry list of excuses, states a simple human fact—nerves happen—and offers a selling point, or several if you so choose, that you didn't mention during the interview. While giving up after a bad interview protects your ego, it also leaves you unemployed. Nobody's coming to save your candidacy; that's entirely your responsibility. Sending a recovery letter takes guts. It shows you don't fold under pressure and that you own your mistakes, traits that every astute hiring manager respects. When you feel you haven't interviewed to your full potential, send a recovery letter. It could be the difference between being written off and being hired.

Predictability

5 Seconds Can Change Your Life Predictability By Tom Reimer Metalex Security Predictability, when it comes to home invasion and break-ins, that is the word that comes to mind! After witnessing the same unfortunate outcome as I have, you see a pattern, an “M.O. short for “method of operation”. After, 40 years of arriving at one’s home to hear of the unfortunate past event, you develop a so called “Spidey sense” I see your homes weakness the same way as, what our not so friend “Sly” does and literally, his front door of opportunity! Why spend extra time lurking around the back, wasting precious time, obviously no one is home and the front door is closer to the stairs that lead to the master bedroom providing a very lucrative reward. So, looking at the front door what do we have, big breakable glass on the door, perfect to see out and provide extra light in your foyer also perfect to see in and easy to smash, simply walk through or reach in to unlock the door. 5 seconds. Or what about that skinny window beside the door, one hit, reach through and unlock the door. “That was easy” heck? why all the fuss, 2 kicks and I’m in, that dead bolt is held in place with no more than ¼ inch of grainy pine! And most likely will make the least amount of noise. So, this is all that it takes and now we need to break this down to provide the best line of defence simply to “One up” Sly, we need to “target harden” easy points of entry: How do you rob a thief? you take away their time! Let’s start with the visual. If you leave junk mail hanging around, you create a vacant home appearance. If you are away then ask a neighbour to keep it clear, in the winter, keep the driveway plowed or at least have a neighbour park in your space, at the very least drive up and down to make an impression that you are in and out. “It takes a community to thwart a thief” If you have a door glass, get some stick-on frosting (Home Depot) you will keep the light but also provide privacy the same goes for the window beside the door. Hang a heavy dog leash from a hook in an obvious location, near the door. Sly hates dogs, they make lots of noise and bite, he’s not smart enough to realize that it just a prop! Install a flip latch on the inside of the door, the product I like a lot is called “Door Guardian” you can find on Amazon or your local builders supply, this is an easy DIY Get yourself some 3” flat head screws and replace the existing ¾” hinge screws with some real holding power, these will penetrate the structural part of the door frame, same goes for the deadbolt strike plate. Get your self a video doorbell, Sly, most likely won’t come in if he thinks you are home, this allows you to answer and see who is at your door even if you are away. All the above are very simple and DIY, now if you want an enhanced level of security then take a look at what Metalex has to offer, products like “Rockglass” that will withstand a sledgehammer and Safe T Screen, a Screen door on steroids. Fresh air in, bad guys out! Next week we will cover the second point of entry. Not on my watch Sly! until then, Stay safe!

Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario

Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE A Blueprint for Transforming Regional Municipalities into Regional Service Boards Rethinking Regional Government in Ontario A Blueprint for Transforming Regional Municipalities into Regional Service Boards A Municipal Governance Discussion Paper By John Mutton Executive Summary Ontario's two-tier municipal system has served the Province for decades by delivering services across municipal boundaries. However, regional governments have gradually evolved beyond their original purpose. In many cases they now function as an additional layer of government, creating duplication, increasing administrative costs, and reducing accountability. Rather than eliminating regional governments, Ontario should modernize them. Regional municipalities should become Regional Service Boards responsible solely for delivering provincially mandated services in the most efficient manner possible. Every regional municipality should undertake a comprehensive Core Services Review to determine which services are required by legislation, which should be returned to local municipalities, and which should be eliminated altogether. The result would be a leaner, more accountable, and financially sustainable municipal governance model. Why Reform Is Needed • Duplicate services increase costs. • Taxpayers often pay twice for similar functions. • Accountability is blurred. • Governance has become more complex than necessary. Regional Service Board Model • Deliver only legislated regional services. • Eliminate or transfer non-mandated services. • Replace regional councillors with a board of mayors using weighted voting. • Provide transparent service-based budgeting. • Permit municipalities, where legislation allows, to purchase enhanced service levels using local funding. Examples of enhanced services include accelerated road maintenance, enhanced transit, expanded public works programs, and additional policing initiatives where authorized by provincial legislation. Implementation Phase 1 – Provincial Core Services Review. Phase 2 – Transfer or eliminate non-mandated services. Phase 3 – Transition to a Mayor-only weighted governance model. Phase 4 – Implement service-based budgeting and enhanced service agreements. Phase 5 – Annual performance reporting. Conclusion Ontario has an opportunity to modernize municipal government by transforming regional governments into efficient Regional Service Boards focused on mandated services while providing municipalities with greater flexibility and accountability.

Canada’s Nuclear Industry Is Losing Strategic Direction

Canada’s Nuclear Industry Is Losing Strategic Direction by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is entering a period in which nuclear energy will be essential to electricity security, industrial growth and national sovereignty. Yet the country risks expanding nuclear generation without adequately protecting the technology, manufacturing capacity, fuel cycle and intellectual property that made Canada a leading nuclear nation. Canada possesses major uranium resources, a respected regulatory system, an experienced workforce and the internationally proven CANDU reactor. These are strategic national assets. However, public policy increasingly favours foreign-controlled reactor designs without sufficient consideration of the long-term consequences for Canadian ownership, domestic production and security of supply. Ontario’s choices are particularly important. The province is the centre of Canada’s nuclear industry, and its CANDU stations at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering have supplied dependable electricity for decades. They also created a sophisticated Canadian network of engineers, manufacturers, fuel producers and specialized contractors. Despite this history, Ontario has placed the American-Japanese GE Hitachi BWRX-300 at the centre of its new nuclear program. Ontario Power Generation intends to build four small modular reactors at Darlington. The BWRX-300 may prove to be a capable reactor. The issue is not that Ontario should reject foreign technology. International cooperation is normal and necessary in the nuclear sector. The concern is that Ontario appears unusually receptive to foreign technology without demonstrating that it has fully examined the consequences for Canadian nuclear sovereignty. A nuclear reactor is not an ordinary equipment purchase. It creates a relationship lasting 60 years or more and involving intellectual property, software, fuel, replacement components, specialized maintenance and continuing technical support. Ontario should therefore disclose more than the value of contracts awarded to provincial companies. It should explain who controls the reactor design, where the most valuable systems will be manufactured, what licensing obligations will apply and whether Canadian firms will obtain lasting rights to manufacture and export important components. There is a major difference between Canadian companies participating in a foreign-controlled supply chain and Canada controlling the technology itself. Fuel security must also be considered. CANDU reactors operate with natural uranium and benefit from an established Canadian fuel cycle. The BWRX-300 requires enriched uranium, introducing dependence on foreign enrichment capacity and international supply arrangements. Canada has abundant uranium, but it does not currently possess commercial enrichment capability. It is difficult to describe a strategy as fully sovereign when Canadian uranium may have to leave the country for enrichment before returning as reactor fuel. Ontario must also explain how its enthusiasm for foreign SMRs will affect the future of CANDU technology. If Canada’s largest nuclear province does not support a new generation of CANDU reactors, international customers may reasonably question why they should do so. A reactor technology cannot remain internationally competitive without a committed domestic reference customer. Ontario should therefore evaluate the next-generation CANDU alongside foreign SMRs, not treat Canadian technology as a secondary option to be preserved by the federal government or another province. The location of the first SMR fleet also raises an important strategic question. Why is it being built at Darlington rather than at a new site supporting development of Northern Ontario and the Ring of Fire? Darlington offers clear practical advantages. It is an established nuclear site with trained personnel, existing transmission infrastructure, emergency-planning systems and community familiarity with nuclear operations. These factors reduce the risk of constructing a first-of-a-kind reactor. For that reason, building the first BWRX-300 at Darlington is understandable from a project-management perspective. However, Ontario’s nuclear strategy should extend beyond the easiest existing site. The Ring of Fire contains major deposits of critical minerals needed for batteries, advanced manufacturing, defence systems and modern energy technologies. Developing these resources will require reliable electricity, roads, communications and significant new infrastructure. A small modular reactor could eventually provide dependable, low-carbon power for mines, mineral-processing facilities and northern communities. It could help transform the Ring of Fire from a remote extraction zone into a broader Canadian industrial region. Without adequate local energy, minerals may be extracted and shipped elsewhere for processing, leaving Ontario and Canada with only a fraction of the potential economic benefit. A northern nuclear project could support mineral refining, battery-material production, transportation infrastructure, housing and public services. It could also create opportunities for Indigenous ownership, skilled employment and long-term regional development. This does not mean that the first Darlington reactor should simply be relocated. A new northern nuclear site would require extensive environmental assessment, regulatory approval, transportation infrastructure and genuine consultation and partnership with affected First Nations. The electricity demand of future mines and processing facilities would also need to be established. A northern project therefore may not be ready on the same timetable as Darlington. However, Ontario should already be conducting a formal feasibility study for SMR development connected to the Ring of Fire. That study should examine possible sites, projected industrial electricity demand, transmission requirements, transportation access, environmental impacts and Indigenous equity participation. The objective should not be merely to provide electricity to one mine. It should be to create the energy foundation for a northern industrial corridor. Canada must avoid repeating the same strategic mistake in both mining and nuclear energy: exporting raw materials while importing the highest-value technologies and finished products. It makes little sense for Canada to export uranium, rely on foreign enrichment and purchase foreign reactor technology while also exporting critical minerals for processing abroad. Such an approach would leave the country at the lower end of two strategic supply chains. Nuclear energy, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing should be treated as parts of one national industrial strategy. Governments should establish meaningful Canadian-content requirements for publicly supported nuclear projects. These requirements should apply not only to construction labour but also to engineering, software, control systems, fuel services and long-term component manufacturing. Foreign-designed projects should include technology-transfer provisions and plans to establish Canadian production of critical systems. Strategically important Canadian nuclear suppliers should also be protected from acquisitions that could move intellectual property, production or decision-making outside the country. At the same time, Canada must maintain a viable domestic future for CANDU technology. Ontario need not choose exclusively between CANDU reactors and SMRs. Different technologies may serve different purposes. Large CANDU reactors could provide dependable baseload generation using Canadian natural uranium, while SMRs could serve smaller grids, industrial developments and remote regions. The central requirement is that foreign technology complement Canadian capability rather than gradually replace it. Darlington may be the practical site for the first BWRX-300, but it should not define the limits of Ontario’s nuclear vision. Future reactors should be considered not only where construction is easiest, but where they can advance national priorities. That includes opening Northern Ontario, developing the Ring of Fire, processing critical minerals in Canada and creating durable partnerships with Indigenous communities. Nuclear energy is more than an electricity source. It is an instrument of industrial policy, regional development, energy security and national independence. Canada must decide whether it intends to remain a sovereign nuclear nation or become primarily a supplier of uranium, public financing and construction sites for technologies controlled elsewhere. That decision is being made now, and Ontario is at its centre.

What Do You Think? AI Policing Over Humans!!!

What Do You Think? AI Policing Over Humans!!! By Joe Ingino The world is changing, and so is the way policing is dispatched and executed. We started with simple cameras overlooking our streets. We were told they were installed for our safety. Then came red-light cameras pointing in every direction—once again, supposedly for our safety. As technology evolved, these same safety cameras developed sophisticated facial-recognition capabilities. The information they collect can potentially be sent to a server and stored, creating an unofficial way to catalogue everyone’s movements without people even knowing it. This is high-tech surveillance.The public objected, and governments cut back on some camera programs while keeping many of the cameras in place as a supposed necessity. More recently, drones have made headlines. The idea is that they can arrive at crime scenes faster than a police officer or provide immediate aerial support.With increasing populations and greater urban density, drones could eventually become first responders. Currently, drones are being used as part of pilot programs to assist first responders. There have even been reports of drones helping police make at least one arrest in Durham Region. Now, let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine the world 20 years from today. The population may reach an all-time high. As it stands, the 911 system is already overburdened. With the introduction of artificial intelligence, an AI attendant could eventually answer your emergency call. That AI attendant could dispatch a drone to conduct video and audio analysis before sending a human police officer. The drone would have the ability to record the scene, compare faces against criminal databases and catalogue civilians as possible perpetrators, victims or witnesses. It could transmit live video of the surrounding area and identify people appearing in the footage, giving responding officers as much information as possible.Within 20 years, these drones could potentially be armed and used during hostage situations or violent domestic disputes. Using AI, a drone could assess a situation and decide whether to neutralize a threat with a Taser—or even lethal force. All in the name of public safety. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but policing in the future could be performed largely by sophisticated machines, with very little need for human involvement.Imagine an Orwellian future. A citizen calls 911. An automated system sends a drone to gather intelligence. Once the drone completes its assessment, a patrol vehicle is dispatched carrying two humanoid robots.Consider one of the biggest challenges police officers face today. Officers may arrive at a call and confront someone who is extremely aggressive, intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. The individual may become violent, and it can sometimes take four officers to bring that person under control. Now imagine the same scenario involving a humanoid robot. The condition of the assailant would not matter. The humanoid could be designed to understand body mechanics and constructed from titanium or another extremely strong material. No ordinary person would stand much of a chance.Before someone could throw a punch, the humanoid could have that person in handcuffs and on the way to jail.Do you think this sounds too futuristic?Consider the development of cellular technology. I remember people talking during my youth about telephones without cords that would be no larger than a pack of cigarettes.It sounded like crazy talk.Look at us today.Drone technology is already being used in wars—wars in which people are actually being killed.Humanoid robots are being developed and deployed for military purposes, including entering minefields while carrying specialized technology.Modern warfare is experimenting with ultrasonic weapons and electromagnetic propulsion and projection capabilities. Aircraft can now be flown remotely without pilots on board. These aircraft may travel at speeds that the human body could not tolerate. They can remain in the air for longer periods without the need for rest while providing live information to operators thousands of miles away. The United States Navy does not have only one unmanned ship. It is developing and operating a fleet of autonomous and uncrewed surface vessels. Prominent examples include the Sea Hunter, Seahawk, Ranger, Mariner, Nomad, USX-1 Defiant and GARC, the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft. The Sea Hunter is an autonomous surface vessel originally developed for a DARPA anti-submarine tracking program. The Seahawk is an upgraded, medium-displacement autonomous prototype used to test operational concepts in the Pacific. The Ranger and Mariner are high-endurance vessels involved in the Ghost Fleet Overlord testing program. At present, no country appears to use a completely automated police force in which law enforcement, arrests and critical decisions are handled entirely by robots or artificial intelligence without human oversight. Countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates have deployed automated policing tools, but human officers remain in control. The future is here.The reality is that the world is changing. In the name of safety and convenience, we are gradually surrendering more control, privacy and responsibility to machines.The next civil war may not be between two groups of people.It could be humans versus machines. Futuristic? What do you think?

Customer Service Is the Most Underrated Public Service

Customer Service Is the Most Underrated Public Service By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering When people think about municipal government, they usually think about roads, parks, taxes, garbage collection, or development. Rarely do they think about customer service. They should. The quality of a city’s customer service shapes how residents feel about their government more than almost anything else. A pothole is frustrating. A delayed permit is inconvenient. But what often leaves people feeling truly unheard is when they report a problem and then… nothing. No response. No update. No indication that anyone even received the message. That silence creates something far more damaging than dissatisfaction—it erodes trust. Good customer service isn’t about always having the right answer. Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes a repair has to wait. Sometimes funding simply isn’t available. Most reasonable people understand that governments, like businesses, operate within real constraints. What people struggle to accept is uncertainty. They want to know someone is listening. They want to know their concern has been recorded. They want to know who is responsible. They want to know what’s happening next. In other words, they want to be treated like valued customers. This is where technology can fundamentally change the relationship between residents and their local government. For years, many municipal processes have depended on disconnected emails, phone calls, handwritten notes, spreadsheets, and individual departments managing requests independently. Dedicated staff work incredibly hard within these systems, but the systems themselves often make it difficult to provide consistent communication and visibility. Modern technology offers a better way. Imagine reporting a broken playground, a damaged sidewalk, a fallen tree, or a malfunctioning streetlight through a simple online portal. Instead of wondering whether your message disappeared into an inbox, you immediately receive confirmation that your request has been received. You can see its status in real time through a dashboard. You know which department is responsible. You receive updates as work progresses. When the repair is completed, you’re notified automatically. The city benefits just as much as the resident. Every request becomes valuable data. Instead of relying on anecdotal complaints, municipal leaders can identify patterns. They can see which neighbourhoods generate the most service requests, which issues are recurring, where response times are slowing down, and where additional resources may be needed. Decisions become driven by evidence rather than assumptions. Transparency improves naturally because information is shared instead of hidden. Accountability improves because every request has ownership. Efficiency improves because duplicate reports are identified, priorities become clearer, and staff spend less time searching for information and more time solving problems. Most importantly, residents feel informed throughout the process. Technology should never replace the human side of public service. A friendly conversation at the service counter, a returned phone call, or a staff member taking the time to explain a situation will always matter. Great customer service is built on empathy, professionalism, and respect. Technology simply removes the friction that prevents good people from delivering great service. It allows staff to focus on helping residents instead of managing paper work. It gives elected officials and senior administrators better insight into what their communities are actually experiencing. And it gives residents confidence that their voices matter. The private sector learned this lesson years ago. Businesses discovered that customers are far more understanding when they are kept informed, even if the solution takes time. Expectations are managed through communication, not silence. Government should be no different. At the end of the day, municipalities don’t exist to process paperwork or manage databases. They exist to serve people. Every interaction is an opportunity to strengthen confidence in local government—or to weaken it. Excellent customer service isn’t a luxury or an afterthought. It’s one of the most important services any municipality provides because it influences how residents experience every other service the city delivers. When government is responsive, transparent, and accountable, trust grows. And when trust grows, communities grow stronger alongside it.

Housing insecurity

By John Meloche Municipal Candidate for Ward 2 in in Pickering Housing insecurity in Pickering and across Durham is not a distant problem, and it is not limited to people sleeping outdoors. It affects workers, families, people recovering from illness, those escaping unsafe homes, and residents moving between couches, cars, temporary rooms, and shelters. I recently met with Margaret Eskin of DARS at her farm house to understand the organization’s work. I expected to hear about homelessness. Instead, I heard a much broader story involving housing instability, mental health, addiction, trauma, illness, gaps in government services, and responsibility being carried by a small local organization. Margaret described people whose housing insecurity may not be obvious: workers, people couch surfing, and a teacher who came to a warming centre with her dog after cancer treatment left her unable to work or afford housing. Some people sleep during the day because it feels safer than sleeping at night. The public often sees only the most visible cases, including open drug use, untreated mental illness, theft, aggression, and legitimate concerns for businesses and residents. But moving someone from one doorway to another does not solve the underlying problem. DARS operates a transitional farm residence in Pickering that houses six people at a time. Approximately 18 people lived there during its first 18 months. Residents are expected to keep the home clean, spend productive time outside the residence, and complete volunteer work. Compassion does not require eliminating responsibility. Routine, accountability, and purpose can help restore dignity. The farm supports that process through gardening, animal care, food recovery, maintenance, and small-engine repair. Residents receive internet access and connections to employment, housing, and income supports. DARS uses head leases. The organization rents a home directly from a landlord and assumes the lease liability while residents build stability and prove they can maintain the property. The goal may eventually be to transfer the lease to the tenants without an unreasonable rent increase. This gives landlords an accountable partner while opening a door for people with poor credit, limited savings, or no recent rental history. DARS provides meals, showers, and outreach. Food is more than nourishment; it builds trust. Someone who avoids a government office may still come for lunch, creating an opportunity to connect them with housing, employment, treatment, or income support. These programs remain financially fragile. The transitional farm receives no direct operating support from Durham Region and relies on City support, grants, donors, fundraising, food partnerships, and volunteers. Proven housing programs should not survive solely on the ability of a small organization to continually raise money. One shelter cannot be the entire answer. Pickering needs a full housing continuum: emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive and recovery housing, shared homes, head leases, treatment, rent supplements, and permanent affordable housing. Different people need different doors. Compassion and accountability are not opposites. Vulnerable people deserve dignity, treatment, housing pathways, and employment support. Residents and businesses also deserve safe, clean public spaces. Police cannot become the default social service, and non-profits cannot carry the entire burden. Many responsibilities belong to Durham Region and senior governments, but Pickering City Council is not powerless. The City can identify service gaps, support proven organizations, build partnerships, advocate for outreach, and demand measurable coordination between housing providers, police, health services, community agencies, and every level of government. DARS is already demonstrating practical local action. We should learn from it. Housing insecurity is already here.

GUIDE ON SELECTING CANDIDATES

By Joe Ingino Okay, let’s tear this Cracker Jack box wide open. It is an election year, and when someone knocks on your door, you always seem to get the same thing: a person with a huge smile attempting to gain your vote. At the door, they promise you the world. They ring every doorbell they can find. Unfortunately, once many of them are elected, they forget who you are. With that said, the box is now open. There are two types of election candidates: incumbents and new candidates. INCUMBENTS When an incumbent knocks on your door, the first question you should ask is: “What have you accomplished during your term in office?” If the candidate looks away or pretends to give you the answer you want to hear, that may not be the candidate for you. Ask: “How have my municipal services improved in comparison with my property-tax increases?” If the candidate simply tells you that services have improved without providing evidence or examples, that may not be your candidate. When evaluating incumbents, look for sincerity, honesty and humility. Do not fall for promises alone. Consider voting for candidates who ask what is important to you and provide a realistic timeline for addressing your concerns. Ask for their personal phone number—not only their office number or campaign line. If they refuse to provide a direct way to contact them, question how accessible they will be after the election. Look for genuineness. In my opinion, some incumbents become so institutionalized that they begin relying on charisma, smoke and shiny mirrors. Unfortunately, many constituents fall for it. NEW CANDIDATES When speaking with new candidates, ask simple questions: “What life experience do you have that qualifies you to represent the people?” If candidates talk only about their professional credentials, ask how those credentials have prepared them to understand municipal budgets, social issues and the needs of residents. Ask new candidates whether they have a solid understanding of taxation. Ask what their plans are to ensure that any future increases are kept to a minimum. Remember, the people you elect will make decisions on your behalf. OSHAWA’S LEADERSHIP Look at what has happened in Oshawa. In my opinion, voters elected Dan Carter based largely on charisma and promises. When faced with serious questions, I believe he often smiles but fails to provide meaningful answers. His budgets, in my opinion, are unacceptable. I believe taxpayers’ money has been wasted in many areas. In my view, Dan Carter did not have the real-world administrative experience required to run a city. Before entering municipal politics, he was best known as an on-air broadcaster. Now look at the state of Oshawa. Residents are concerned about crime, open drug use on city streets and homelessness. Mayor Carter’s response has often been that other cities have it worse or that the provincial and federal governments have failed to provide sufficient funding to lower-tier municipalities. The City can commit approximately $70 million toward refurbishing the GM Centre, yet it cannot invest comparable resources in a cooperative program involving the hospital and university. Such a program could potentially create warehouse-style transitional residences with appropriate mental-health services. Former GM properties remain available. Why are those possibilities not being seriously explored? In my opinion, Carter has demonstrated little vision and limited real-world experience beyond his own publicly discussed experiences with addiction and homelessness. Now consider Tito-Dante Marimpietri and Derek Giberson. On the Tito-Dante side, he has held public office for more than 20 years. What has he accomplished? How has residents’ quality of life improved during his time in office? Now that he is running for mayor, he appears to have solutions and answers to difficult questions that, in my opinion, should have been addressed during his many years on council. Then there is Derek Giberson. In my opinion, Giberson must answer difficult questions about the condition of downtown Oshawa. He supported supervised-consumption and harm-reduction initiatives and chaired a group involved in distributing supplies to people who use drugs. Where did officials believe unhoused clients would go after receiving those supplies? The city subsequently experienced serious concerns involving discarded needles in parks, creeks and other public spaces. This created what many residents viewed as a citywide health hazard. A group connected with the John Howard Society reportedly conducted a pilot cleanup project and collected hundreds of needles from parks and ravines within a short period. That total did not include needles that may still have remained in waterways. TAXPAYERS, BEWARE In my opinion, incumbents have not done enough to improve residents’ quality of life. Look around you. Can you afford more tax increases? Do you feel safe in your home and community? Have your schools, churches, neighbourhoods and City Hall improved? When evaluating incumbents, examine their records carefully. When evaluating new candidates, screen their qualifications, experience and promises just as carefully. Do not vote based on a smile, a slogan or a campaign sign. Vote based on experience, accessibility, honesty, accountability and results.

Canada Must Rebuild Its National Research System

by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has no shortage of scientific talent. Our universities produce respected research, our laboratories contain highly qualified scientists and engineers, and Canadian entrepreneurs continue to develop promising technologies. Yet Canada too often fails to convert this intellectual strength into lasting economic power, industrial capacity and national resilience. The problem is not simply a lack of money. It is the absence of a coherent national research system. Canadian research is spread across universities, federal departments, granting councils, provincial institutions, private companies and numerous temporary programs. Each part may perform valuable work, but the overall system is fragmented. Priorities are frequently changed, programs overlap, promising discoveries struggle to move beyond the laboratory, and Canadian intellectual property is often commercialized elsewhere. Canada needs to revive and restructure its approach to research. At the centre of that reform should be a renewed and strengthened National Research Council of Canada, or NRC The NRC was established to help build Canadian scientific and industrial capacity. Over its long history, it has contributed to advances in aerospace, construction, health, communications, manufacturing and many other fields. It possesses laboratories, technical expertise, research centres and close relationships with industry. However, the NRC is no longer positioned strongly enough to lead a national research effort. It operates within a system containing many agencies and departments, each with its own mandate, budget and administrative structure. Canada has created numerous research programs, but it has not created a powerful mechanism to coordinate them around major national objectives. The NRC should be given that responsibility and the power to realize it. This does not mean that the NRC should control every university laboratory or determine what every scientist studies. Fundamental research must remain open, creative and independent. Many important discoveries emerge precisely because researchers are free to explore questions without knowing where the answers will lead. But freedom in scientific discovery is not incompatible with national purpose. Canada must identify the technologies and capabilities that are essential to its future. These include artificial intelligence, advanced nuclear energy, quantum science, biotechnology, aerospace, Arctic technologies, cybersecurity, critical-mineral processing, food security, advanced manufacturing, defence research, clean energy and climate adaptation. More than mere academic subjects, these issues affect Canada’s economic independence, public safety, national defence and competitiveness in a rapidly changing world. The NRC should become the principal technical and coordinating institution for a long-term Canadian research and technology strategy; A strategy developed in conjunction with the federal government, provinces, universities, Indigenous communities, industry and the scientific community. The strategic plan should cover at least ten years and be updated regularly, not be rebuilt after every election or budget cycle. The government should establish a limited number of national research missions, with each mission having clear objectives, stable funding and measurable results. Sample Canadian missions could include: · to become a world leader in small modular reactor technology and nuclear-fuel recycling. · to develop technologies for the Arctic, including communications, transportation, surveillance, energy and infrastructure suitable for northern conditions. Other missions could address domestic vaccine production, critical-mineral refining, agricultural resilience or Canadian artificial-intelligence capabilities. The NRC should coordinate the laboratories, technical personnel and testing facilities required to advance these missions. One of the greatest weaknesses in Canada’s current system is the gap between discovery and production. A university researcher may develop a promising technology, but the project can stall before reaching a prototype, demonstration plant or commercial application. At that stage, foreign investors or corporations may acquire the idea, move the intellectual property abroad and develop the product elsewhere. Canada then celebrates the discovery but imports the finished technology. A stronger NRC should provide the bridge between research and commercialization. It should help promising projects with engineering, testing, certification, regulation, intellectual-property protection, pilot manufacturing and access to investment. It should work closely with Canadian small and medium-sized companies, which often possess good ideas but lack the capital and facilities needed to bring them to market. Publicly funded research should also produce a greater public benefit. When taxpayers finance major discoveries, governments should ensure that Canada retains meaningful access to the resulting technology. This does not require excessive state control, but it may require conditions related to Canadian intellectual property, domestic production, national-security review and continued Canadian participation. Canada must also modernize its scientific infrastructure. Many research facilities are aging, while access to expensive equipment is uneven. The NRC should oversee a national network of laboratories, pilot plants, secure computing centres and testing facilities available to universities and Canadian businesses. This network should be distributed across the country. Atlantic Canada could concentrate on oceans, fisheries and marine technology. Quebec could build further on aerospace, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing. Ontario could expand its strengths in nuclear science, automobiles, health research and engineering. The Prairies could lead in agriculture, biotechnology and food security. Alberta could advance energy technologies and carbon management. British Columbia could expand clean technology, forestry and ocean research. Northern research centres should support Arctic sovereignty and Indigenous-led development. A national strategy must also address the loss of talent. Canada educates outstanding scientists, engineers and graduate students, but many leave for countries offering better laboratories, more ambitious projects and clearer career opportunities. Short-term grants and temporary positions cannot sustain a serious research system. Canada must provide stable scientific careers and allow talented researchers to participate in projects of national significance. The federal granting councils should continue to support fundamental and investigator-led research. Their independence is important. However, Canada needs a clearer distinction between basic science, mission-oriented research, industrial development and strategic technology. At present, these activities are often mixed together without sufficient coordination. A National Research and Technology Council should therefore be created at the highest level of government. It should include the NRC, the federal chief science adviser, granting councils, provinces, universities, industry and specialists in defence, health, energy and agriculture. The NRC should serve as its operational arm. Progress should be reported annually to Parliament. Canadians should be told how many publicly supported technologies reached commercial production, how much intellectual property remained in Canada, how many companies were created, what facilities were built and whether Canada’s strategic dependence on foreign technology was reduced. Research policy cannot be measured only by the number of grants awarded or academic papers published. Those indicators matter, but they are not enough. Canada must also measure whether research produces Canadian companies, Canadian manufacturing, secure supply chains, better public services and greater national resilience. Canada is entering an era of intense technological competition. Countries are investing heavily in artificial intelligence, defence, energy, biotechnology, semiconductors and space. Scientific capacity is now inseparable from national power. Canada cannot afford to remain a country that produces excellent ideas but lacks the institutional strength to develop them fully. The answer is not to politicize science or restrict academic freedom. The answer is to combine independent discovery with strategic coordination and national ambition. Canada needs freedom in research, discipline in execution and determination in commercialization. A revitalized National Research Council can provide the leadership required to connect our scientists, universities, industries and governments. Rebuilding the NRC, Canada can transform knowledge into capability, innovation into industry and scientific excellence into a stronger and more independent nation.

Karmageddon Oshawa's Greatest Opportunity Is Still Ahead

By Mr. ‘X’ ~ John Mutton, Former Mayor of Clarington CENTRAL EXCLUSIVE For years, the discussion about Oshawa has focused on homelessness, addiction, public safety, and the gradual erosion of parts of the downtown core. These are real issues that affect residents, businesses, and visitors alike. They deserve attention, compassion, and practical solutions. But if that is all we talk about, we risk overlooking one of the greatest economic opportunities in Ontario. Oshawa is already home to an extraordinary collection of institutions that many communities would envy. General Motors, Durham College, Ontario Tech University, Lakeridge Health, and the cancer centre provide a remarkable foundation for future growth. Ontario Power Generation has established its corporate headquarters in Oshawa while Canada advances Small Modular Reactors at Darlington. Major industries often develop corporate office clusters away from their operating facilities, creating an opportunity for Oshawa to become Canada's leading nuclear office and professional services hub. I believe Oshawa's next Council should establish a Nuclear Economic Development Task Force focused on attracting engineering firms, consultants, technology companies, legal and financial services, and other businesses supporting Canada's expanding nuclear industry while filling existing downtown office space. The new Queen's University medical education presence also has the potential to become one of Oshawa's greatest economic drivers, attracting physicians, researchers, students, investment, and healthcare supply-chain businesses. Addressing homelessness, addiction, and downtown decline remains a daunting challenge. However, economic growth and downtown revitalization can reinforce one another. More investment, more jobs, and more professionals downtown can strengthen commerce and community vitality. Getting this right could solve two challenges at once: helping revitalize the downtown while positioning Oshawa as one of Canada's premier centres for nuclear and medical innovation.